Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-21 PACKET 04.A.ii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 3/21/12 x A PREPARED BY Public Works Les Burshten ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Accept and place on file the minutes of the February 13, 2012 Meeting of the Public Works Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the February 13, 2012 minutes of the Public Works Commission. BUDGET IMPLICATION $ BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ❑ PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ® PUBLIC WORKS 3/12/12 ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of the February 13, 2012 Public Works Commission Meeting ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER LfAyL In MIMICEL11 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the Public Works Commission of Cottage Grove was duly held at Cottage Grove Public Works, 8635 West Point Douglas Road, Cottage Grove, Minnesota on Monday, February 13, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair Ken Boyden called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. -• Members Present: Ken Boyden, Alex Chernyaev, Michael Edman, Gary Kjellberg, Jeff Rolling, Bill Royce, Jason Field Staff Present: Les Burshten, Public Works Director Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Gary Orloff, Streets Foreman Also Present: Derrick Lehrke, City Council Member Herb Japs, IMTF Member David Olson, IMTF Member Cheryl Kohis, IMTF Member Jeff Podoll, IMTF Member Ken Brittain, IMTF Member Dennis Plan, City Resident 3. APPROVE MINUTES Upon a motion by Gary Kjellberg, seconded by Michael Edman, the September 12, 2011 minutes were unanimously approved. 4. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS A. Appoint of Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary City Council Member Derrick Lehrke began the discussion by indicating the chair of each commission is actually appointed by the Council. The Vice Chair and Secretary Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 2 are elected by the Commission members. He wished to thank both Chair Boyden and Commission Member Royce who have reached their term limits. Tonight will technically be their last meeting as Commission members. Lehrke added he has referred to the City Ordinance and discovered that ex- officio members can be appointed to the newly formed PWC /IMTF Committee. Lehrke recommended these individuals stay as advisers throughout the process of reviewing the Pavement Management process. Lehrke added the chair selection process differs from the procedure used in the past, where the Commission elected a Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary, however, it was discovered that a Commission appointing all officers was not correct according to the Ordinance. He also indicated the Public Safety Commission had ballots for the election of a Chairperson. Those ballots were then turned over to a Council Member and from that point, the person receiving the majority of votes was appointed to that position. Lehrke stated if a ballot system is what this Commission wished to do, that would be fine. Both Commission Member Michael Edman and Commission Member Gary Kjellberg wished to serve as PWC Chair. Ultimately, it was decided that ballots would be distributed to Commission members to vote for the Chairperson. The position of Vice Chair, along with Secretary, will be decided at the March 12 meeting. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Infrastructure Management Task Force — Policy Review City Engineer Jennifer Levitt began by thanking Commission Members, as well as former IMTF Task Force Members for attending the meeting this evening. She added tonight's meeting would be brief as it is planned to simply review background material and explain the tasks that will be at hand during the coming months. The City Council at their January 18, 2012 meeting indicated a desire to re- convene the IMTF (Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force). At that time it was thought that the Public Works Commission was essentially geared towards the types of functions the IMTF originally looked at. It was agreed it was a good idea to bring both the PWC and IMTF together and review the Pavement Management Policy produced in 2005 which was included in tonight's packet. This is essentially the City's Assessment Policy. Levitt stated there actually was a Pavement Management Task Force that began way back in 1994 when the original Pavement Management Program started in Cottage Grove. This program outlined how all pavement management areas would be cycled through and how these projects would be funded. In 1997, there was an addendum to Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 3 that policy and it was also discovered there were a few discrepancies found in pavement condition. Additionally, the financing was analyzed and updated. Levitt reported that from 1997 up to 2005, the City of Cottage Grove had been assessing homes and properties based upon market value (2 to 2 '/2% of the market value of a property). This process was found to be unconstitutional so the City essentially needed to create a group that would analyze the assessments to be paid for a Pavement Management project. This would include reviewing the types of repairs that are assessable (what projects the City does and does not assess for). The