Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-06 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # V & .,4 DATE 6/6/12 PREPARED BY Public Works Les Burshten ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Accept and place on file the minutes of the April 9, 2012 Meeting of the Public Works Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the April 9, 2012 minutes of the Public Works Commission. BUDGET IMPLICATION $ $ BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DENIED DATE REVIEWED ❑ PLANNING ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ® PUBLIC WORKS 5/14/12 ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ _ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of the April ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS APPROVED DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El ❑ ❑ 9, 2012 Public Works Commission Meeting 1 ,r r �..J / ✓co 6 1 City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER • ! A '• • ' LOILT00 V & • • FA Al 0 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, April 9, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. Commission Chair Gary Kjellberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Gary Kjellberg, Jeff Rolling, Matthew Forshee Jeff Podoll, Michael Edman Staff Present: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Les Burshten, Public Works Director Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Gary Orloff, Street Department Foreman Also Present: Derrick Lehrke, City Council Member Cheryl Kohls, IMTF Member Ken Brittain, IMTF Member Herb Japs, IMTF Member David Olson, IMTF Member Corrine Heine, City Attorney Paul Gleason, Benefit Appraiser, BRKWAppraisers, Inc. Excused: Harry Taylor, Jason Field, Alex Chernyaev, Nancy Hanzlik 3. APPROVE MINUTES Upon a motion by Jeff Rolling, seconded by Matthew Forshee, the March 12, 2012 Minutes were unanimously approved. Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 2 rN .0101 • � Appointment of Vice Chair and Secretary Chair Gary Kjellberg began by nominating Jeff Podoll for Vice Chair of the Public Works Commission. Mr. Podoll has served on the Public Works Commission and an officer of the Commission in the past and Kjellberg feels Jeff would be a good candidate for this position. Mr. Podoll accepted the nomination. At this point the floor was opened for more nominations. Commission Member Michael Edman nominated himself for Vice Chair. Before the voting process. Mr. Edman wished to give a short speech indicating his dedication to the Commission. He began by stating two months ago he asked to be considered for the Chair position adding this is his second year of service on the commission. He wished to become more involved in an officer level and asked for the support of the Commission. Jeff Podoll stated he served on the Public Works Commission in the mid 1980's and served as both Chair and Vice Chair. During his term, the Commission worked on the Solid Waste Ordinance, encapsulated the Recycling Program (which has been active in the City since 1990). From 1990 to 2000 he served on the Planning Commission, the Pavement Management Task Force, the West Draw Task Force and other groups. Mr. Podoll also worked for the City as part of the Public Works Department from 1996 to 2010. Podoll stated he has shown his dedication to the City in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Chairman Kjellberg suggested that paper ballots be used for tonight's election. City Attorney Corinne Heine explained that when members vote, they must put their names on the ballot along with the candidate they wish to vote for. While votes for Vice Chair were being tallied, the group accepted the nomination of Jeff Rolling, by Gary Kjellberg, for Secretary. Jeff Rolling was subsequently elected by unanimous vote for the position of Secretary. At this time the votes were counted for Vice Chair and Kjellberg announced that Michael Edman has been voted in as Vice Chair of the Public Works Commission. Kjellberg stated another issue that needs resolution is the issue of what constitutes a quorum. He went on to state that in his thought process, it should be Commission members that would determine a quorum. If not, there would be two quorums — one for Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 3 conducting Public Works Commission business and one that would deal with the Pavement Management aspect. Corrine Heine stated in order to conduct Public Works Commission business you need a quorum of Public Works Commission members and that's all. When the Council began the process for the review of the Special Assessment Policy, they were initially going to assign this task to the IMTF (Infrastructure Maintenance Task Force). City Attorney Heine went on to state there was then a suggestion that it would be appropriate for this process to be included within the scope of the PWC (Public Works Commission) and that's when they had the IMTF and PWC combined. The question is one of intent, and the Council's intent was for all of the IMTF members to be voting on proposals. In that sense, this group is an "Ad Hoc" Commission comprised of members of the PWC and people from the previous IMTF group which would have its own quorum. Gary Kjellberg indicated there are five IMTF members and seven on the Public Works Commission, for a total of 12. The number needed for a quorum is seven. Kjellberg asked if we don't have a quorum of PWC members, could we still have a quorum of the IMTF? Heine responded for that group, it's a constituted group. When the meeting notices are prepared for the PWC, you would need to notice it for both bodies, (the Ad Hoc working group on special assessments, which is also the Public Works Commission). Vice Chair Edman stated he