Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-18 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 7/18/12 • PREPARED BY Public Works Les Burshten ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Accept and place on file the minutes of the June 11, 2012 Meeting of the Public Works Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the June 11, 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 7/9/12 ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY 0 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of the June APPROVED DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11, 2012 Public Works Commission Meeting ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS I "P t Git Y Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER 3 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, June 11, 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, Alex Chernyaev 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 Ken Brittain, IMTF Member Herb Japs, IMTF Member David Olson, IMTF Member Nancy Hanzlik, IMTF Member Excused: Harry Taylor 3. APPROVE MINUTES The following correction was made to the May 14, 2012 Minutes, Page 14: "We would ask the Council to do away with the minimum percentage rate and to consider the five year rolling average with a cap of 2% 1 1 12% over the 5 -year rolling average. Upon a motion by Jeff Podoll, seconded by Michael Edman, the May 14, 2012 Minutes were approved with the noted correction. 4. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS Chair Gary Kjellberg wished to discuss the percentage split that is currently 45 % -55% in the current IMTF Policy. Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 2 *It should be noted that Public Works Commission Member, Jason Field, turned in a resignation this evening. He had to resign due to the meetings conflicting with his work schedule." 5. NEW BUSINESS IMTF Policy Review A. Interest Rate Policy Language City Engineer Jennifer Levitt put together the following proposed language to the IMTF Policy the group is in the process of updating: 6. Financing 6.2 Interest Rate "The interest rate of special assessments shall be at a rate equal to the municipal bond rate plus 1.5% established on the date costs are declared on the project anpya*by the City Council ^t the time Of ,. -n of the lo� There is no minimum interest rate and there is no maximum cap for the interest rate ". Levitt explained this update captured the intent of the group, including the statement about no minimum and maximum for the cap to include the essence of the group's discussion. The group was also asked to review the following sections of the IMTF Policy: Types of Improvements Determination of Benefit Method of Assessment Vice Chair Michael Edman didn't recall language regarding landscaping under Section 3 and requested Levitt walk the group through what this would include. Levitt responded the assessable items were discussed in a prior meeting and at that time it was discussed there may be a need to add language about landscaping improvements and all those potential costs to assess. Edman asked if there is specific language for that suggestion to which Levitt responded it will be brought before the group at the next meeting when the entire package is presented. Commission Member Jeff Rolling stated there is some confusion by what is meant as "property ". "When a project is in the appraisal process, I think most homeowners believe their whole property is getting evaluated when it really isn't. Surely, you're looking more at the land and that benefit. I think we can add some sort of definition of what we mean by property to provide some clarity." Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 3 Edman inquired if it would be easier for the Section 6.2 language change to eliminate that last sentence. Levitt responded she thinks it's important to clarify to the Council that we would not be capping the assessment for the interest rate and that we would not be having a minimum. IMTF Member David Olson asked if the Council will adopt this as policy or will it just be a recommended policy? City Administrator Ryan Schroeder stated it's a recommended policy but he way the City Council has approached it up to this point in the past, they've adopted it and he doesn't recall any amendment. Rolling believed there still may be questions asked about the policy and agreed with Edman that further clarity be provided. Council Member Derrick Lehrke stated he believes people will ask about the bond rate, whether it's fixed or fluctuates. "I personally think we can get rid of the last sentence, because I think it is just extra language. Chair Kjellberg stated there appears to be a consensus to eliminate the last sentence of section 6.2 which states "There is no minimum interest rate and there is no maximum cap for the interest rate ". Discussion next focused on clarity of the term "property ". Michael Edman indicated it's stated in Section 4.2.3: "Rural Residential lots will be considered to receive benefit if they have direct access to the street receiving major maintenance ". He inquired, "What is the definition of major maintenance in that respect? Is it different for a rural project than a residential project ?" and he also asked "What is direct access? Is that a field approach access or does that have to be more substantial access to the roadway ?" Levitt responded direct access as defined by the policy, for the purpose of this policy, is a property in a direct access to a public street if deemed access to the street be a curb cut, driveway or private road, but not be an intervening public street. She indicated major maintenance is defined on page 15 of the policy. For the purpose of this policy, major maintenance would consist of overlay, partial or total reconstruction together with other associated infrastructure repairs, reconstruction and construction. Edman asked if there's a distinction between residential and rural. "Why do we give rural residential access their own section if it's the same as urban ?" Levitt replied that when staff began looking at future pavement managements during the time this policy was written, the City would be working in the River Acres and Pine Coulee areas which were rural residential lots. "The City had never actually conducted a pavement management in a rural area until that time. We wanted to be very clear in the policy on how to address those situations on the larger lots, not just your standard urban lot." David Olson stated if he remembers correctly, what was attempted to be done is upgrade the standards of the rural road. "We didn't feel like we ought to assess those Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 4 property owners the same way. Wasn't that part of the reason we had to have them separated ?" Edman stated that in Section 4.2.1 of the Policy: "Urban residential property will be considered to receive a benefit if the main entrance to the property has direct access to the street being improved.' Section 4.2.3 states: `Rural residential lots will be considered to receive benefit if they have direct access to the street receiving major