policy would also determine benefit for the properties, both residential and commercial. The policy then delves into much greater deal on the method of assessment and what that formula is. The current policy also includes a section on financing. The document adopted in 2005 including two financing items: Item 6.1: Term of Assessment shall be 15 years and Item 6.2: Interest Rate: The interest rate of special assessments shall be at a rate established by the City Council at the time of the certification of the levy. Those are the only two financing statements in the Policy. This is one of those "hot button" topics that the Council specifically wants this group to wrestle with. The City has held 7% as the interest rate in all Pavement Management projects done thus far. This topic will be discussed at the Public Works Commission meeting in May, 2012. City Engineer Levitt wanted to outline how this group is going to get this package back to Council and explained tonight's meeting will serve as an introduction to the topic. Council Member Lehrke indicated that coming in March, two new members of the Commission will be seated. Additional staff members will also be with us enlarging the group more. Everything should be in place in March for this process to begin. Also coming in March of 2012, this group shall review all assessable items for streets (which projects are assessed and which are not), including trail improvements. The same will be done with Utilities. Members of this group will be asked for ideas and suggestions as to how the policy can be improved. If there are questions leading up to the meeting in March, members were asked to contact City staff who will try to get the answers out to them. Additionally, City staff will e -mail information out to members in order for items to be reviewed prior to meetings. In April, 2012, this group will dive into some of the more technical aspects of the Policy. The Policy currently states that 45% of the total cost of the project shall be paid by the property owner and 55% is paid by the general levy. At that time staff will provide a survey of 35 comparable cities along with samples of other City policies. Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 4 One of the issues that always seems to come along in every assessment and public improvement hearing is the benefit appraisal process and how they are conducted. Mr. Paul Gleason, who has completed benefit appraisals for the City, will speak to the group during the April meeting and explain how those appraisals are conducted. City Attorney Corrine Heine of Kennedy and Graven will also be on hand in April to answer legal questions. We'll be walking through State Statute Chapter 429 and talk about how an assessment project works through the process. In May, Finance Director Robin Roland will spend some time explaining how funding for Pavement Management works. This group will also tackle the interest rate question: how the interest rates of our bonds compare, how our financing for Pavement Management works, how that affects service, how that service functions and how that is projected to carry us into the future to cover our future Pavement Management projects. Commission Member Edman commented he does not believe this process to be a "do- over", but instead an "annual checkup" to review the document. Edman requested materials be sent to members as far in advance as possible for proper review. Levitt reported in March, the group will go back through the Pavement Management Policy itself in more detail. In preparation for the April meeting, the group will have 35 peer communities to compare with Cottage Grove, along with some draft policies. Levitt also indicated she could provide some benefit appraisals that have been conducted prior along with a copy of Chapter 429, the State Statute that was spoken about earlier. IMTF Member Ken Brittain asked if the material could be distributed electronically to members. IMTF Member Cheryl Kohls inquired how many members don't have e-mail adding some folks may require a hard copy packet. PWC Member Bill Royce indicated he would require a hard copy packet as did IMTF Member Herb Japs. At this point Ms. Kohls asked if the point of the IMTF members meeting with the Public Works Commission is simply to review and tweak the current policy? Or are they expected to revamp it completely? Levitt responded that is an option. There have been four or five cases where the Policy has been used for reference, however there have been no appeals. From a staff perspective and a legal liability standpoint, the current Policy has worked flawlessly. Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 5 Levitt went on to state it is not believed there is a necessity to overhaul the document from a standpoint of policy. It is open for tweaking and adjusting. Kohls responded that she is not proposing to `trash' the whole Policy, however, does not want limitations. Commission Member Edman questioned if the conclusions of this Commission will be seriously considered by the City Council. Will the City Council actually approve and adopt recommendations of this group? Levitt replied the new recommendation from the IMTF /PWC will take the same form as the original IMTF Policy. Once the policy is reviewed by this group, it will be sent to the City Council for adoption. During the review process, updates will be given to Council on the direction of these meetings. Ultimately, the Council is comprised of elected officials who have the authority to modify and /or adopt change of the Policy. Council Member Lehrke stated he believes there is a sincere willingness from the Council to be open to suggestions /changes from this group along with a desire to move forward. Public Works Director Burshten thanked the former IMTF members for attending the meeting tonight. He feels it's a well- rounded group and whatever they bring back to the Council will be seriously considered. He realized there will be a lot of discussion throughout this entire process. Commission Member Edman stated he feels this group desires due diligence because these issues are extremely important to people. He does not know how this group can do their job without having an open meeting that residents can attend. Obviously people really care and inviting residents to meetings is the best way to get feedback. Former IMTF Member Herb Japs stated he served on the original Pavement Management Task Force in the mid- 1990's. He admitted there is so much detail to get into along with much to learn. Before the public is invited to attend a meeting, he feels this group should "get their feet on the ground ". If too much detail is presented at an initial public meeting, you will lose people and perhaps even make some angrier. Once the group has a feel for what is to be gone through, a presentation can be made to the general public at that time. Commission Member Kjellberg agreed with Japs, stating that he also served on that same Pavement Management Task Force and that it was a very in -depth process since it was the initial go- round. Kjellberg feels that for all practical purposes, the Policy was Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 6 so well done all it needs at this time is perhaps a tweak here and there. Levitt stated this group will receive an abundance of information from staff, indicating this group will be the people gaining the knowledge, putting forth the ideas and finally, formulating the recommendation. She went on to state the general public has not had the time to research the Pavement Management process, analyze it, and ask questions of experts firsthand. This is what the City Council is relying on this Commission to do. Once the draft policy is complete, Levitt stated the public will likely make comments and the group should keep in mind the general public is not going to have the educational background to support what they are bringing to you. She agreed with Herb Japs in that it is very important to be well educated about the process and completely understand it before going out to the public. Again, the public is not as well informed as this group and that can be frustrating. Commission Member Jeff Rolling inquired if there are customs from the past that can be followed throughout this review process. Levitt verified that the City Council had a public meeting. Japs stated that when he served on the earlier task force, he actually attended neighborhood meetings where residents could ask specific questions. The meetings were very well received. Cheryl Kohls said that anytime you can have a public meeting, you should do it in order to not appear that you're hiding the process. She did state, however, it probably wouldn't be feasible to have 200 people filing into a room for every meeting. The process for some residents is highly emotional and these projects cost a lot of money for some that can't necessarily afford it. Japs agreed there should be a public meeting — later. It was brought up that all meetings are still open to the public should they care to attend. Council Member Lehrke feels a public meeting gets a more positive response. At this point Levitt stated that there are 50 years in the Pavement Management life cycle. A mill and overlay is done halfway. A challenge thus far it not hitting that window for a mill and overlay. The question is now should there be a full reconstruct or reclamation? The City is now very far from the cycle that was in place back in 1997. What was initially going to be a mill and overlay is now a full reconstruct. Levitt said the Thompson Grove Pavement Management Project was done in two phases back in 2002. They were huge projects from a debt levy standpoint. The next Pavement Management project wasn't done until 2008. The City is in a better financial position now and can move forward. Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 7 Commission Chair Ken Boyden asked about the Pavement Management process and how it has changed through the years. As an example, if there were 6 inches of support material in the road, does that still stand up? The whole City isn't on the same kind of base. Are the new products as reliable as they were in the past or are the newer ones better? Levitt responded that sometimes it's not necessarily the products, but the environment. This year there were two areas slated for Pavement Management: one for a full reconstruct and the other for a mill and overlay. The City Council authorized the feasibility report. Soil borings were done and it was found the pavement was actually stripping, deteriorating and eroding in the area slated for the mill and overlay. A roadway in that condition is not a candidate for that process. The City essentially must set that area aside and let it degrade to the point where it gets