believed the Council has the authority to appoint special members to the Public Works Commission for a term of one year and that is what he thought was done. "The Council appointed these IMTF folks with the expertise in the pavement management side to our Commission for a one year term and they were to address this project within the realm of our other Public Works duties. Commission Member Jeff Rolling sees the situation a bit differently. He believed at the original Council meeting, the thought was the IMTF Committee would not be a voting system. Ryan Schroeder then sent out a memo that documented they were voting members. Are they voting or not voting? City Administrator Ryan Schroeder stated when the final Pavement Management Policy report is published, it is from the group of 12, whatever they are called (not the Public Works Commission as advised by the IMTF folks) but these twelve people who got together and by consensus will adopt a policy. "On the finer point that Mr. Edman raised, whether it was a one year appointment of five additional people to the Public Works Commission, I'm not certain. Certainly there was a scope of work that started in Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 4 January/February and terminates in August/September. When the report is adopted, those five members' work will be complete" Council Member Lehrke stated he believed the IMTF members were appointed to serve in an ex- officio capacity. The PWC Chair is also able to appoint members. There was a conversation about the IMTF members not having voting rights; however, ex- officio members do have voting rights as Lehrke understands it. Schroeder agreed there was originally a conversation about not voting, but at the end of the day, it included voting. Lehrke commented he didn't' believe another commission was formed, but that IMTF members were simply appointed. Heine stated they were temporarily appointed. Lehkre stated he believe the IMTF members could be appointed up to a year until the project was done if he remembers correctly. He did not think that played into the quorum such as ex- officio members would. Jennifer Levitt believed the ex- officio members had originally been discussed. The former PWC Chair, Ken Boyden along with former PWC Commission Member, Bill Royce, were asked to come back and serve. She didn't believe the discussion had been surrounding all six members of the IMTF members from one side of the table to the other. Neither Boyden, nor Royce, chose to serve in the ex- officio capacity. Council Member Lehrke said this issue was discussed here at an earlier meeting. Lehrke wanted Boyden and Royce to know they could stay on the Commission throughout this process. Their appointment could be approved by either the Council or the Chair of the Public Works Commission. City Administrator Schroeder stated the intent was that the report to be completed by this group be adopted by all members of this group including both IMTF and Public Works Commission members. This may indicate the vote of IMTF members is temporary. City Attorney Heine stated she needs to review the Council minutes. If, in fact, what the Council did was appoint the members as ex- officio, it would mean they are members by reason of the position they once held. Heine indicated she would check through the Roberts Rules of Order to determine what the effect of an ex- officio member is on a quorum. Edman stated he believe this involves two separate issues. Boyden and Royce declined to appoint themselves. That's one issue. The other issue is the IMTF folks were appointed to a special one -year term. "I don't think we talked about the IMTF folks. Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 5 They may have at the Council meeting so I think there was confusion here. I think we proceed as if they were full members until we have direction otherwise." Commission Member Jeff Podoll stated he recalled when he was invited here to serve as an IMTF member, the role would be to advise the PWC regarding what had occurred in the past with the Pavement Management Program and what has changed. Cheryl Kohls interpreted it differently. When she served on the IMTF, the group discussed, voted and put together the Policy and then gave it to the Council for approval. They did have voting rights. Being called back to review the Policy, she assumed it would be the same process as before. Jeff Rolling stated for the record, he is totally comfortable with the IMTF members having a vote. He just wants to have clarity on this before the procedure moves forward. Heine explained that being an ex- officio member does not mean you can't vote. It could be designated that way but they have voting rights unless the group indicates from the start that they don't. It's simply a question of how do you count the quorum. Gary Kjellberg indicated they'll be looking forward to receiving clarification on the quorum issue at the next meeting. 