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