to a reclamation status. Sometimes you don't know that until you start that an in -depth analysis. Kjellberg questioned, "If we started our Pavement Management today and followed the process regularly, how many years would it be for us to catch up on the City streets for the first time around ?" Levitt stated the CIP (Capital Improvement Program) outlines the remaining streets to be done. Rolling questioned "did we miss the window on a mill and overlay on all the remaining streets ?" Levitt responded, "A very high portion ". She went on to state that in 2008, much of the curbing in the area was salvageable. (About 15% of the curbs were replaced). The residents did complain about the aesthetics of the procedure. Because a full curb replacement was not done, there were drainage issues at intersections that could not be corrected. For the 2012 Pavement Management Project initially proposed, it was estimated 30% to 40% of the curbs would be replaced. Council direction in the workshop session was to replace all the curbing which would result in the best 50 Year Cycle for the streets which may ultimately be most cost effective. Japs stated the "50- Year -Plan" was a large element with the initial group. Part of the issue was "How can you save money ?" The idea was that if you built it right and performed proper periodic maintenance, the road would last 50 years. Jeff Podoll commented the original streets in the Thompson Grove area lasted for 40 years. Burshten responded that rarely are there streets that will last that long. He added in some areas there's an abundance of sand and gravel, not much clay and vice versa in other spots. When you look at the streets in the old Grove (west) side of the highway, they consisted of gravel, a little bit of class 5, two inches of mix and the roads lasted a long time, partly due to good drainage. Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 8 Commission Member Royce commented that technology has changed too. Once large buses began driving on those roadways, along with big garbage trucks, more damage occurred than in earlier days. Burshten commented the reclamation projects done now in Cottage Grove are far better than what the original design was (the amount of asphalt you need, base and gravel needed). Cottage Grove was one of the first communities to do a reclamation instead of a reconstruct. Ken Brittain inquired what will happen with the first projects? "Is there a way for us to get back on the 50 year plan that makes sense ?" Burshten said this issue will be discussed. David Olson stated he would like to make a comment at this time regarding the direction this committee should /would be taking. He explained it would help if he could have a governing conversation on how this process is going to work. He added he was on the original IMTF (Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force). He was asked by staff at the direction of Council to come to this meeting tonight and be part of this group which he's more than willing to do. He recognizes his role is to help the public. But he also realizes he is here to help the Public Works Commissioners because they are the ones at the end of the day that write this document and recommend it to the City Council. "I think my job is to help all of you make those decisions. But I'm not quite sure how that works or how all of you want it to work because I really believe it's the people with the blue badges (Commission Members) that should say what they want from us. As participants in your Commission that has to make a recommendation to City Council, I feel a little confused. I'm not certain when my opinion will be wanted and how I should ask to present my opinion, also recognizing full well at the end of the day I don't have a vote in our final product" Gary Kjellberg responded, "I want your opinion all the time whenever you have something to say, come up and say it, whatever your opinion, and so forth." Council Member Lehrke stated it was the Council directive to bring back the IMTF members to augment this Commission. Olson reiterated that it was the Council who wanted their help; he wants someone to tell him how he can best fill that obligation. Commission Member Edman stated as the group goes over the Policy, perhaps tweaking it, not completely "blowing it up ", but to have a historical understanding of why it says what it does and the IMTF Task force members can be helpful in that regard. "It likely is not necessary to 'reinvent the wheel' and the entire policy. I think we already know the top three issues that we are dealing with. We don't need to gloss over the Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 9 issues the public is not concerned about ". Cheryl Kohls commented the IMTF was an independent task force. Jeff Podoll added back in 1994 when the Pavement Management Committee met, there were people appointed from each of the Advisory Commissions. Back then Jeff was on the Planning Commission and Herb Japs was on the Public Safety Committee. Olson went on to state that if this group is going to go through all of the information on how to build a road, he is not interested at this time to participate. He doesn't believe this is the issue at hand. He believes the issue is how the City will go about paying for these Pavement Management projects. He added the conversation this evening has included how pavement is better today