5. IMTF POLICY REVIEW — Jennifer Levitt Jennifer Levitt stated there are two special guests at tonight's meeting: Mr. Paul Gleason who will discuss benefit appraisals and our City Attorney, Corrine Heine. Levitt went on to state that at the last meeting, Finance Director Robin Roland spent a great deal of time going through Chapter 429. In that process, there was discussion regarding the special assessment. If anyone has any legal questions, Corrine is here to discuss one of the big issues that comes up in every assessment hearing: special benefit appraisals. Paul Gleason began by explaining that initially, he receives a request form the City to do a special benefit appraisal which basically involve the properties in the area that have potential to benefit from the proposed assessments, The basic process of answering the benefit appraisal question is a `before' and `after' valuation. The "before" figure is what the property is worth or could be sold for in its present state with the existing street/curb /gutter areas that are up to or beyond 30 years old. The "after" valuation is determined at the conclusion of looking at feasibility reports, various plans and specs he's been given that show what is going to be done during the project. Mr. Gleason went on to explain he gives all those items consideration and arrives at an opinion what Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 6 that property is worth at the end if all those assumed improvements are completed. Rarely, would every property in a project area be appraised, however, this may happen in some cases, depending on the project. Finally, Mr. Gleason compiles the information from the represented properties in an appraisal report that transmits Mr. Gleason's opinions whether or not the special benefit will increase the value of the property. Levitt inquired why Mr. Gleason would not have to enter a home to see the inside improvements. Gleason responded that public improvements, like street improvements flow to the land component of real estate, not to the value of improvements on that property. Whatever the house is worth before the street project will have the same contributory value on that lot as it does in the after. He doesn't have to look at the value of the improvements of the building, basement or inside the garage. That component does not change. it's the land that is the focus Cheryl Kohls asked if a percentage formula is used to derive at the value, how is this figure calculated? Gleason responded that the valuation is typically expressed on some kind of percentage increase of the total value based upon the extent of the improvements, For example, just a mill and overlay would be a lower percentage. Complete reconstruction, curb and gutter, or complete reconstruction, curb, gutter and all new utilities, would result in a greater percentage and increase in value. Kohls inquired whether Mr. Gleason used the same percentage in all areas (such as Maplewood, Arden Hills, Cottage Grove, Roseville). Gleason responded, "generally speaking, yes ", adding there tends to be a bit of a sliding scale. In other words, if there is a lot worth $50,000 and it's increased in value by 10 %, that would be $5,000. If he is appraising properties, for example, in North Oaks and found a $200,000 lot, the property would not increase in value by $20,000. The higher the value of a property, the more the percentage is shaved down. IMTF Member Herb Japs inquired if there were three lots, equal in size, and just two of them had houses on them, the other vacant, would all three lots be assessed the same? Gleason responded that in his opinion, yes they would. Council Member Lehrke commented there was a question presented earlier: if there were three properties, and two of them were different sizes, (perhaps twice the size), would the special assessment be identical for all three of them? Gleason responded, as an example, if there is a 2 acre lot that is twice as deep as the lot next to it, one lot will be worth more than the other, but not twice as much. In that case, both would have similar benefits. If one lot is worth considerably more than the other, it will have a difference in benefit. As in all cases, the benefit appraisal will depend on the situation. Vice Chair Michael Edman inquired whether there were any situations where the road construction project would not give a property a benefit. Gleason said, "Yes, when the Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 7 property doesn't front the street ". As an example, there may be frontage on the north end and the south end, but the only access is from one end. Usually the street that provides the access to the property is the one that will get the benefit, the primary component value. Edman also asked, as an example, if he had a group of trees on the boulevard and the road construction project facilitated the removal of the trees, is there a benefit to the property in that situation? Gleason replied that generally on a new road, the improvement is always considered a valuation, even though it may aesthetically affect the area. At this point, City Attorney Corrine Heine stated when Gleason is completing an appraisal for special benefits purposes, he's only looking at the value form the improvement that's being constructed. If there was an easement that had to be acquired and that's how these trees were lost, what the property owner is paid to acquire the easement is totally separate from the analysis done by Gleason. Mr. Gleason is essentially stepping in under the assumption that he has that right -of -way already. Gleason is only doing the second valuation of two. The first valuation concerned the damage that was caused to the property by taking this easement and taking the trees and the homeowners would get paid for that. Gleason is doing the estimate of the enhanced value to the property by virtue of the improved roadway. He's not considering the fact that the trees were lost because the owner would have been paid for that when the trees were taken. Gleason reiterated that his "before" valuation would be after the trees had been removed. Edman went on to state that he's trying to determine a scenario when there actually is not an economic benefit as a result of a street reconstruction project. Many residents are not happy about getting a new street and the assessment to follow so he's trying to figure out if there is ever a situation through the valuation process where you could actually come up with a negative number for the valuation. "Is it always assumed there will be a value increase ?" Gleason responded, "I can't think of a situation I've come upon when my conclusion was a negative ". Jeff Rolling asked "how are we defining property ?" "When you start with this land value and you are basically assessing the land around it, is there a starting point such as the county assessment ?" Corrine Heine responded this question may be a little bit of mixing what Paul is doing and what the City's formula is. Heine stated, "when the benefit appraisals are done, what Mr. Gleason does is identify a few representative properties to test whether the City's formula is accurate; he's doing an appraisal to test the outcome of our formula as stated in the Policy. If individual appraisals were done on all properties in a project area, the cost would be great and would add to the cost of the project. The policy now states that the City (or taxpayers as a whole) pay 55% of the project cost and the remaining 45% is assessed against the properties. And that is done on a per -lot basis. Some cities determine the assessment on a per linear foot basis. Whatever method is being used, it must be a uniform method as to all the properties Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 8 that are in a similar classification and it must have some bearing or relationship to approximating market value. It's a formula we are using to essentially guess what the increase in market value on this property will be. You calculate that out and you come out with what the assessment is. Then, we test that against Mr. Gleason's appraisal and his appraisal might be higher. If it's lower, we have to adjust our assessments downward. But if it's higher we leave our assessment where it is because that is where the formula tells us it's going to be. If there is no benefit to the property, it will not be assessed. City Engineer Jennifer Levitt explained that when Ideal Avenue was done in 2010, there was a property that was adjacent to the roadway, however, didn't have direct access and when the appraisal was done, the property was found to have no benefit. That property parcel was never included and the City wasn't able to divide the total project cost by that parcel. There are instances where there are adjacent parcels but those parcels won't get counted in the assessment number. IMTF Member David Olson wanted to say one of the things the IMTF group was hoping to achieve in the process was to assess the homeowners that benefit from the improvement as much as possible or appropriate, and he personally believes this is the fair way to do it. "If my property is going to get the most benefit, I think I should have to pay the most, more than any other citizen in Cottage Grove for that improvement ". Olson realizes some residents have difficulty affording the cost, however, doesn't know of a better way in which to charge the assessment. Corrine Heine explained after the City levies the assessment, the property owner has the right to appeal and if they do, it goes to the District Court and the District Court then has a trial. Mr. Gleason would then do an appraisal for that particular property if it wasn't the test property. The appraisal experts would testify as to what the difference in value would be and if it's not supported, the Court will strike the assessment. Sometimes the Court will actually determine what the market value is. Sometimes the Court will determine the assessment invalid because it exceeds the increase in market value. Most judges, however, will give a number as to what they believe it to be. Council Member Lehrke recalled that at one point, charging linear foot per house was an option. If one person's yard is twice as long as their neighbors, that person should pay more than a neighbor with a narrower lot. It is believed this had something to do with corner lots or cul -de -sacs. Assessing everyone the same seemed to be more logical. Herb Japs added the thought was that everyone using the streets coming into a neighborhood receive the same benefit. Most lots in the neighborhood are about the same size. City Administrator Ryan Schroeder stated in a project area of approximately 100 lots with frontage widths that range from 80 to 90 feet (a homogenous neighborhood), three Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 9 or four sites would be appraised. If there is a mixture of duplexes, and some agricultural parcels, the duplexes and the agricultural parcels would be appraised separately. Cheryl Kohls inquired that in the case of a condominium situation, would the homeowner's association pay the assessment? Heine responded in a case like that the homeowner's association would be responsible for paying the assessment as residents pay a fee to the association for the upkeep of common areas. Vice Chair Michael Edman asked Paul Gleason if he knows the assessed value of a property when he does the assessment. Gleason responded that this is something he will look at. Edman then asked if a citizen is unhappy with their assessment, what would it cost to hire someone to provide a second opinion, what does the average homeowner expect to gain? Gleason responded the cost for an appraisal would be more than $500.00. Kohis stated she is interested in the formulas used in appraisals by Mr. Gleason along with how he calculates them. Gleason replied he doesn't have a specific number because they vary by location. City Attorney Corrine Heine added that everything has to be supported by market data, Paul doesn't simply come up with a number the typical way. Most appraisers use a paired sales analysis. "In a perfect world," 1. You have a property 2. You have a sale that of a property occurring the week before the improvement started 3. You would have a sale of an identical property occurring