than 15 years ago, whether the roads will last 40 or 50 years. He would like this all figured out first and then he'll come back when it's time to figure out how to finance the project. Council Member L ehrke responded that from a Council level, he does not see it this way because without having gone through the details, the financial issues cannot be evaluated. If there were a whole neighborhood of angry residents asking, "Why are you redoing our road ? ", and the City Council responds, "Because it says so. ", there wouldn't be anything behind that statement. "The approved Policy was not followed so does that change everything else? We are missing a mill and overlay, are we going to continue to miss mill and overlays. And about the financing issue: I think a good group will come forward and state, `This is what we are going to charge for an interest rate. "' Olson responded, "That's an implementation issue, which means the City didn't implement the plan. That's what's wrong. Council can try to hand this off to us, but it's Council's and Staff's problem. They didn't get the plan implemented." Edman commented "How do we know the plan was good if they didn't implement it in the first place ?" Burshten stated there was rationale for the Pavement Management Policy because members /staff considered Pavement Condition Indexes (PCI's). "The information was all laid out. The problem is that we cut back dollars a number of years ago and we can no longer keep up with the original pavement management schedule. It's impossible. This is an expensive endeavor. We're going to be 15 years behind once we get going." Gary Kjellberg stated that before his street was reconstructed, the feeling in his neighborhood was that the street looked fine (to the average citizen). But it was known what was underneath the surface and that the roads would not last. Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 10 Olson asked "How do we get the Council to do what we told them they should do? They decided not to do it, and then they give it back to us ". Cheryl Kohls commented that in her opinion, "It's awesome the Council has taken a step back. They need to do that periodically when they are spending that much of the taxpayer's dollars. I feel it's a good thing to take a policy that started in 1994 and has been tweaked just a little bit, that's OK." Olson responded the policy was re- written in the 2000's. Kohls continued to say, "It's a wonderful thing to be asked back so Council can make a decision ". She feels we owe them, and 30,000 other citizens in this community to see that this group will take time to review this Policy and understand it so it will be good for another five years or however long. Lehrke stated he and the Council don't agree on everything, however, he's been on the Council for one year and he's never had the opportunity to go through the Policy and he thinks it is a great idea. Levitt explained, "This is the policy we are looking at. This is what the Council is looking at. Dave is exactly right. We do not intend to go back and regurgitate street cycles and plans. This is the document we are working on. This is what the City Council has asked us to do ". Olson went on to say that, "Nowhere in the document does it say when the streets should be done, what level, and whether we should still mill and overlay. We have to rely on engineers to tell us this stuff. I think that's the problem. I'm happy to sit here and go through this but we need to see what's in the four corners of this document. If we start weaving off into.... We can do this PCI, this and that .... that's the problem." Commission Member Jeff Rolling asked if there was an avenue where a new person like himself could get educated prior to the process. He sees the former members of the IMTF as being part of the education process and newer members need to learn to "make a road" before sitting down with the former task force members. He is, however, more than willing to spend his time doing so. Is there a way this can be separated out? At this time Mr. Olson wanted to apologize, stating he has a habit of speaking provocatively in conversation. He added he is committed to attending but feels what everyone needs to understand is how the projects will be paid for. "If we are to decide as representatives of the citizens and decide what road gets refilled next, that's the City's problem. I don't think that's the right way to do it." Rolling asked, "Are you saying we can't address this because we are only looking for an educational process ?" Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 11 Levitt responded, "The Pavement Management Plan was laid out for the next 15 years ahead of us. The City Council asks that every year. The plan is laid out, how we finance it and what the residents are assessed. That is the question that's critical." Herb Japs commented that an important concept is the understanding of how the road is put together and how you must to maintain it to get the maximum life out of it. "This will help you appreciate the various costs along the way. Nothing is free. There are a lot of people who want free roads. Someone has to pay for this. When the 45/55 concept was looked at, the homeowners benefit so much. Whether that is the right number of not, I'm not sure. Everyone gets to drive on that road so we kick in. That was some of the rationale, I think, in appreciating what it takes to make the road, build it properly and extend the life of it because there is a sequence. We haven't gone through that, but there is a step -by -step by step process for the 45 years and I haven't heard that yet. I have to appreciate that because that's what makes the road last longer ". Ken Boyden indicated as long as you have an engineering staff on the same page, and they don't cut corners themselves, this will work. Japs continued "that's why I think it's really important to find out a little bit about the construction of the road, because I tell you what, it gave me a headache the first time. Until you hear it you kind of comprehend the complexities of the road. You can't save money. Everyone wants to jump to the bottom line. How do we save money? Build it right and maintain it. That's a kind of summary. You have to build the road right and maintain it. That's how you save money. You can't appreciate that discussion until you see all the steps that go into the process. Some people don't have the patience. We started one of the bigger task forces and there were a lot of people that didn't want to put up with the nifty gritty details. That's what it takes to do roads." Ken Brittain suggested that we find some way of reducing the information to the point where it could be used for education. Most of the people get upset and 30 hours of information is way too much for everyone to tackle on their own. If you come up with some kind of cheat sheet to summarize why we are doing this and to determine what our options are. "In this way, I think you have a better chance of less people getting upset." Gary Kjellberg stated, "Most people look at roads in a leisurely sort of way. You put a sealcoat or patch on there and it looks pretty nice, but they think it's 100% fixed when it isn't. When we get to the point where we want to invite the public into the meeting, the concern I have is they don't have any expertise about what's going on. None whatsoever. All they see is `this is going to cost X number of dollars.' There is no rational of why they are spending that money. They don't know that. We do need to educate them ahead of time like Ken was saying. We don't have time to try and tell Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 12 every person this is the rationale of why we are doing the streets. When the streets are redone it's because they need to be done. We need to go through this and get it back to the Council so we can get the program back on track because no matter, what, four years ago, I was one of the few people that wanted the streets done in my neighborhood. Most people wanted to postpone, postpone, postpone and you're not gaining anything by it. It's inevitable. It's going to get by, but next time you do it, it's probably going to cost more than this time. They told me, it was going to be $3,400 hundred bucks to do my street. By the time it was all said and done, people were complaining because it was a bad economy. Well, when it was over, I think it was $2,100 or $2,200 for my street. That's unheard of in this day and age. And like I was telling Councilman Lehrke, there was a lady who put an article in the paper that said 'We saved the taxpayers X number of dollars'. I think I read the article and thought, 'No you didn't, you postponed it.' And probably next time it's going to cost more to do what will cost less now. The hardest part we are going to have I think are these two items: 1. Paying for it, and 2. Educating the public so they understand why we are doing what we are doing. I think those will be the hardest things to do." Jeff Podoll stated that he thinks the original Task Force; the original Pavement Management Committee, had the right idea back then. "The Council stuck behind what the Committee recommended. They ordered the plans and specs and then as members of that committee, we went with members of Public Works to those individual neighborhood meetings before the project started. We explained to them what was going to happen, what would take place, where their mailboxes would be temporarily, and on and on. Once you sit down and talk to the people, (other than a couple of people), they were pretty reasonable. But there again, they knew that they were going to get it done, they didn't realize they could control the governing body and say, well, I don't want it, so I'm not going to get it down. I don't think we can solve that." Michael Edman asked "How can I get more education out there? I want to come and hang out in the shop, drive around, how do I do that? When I know that, I can educate people that don't know. I do know something about roads, my family works in that industry but I want to see how we are doing it. Outside of this setting. It'll help me evaluate this process differently, so I can help educate the people." Commission Member Jason Field asked if it would be possible for staff to create a one page picture graph that would explain what pavement management costs per square foot (including class five, asphalt, curb, etc.) He commented, "I think it would shock people what it costs for just a square foot ". Streets Foreman Gary Orloff agreed stating, "if you look at what just a driveway costs to get done, you're looking at $5,000 to $6,000. When your road is done, you're also getting curb work done. You're getting a lot of road for what you are paying ". Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 13 Cheryl Kohls indicated she has two concerns: 1. "The concern we should jump right into the financial aspects, figure it out and be done with it. 2. I'm also concerned that you think we're just a scapegoat for the City Council so everyone is (upset) with us and not at them type of thing. I don't believe that is true ". She added if this is true, she would leave because she is not here to simply make the Council happy. Jeff Podoll stated, this is a "If it's not broke, don't fix it kind of thing." He and Les Burshten discussed the 7% assessment rate and Burshten brought up a good point. "If they don't prefer to get their financing through the City /taxes, they can go get their own financing." Residents don't have to take the City's 7% interest rate. Podoll stated, "I believe there are three aspects this committee is to review. I'm sure the interest rate on the assessment is one, but I'm not certain what the other two items are." City Engineer Levitt responded, "The `45/55 Policy would also be reviewed along with the Sealcoat Policy. The City Council was concerned that the City had seal coated in the 2012 Pavement Management area three years prior. Another item to be reviewed is the Trail Maintenance Program and its integration with Pavement Management ". She added, "Any time we are in the area doing a Pavement Management project, we work on the trails and the parks. We have re -done Hamlet and Highlands Parks along with North Ideal, Nina's and Pine Coulee as we worked through the areas." Gary Kjellberg inquired, " When they work on trails, do they grind up the asphalt from the roads and re -use it on trails ?" Levitt responded, "They do and it's very economical ". Jeff Podoll questioned what project was supposed to be done this year? He believes it's already been postponed once before. Levitt replied that the area this year was originally scheduled for a mill and overlay which would have been an assessment amount of about $1,600. "This year we proposed it would be $4,350.00 for a full reconstruct because we put off the Pavement Management. The previous maintenance originally scheduled for this area was also unwanted by the residents." At this point Cottage Grove resident Dennis Plan commented, "I would like to dispute some of this stuff. In 2008 we had a meeting and there were 50 people there and no one objected. I just handed you sheets with some information. Here we are 6 years later and it's terrible ". Plan also stated, "You know, I don't object to fixing any of this stuff. But it's in terrible condition. It's just unbelievable. There are a few people in here that I simply don't like because of what they said about me ". Cheryl Kohls said, "I don't know what you're talking about. Can you tell me? I'm not sure what you're talking about. What are you speaking about ?" Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 14 Plan stated "I'm Dennis Plan and here are the pictures. And it's just terrible, They did the streets. And you know, there was nothing about water runoff. We've got puddles all over the place. And then they came and they power -sawed about half of the intersection and they worked on my intersection at least ten times and as you seen on this thing that I handed out here, I would like to see how many curbs were done and who paid for it? I would like to see a map of that because I think we paid for a lot of stuff twice." Kohls inquired, "What year was this done ?" Plan replied, "2008. And it's in the thing there (indicating the handout he brought) and there are people that have said things about me that are unkind about me, and untrue, and I don't like this. And the City Manager and Les there said he remembers when I brought in the debris that was dumped in my school bus stop, in my yard, where the kids play. There was broken beer bottle glass. And somebody made a comment about that that this didn't happen. It's just terrible. I want the streets fixed and I want a City employee to be inspecting everything when they do these roads because the people, the so- called inspector that was involved didn't look. And this picture here is from 2010, and that's a City work crew that's doing the work over and of course there's a little illegal stuff on there and it also shows 7 '/z inches of asphalt and it says in the thing here that the City only puts down 3 %2 inches. It's just disgusting ". Chair Ken Boyden thanked Mr. Plan upon his departure for attending the meeting tonight. Council Member Lehrke stated he wanted to discuss one more aspect concerning the interest rates. The Policy currently reads, "the City will charge 1 percent interest over our cost with a minimum of 7 %, which, whenever this was created, years ago when interest rates were anywhere from 8 to 15 %, that perhaps that figure made sense. I don't want to get into this discussion today but I want to say it's not as simple as that 7 %. We are in a different age. My point is that the City should charge residents just what they are getting, they shouldn't charge any more ". Ken Brittain stated, "We must keep in mind to not get into too much detail. It's about being fair over the long term." Lehrke responded, "The City must do what is fair," adding, "I personally struggle with that right now because we are to the point, what you do? We're halfway through the project so do you just continue because it's fair or can we change it and make it better? That's the ongoing dilemma. Do we make it better for the rest of Cottage Grove and then half of the City residents say "We didn't get a good deal ". Britain went on to state the interest rates were going up back when the policy was originally implemented. They didn't have this data point to consider, so re- evaluating the policy now makes sense. Michael Edman added "we're going to set a rate now with a few conditions. Do we Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 15 have the assumption that we're going to come back here in five years and do this again or do we actually make it a floating maneuver so you never have to adjust it again? it was stated there is still much discussion to come. This question, and others will continue to be discussed in coming months. 