after the improvement is done 4. You compare the two and you would know the exact increase in value "But that almost never happens ", stated Corrine Heine. "So, what appraisers do is they find several properties that are similar. They find sales of these properties that occurred before and a very similar property in a similar location with a similar size, etc. but with new streets and they compare those sales. They are doing a comparison of the sales that were before and comparing them to those done after and because the properties are very similar in characteristic. They want to minimize the number of adjustments you are making to the sale so that you can attribute the difference in price to the improvement that was done. That is the goal of the paired sales analysis. They find a number of these examples and from those, they derive an average. That's how they come up with the percentage of the property value increase." Cheryl Kohls expressed concern that the City hires an appraiser and the appraiser miraculously comes up with the exact value needed for an assessment. She is looking Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 10 to see how the appraiser derives these percentages and how he gets to that number because that is a question a resident may ask. Jeff Rolling feels the group needs to work on the language in the Pavement Management Policy. His question is how the IMTF group came up with the 45% (resident assessments) / 55 %(City tax levy) breakdown. At this point, IMTF Member David Olson responded that when the policy was created, the way he thought about it was how the City can assess the citizens who will have the greatest benefit from the road improvement without the City having to go to court (which seems the fair way to do this). "I think we have to be really careful not to get confused about guaranteeing our citizens their property value will go up by $5,000 following a pavement management project. The houses may not increase in value by $5,000, or $4,000 and that's the way it is. We can't guarantee that will happen, however, what we do have to do is maintain our roads, fix them and we have to pay for them and those that live on them should pay more than the rest. We arrived at the 45% because we thought we could ". Ken Brittain also stated the IMTF group looked at the policies of other communities and what made the most sense and where balance could be achieved. Brittain went on to state, "Ideally, you don't want to burden the homeowner with something they can't afford, however, they are responsible for maintaining that surface in front of the street. When you build a house, you pay the developer to build your street for you. That is part of the purchase price of your house, so we took a look at what other cities were doing and said what can we do that doesn't overly burden the homeowner but makes an attempt to have them pay their fair share. And the rest of it, we're all going to pick up the tab." Ryan Schroeder commented this amount has been supported in the past and hasn't been appealed. People weigh the cost of an appeal versus what the gain could be and feels residents are comfortable with this percentage. What raised the ire more recently is the distance between what the assessment rate is and the interest rate at which the City can borrow funds. Ken Brittain stated he doesn't wish for people to focus so much on the $5,000 number. It isn't fair, especially with the particular development that chose against the pavement management project. In 1996, those residents chose not to do the road improvement project so they have much more work that needs to be done now than would have had to be done if maintenance had occurred on a regular schedule. The number would not have been that high had regular maintenance occurred. Council Member Derrick Lehrke inquired if it's possible that citizens would have to pay 100% of a road project? If a project was to cost $100,000, and there are ten houses, why can't the cost just be divided between the ten homes? Heine responded that could be done in terms if City Policy stated the entire cost project be assessed, but typically the property values won't support that. They wouldn't pass the benefit test and if Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 11 someone challenged this, the assessment would be overturned because values are not likely to increase $10,000. David Olson stated it's in the best interest of the community to share the cost throughout the citizenry for all these improvements. "I want to drive on those streets too, and I want the rest of the people in the community, when they drive on those streets, to pay their share ". Mike Edman asked, "What does it cost the City to defend the special assessment ?" Heine responded, "There are appraisal fees and in some cases you might have other expert witness fees along with legal fees. It costs more to handle an appeal of a large tract of land that is guided and zoned for development. I am thinking it will probably cost at least $10,000 ". Edman responded if a group of approximately 25 neighbors grouped together who were opposed to the assessment and wanted to pool their resources to appeal the project, would this cost the City double of what they are trying to assess? Heine responded, "You have to have an assessment of each individual property. If you had neighbors that got together to challenge the assessment and they were challenging it based on the increase in market value as opposed to something that is technical, like the notice wasn't right or their formula wasn't uniform or something like that and if you had 20 of those appeals, you might agree to do a test appraisal. From a City's perspective, that's just as advantageous as the property owners where you would say, OK, this is a representative parcel, we are going to do the trial on that one, see what the result is and based on that result, we may settle all the rest then it would be less expensive than trying 20 cases and usually that's a practical matter. One side or the other is going to see, is this good for the other side or is this good for me ". Jeff Podoll commented that the neighborhood that declined the proposed project was supposed to have a mill and overlay for $1,600 some years back and didn't. Now the cost of the project is up to $4,000 so the price increases not just for them, but for everyone in the City. Street Department Foreman, Gary Orloff, mentioned he's been fairly successful at explaining assessment costs to residents. He suggests homeowners obtain a bid to have their driveway done and often times the cost is in the range of $10,000. They are surprised it costs that much just to pave a driveway. The cost of an assessment that includes a new street, often curb and gutter, and sometimes new storm water pipes doesn't seem so expensive at that point. Ken Brittain commented the major sticking point seems to be the interest rate, not the 45% / 55% breakdown. Back when the Policy was adopted, 50% / 50% would have Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 12 been an easy figure to work with; however, the group rounded it to 45 %. Personally, at next month's meeting he would like to focus on the percentage rate, not indicating it should be discounted, but to leave the options open. People haven't complained about this percentage rate. Cheryl Kohls summarized that she does believe in the IMTF Policy that she was a part of creating. She added the 45% / 55% breakdown is fair and always has believed it was fair. Commission Chair Kjellberg stated he understands that some residents are unable to afford an assessment, however, when needed maintenance work is not done, the infrastructure deteriorates more and more. He believes we must maintain our infrastructure on a regular basis and can't continue to delay it, as this neighborhood has. " We need to go forward on projects when they are due ". Heine stated there are hardship deferments. The City does have a policy on those. The statutes allow cities to adopt those deferments that are put in place for residents that are disabled, over the age of 65 and who meet income limits. Schroeder indicated that out of approximately 200 residents, perhaps two will apply for a deferment. Gary Kjellberg wanted to point out in his observations, people don't want to pay for these services, but somewhere along the line, you have to pay for it and maintain the infrastructure. Michael Edman believes it may be easier to change the share (from the current 45% / 55 %). Rather than changing the interest rate, it may get the homeowner the same benefit. As the group moves forward to the next meeting, he does not want these to be viewed together. David Olson stated caution be exercised because this is a financing mechanism. The homeowner does have the choice on where to borrow the funds for the assessment. Financing is a separate conversation and how to allocate the cost of that. The person who doesn't want to use the City's financing and wants to pay it themselves, would benefit more from the 45% / 55% split. Ryan Schroeder stated that another aspect to keep in mind during this conversation is the fact that 35% of the residents pay cash for their assessments. Another smaller share pays towards the assessment and finances the other portion. Discussion will continue at next month's meeting 6. OLD BUSINESS None. Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 13 Les Burshten reported: • The Street Crew is out patching roadways with hot mix • Citywide street sweeping started today • The new patch truck put together by City crews is up and running • New mechanic, Brian Lick, is on board (started March 26th) • Root foaming work has begun in the sewer lines • Well #8 is back in service • Fire hydrant flushing begins Wednesday, April 11th 8. ENGINEER'S REPORT Jennifer Levitt reported: • The bridge coloring will be taking place on the Ravine Parkway Project. • Belden Railroad Crossing Quiet Zone Project is out for bid. Construction will begin on the project once school is out for the year. • 80 Street underpass near Jeffery Avenue is under design. Final design will be done next month in cooperation with the watershed district • Public Safety /City Hall utility installation is nearing completion. 9. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE Council Member Derrick Lehrke reported: • New bucket truck is scheduled to be purchased • 3M's variance request for their carbon filtration system was approved • The new business incubator is moving forward. Once staff has moved out of the current City Hall building on 80 Street, the building will be housing small businesses as they grow (until they move to a permanent location). 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Ken Brittan wished to comment on the great job Public Works did on the new trails near the new Public Safety /City Hall building site. He wanted to thank PW for adding that amenity to the City. Gary Kjellberg indicated that Yo -Joe's opened last week. It's a yogurt/coffee shop in the former Merchant's Bank space near Target. April 12 is the grand opening. Public Works Commission April 9, 2012 — Page 14 Les Burshten reported April 28 th is the City's Arbor Day. The event will be at Public Works from 9:OOam to 12:00 noon. May 5 th is Spring Clean Up Day. Hours are 7:00 am to 3:00 pm at Public Works. 11. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Jeff Podoll, seconded by Michael Edman. Motion was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Storby