6. OLD BUSINESS None. 7. PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE Les Burshten reported: • A used truck was recently purchased to replace one of our patching trucks. Cost of the replacement vehicle was approximately $30,000. • Interviews for a replacement mechanic took place last week. The position has been offered to an individual and he has accepted. The hiring process will take approximately three to four weeks. • Well #8 has been pulled and is being worked on by Keys Well Drilling. The work so far has gone well. • Allan Larson is working on some joint engineering projects with the Cities of St. Paul Park, Newport and Denmark Township. These joint projects will include seal coating, crack sealing, and street sweeping. • On Saturday, April 28, Arbor Day will be celebrated here at Public Works from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon. Again this year, small trees will be given away to residents. • Annual Spring Clean Up Day will be Saturday, May 5 th from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm. Levitt reported that staff is currently working on the design agreement for the 80 Street Pedestrian Underpass plan in partnership with the Watershed District. The area will include Jeffery Avenue and 80 Street in the ravine area. Staff will also work on the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Transition Plan. The DOT (Department of Transportation) is leading the way and showing us what this plan should look like. Levitt stated all State Aid Cities must have a plan in place. Levitt commented a Wellhead Protection Audit was conducted with the Department of Health last week. The City of Cottage Grove was one of the fortunate four cities to be selected for this. Edman asked "What does this mean ?. Levitt replied the City has a Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 16 very detailed plan and the State wished to check our wells. At this time David Olson commented that he actually witnessed the plan, or a summary of the plan and it was very impressive. "The plan takes into account things that would be hard to consider including the topography of our City, about the hazardous materials that may get into our water and if so, where does it go? You have to know so if this happens, our wellheads are protected now. It was really impressive." Levitt also indicated the City was awarded the Environmental Excellence Award from the Minnesota Erosion Control Association. The award will be received the first week of March. 9. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Council Member Lehrke reported the Public Safety /City Hall Building Project is now being funded through internal loans from City funds. The future of the Public Works Building was also discussed at the Council Retreat that took place on February 11 Lehrke went on to explain that the current Public Works site will eventually be built out should the light rail go through. Public Works would, at that point, be relocated to another area. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Gary Kjellberg stated it was indicated at the All Commission Meeting in January, that there was some activity regarding the Drive -In Theatre site. He wondered whether any new developments had taken place. It was reported there was some activity, however, no detail could be given at this time. Kjellberg also inquired about LA Fitness and whether they were still planning to locate in the Grove Plaza Center? Lehrke responded they're still in due diligence. The owner is still trying to fill the space. The different parties and businesses in the complex all have to work together. It's actually more complicated than one would think. For example, Rainbow Foods must approve of prospective tenants in that center. Kjellberg also asked if the rest of the mall would then be reconstructed or remodeled. Lehrke responded that from his understanding, there may be some changes to the front of the facility, but most will stay the same. There may be some changes at the Hollywood Video site. A new right turn lane may be added from 80 Street to that location. Kjellberg also asked if Starbucks would be moving into a different building. He had heard about this possibility some time ago. Council Member Lehrke responded that if this was discussed 6 months to a year ago, it's probably no longer correct information. Public Works Commission February 13, 2012 — Page 17 11. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Michael Edman, seconded by William Royce. Motion was unanimously carried. Meeting ended at 8:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Storby