maintenance.' Edman stated, "One says if the main entrance has direct access, the other states, rural just has direct access. Why the difference ?" Jennifer Levitt responded, "Rural lots, a number of times will have access points or multiple access points so we needed to define that. For example, on Ideal Avenue near River Acres, they have a field drive off Ideal. When our special benefit appraisal was done they found no benefit to that property. There was no benefit because it didn't have direct access. A lot of times when you are a rural situation, you don't have a standard opening. You have a field drive or field access. You may have multiple driveways, one to your house, one to your barn and one to your accessory structure. There are so many unique situations." Ken Brittain stated "The question I have (regarding benefitted Property) is that the first sections talk about direct access, however, the first two reference the street being improved and the rest of them reference major maintenance. What is the difference there, should they all be major maintenance ?" Levitt responded she didn't know if there was a specific rationale for this. B. Park Improvements in Pavement Management Areas. Jennifer Levitt explained that Parks and Recreation Director Zac Dockter was not able to attend tonight's meeting due to his Parks Commission Meeting which is held at the same time as this meeting. She wanted to touch on some of the highlights of his memo. "One thing to really clarify is the synchronizing of pavement management as related to parks. We started first in 2004 when we did Thompson Grove. Improvements were made to the Hamlet Park parking lot along with a little bit of expansion. In reality, this is the project that started us thinking about combining parks with pavement management. When we moved into the 2008 Pavement Management and we looked at trail expansion and connection, we had a lot of reclaimed material coming off the roadway. This provided us an economical way to build the trail in the neighborhoods. We also looked at the condition of the park facilities and the parking lots along with surfaces within the park that needed improvement. We tried to bundle those elements together and make kind of a comprehensive package. Plus it was nice to serve the neighborhood." Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 5 "We are recommending continuing including park improvements as part of the pavement management process. As we go forward, it will continue to be a benefit as we incorporate those projects together." Kjellberg was in agreement this is a good policy with cost saving features. He noted in 2008, material reclaimed from his area was utilized for the Highlands Trails. Schroeder stated this group is being asked to reintroduce support of what the City has been doing and to continue to do park improvements at the same time they do the rest of the pavement management project. It was noted at this time that transportational trails are assessed. Recreational trails are not. Brittain asked if language should be put in place for clarification. Levitt stated you could add something in the general policy that park improvements are not assessed to make this point clear. Edman stated he hopes this provision won't preclude the City from working on parks outside of a pavement management area. His concern is the possibility of waiting five years for a pavement management project to roll around to fix a park. Schroeder stated that no, this wouldn't prevent work on the parks if it's needed. "if there's a park playground that needs to be re -done, we haven't been necessarily waiting for a pavement management project." Edman stated he would like to see some language that indicates the policy would not preclude the City from completing ad -hoc fixes when necessary. C. Sealcoat Policy Les Burshten stated the City has done sealcoating on a 7 -year rotating cycle. In his memo, Allan Larson laid out the Typical Pavement Management Life Cycle as outlined in the 1997 addendum to the Pavement Management Program. Sealcoat is a common preventative maintenance activity in Minnesota performed by most cities, counties and rural MnDot districts. It involves spraying asphalt cement on the surface of existing pavement by the application of a cover aggregate and the asphalt cement is usually emulsified and suspended in water to allow it to be applied without the addition of extreme heat. The cover aggregate is normally either naturally occurring gravel or crushed aggregate such as granite or trap rock. We currently use granite which is the most economical for us. Primary reason to sealcoat asphalt pavement is to protect the pavement from deteriorating from the effects of sun and water. When the asphalt pavement is exposed to sun, wind and water, the asphalt hardens or oxidizes. This causes the pavement to become brittle. As a result, the pavement will crack because it's unable to bend and flex when exposed to traffic and temperature changes. Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 6 Sealcoat combats this by providing a waterproof membrane. Not only does this slow down the oxidation process but also helps the pavement to shed water preventing it from entering into the base material. It's a little bit different than the stuff you put on your driveway. What we're trying to do is prevent water from absorbing into the asphalt and getting into the base structure which prematurely deteriorates the asphalt. Staff is of the belief our program has been pretty successful over the years and we would like to continue that. The secondary benefit of sealcoating is to increase the surface friction it provides. This is either on brand new sealcoat (we sealcoat the second year after the pavement has been laid). When new asphalt is applied, it's extremely slippery and it's almost impossible to prevent people in the wintertime from slipping and sliding. That's why we sealcoat. We are sometimes criticized for that as to why we sealcoat after the second year. Generally speaking, in any new development, this is included in the developer's agreement and they pay for that. To not sealcoat results in a condition referred to as raveling. Raveling occurs when material on the top is worn away and exposes a whole lot of aggregate. The particles become smooth and polished and the roadway become slippery which makes it difficult to stop quickly. A sealcoat increases the pavement texture and increases the surface friction properties. It helps to give better traction as you're trying to drive and stop. In wintertime it's a real big benefit. A third benefit of sealcoating is, the least of what we're trying to express here, is that aesthetically. it adds a nicer look to the road. It has better curb appeal for the homes and that's a very minor condition when we are talking about sealcoat. When is the time to sealcoat and not to sealcoat? When do you make the decision on how many years out do you do that? What we're recommending, if the project were to be less than 4 years out, we would not sealcoat that road. If the project were to be 4 or more years out, consideration should be based on the pavement condition at that time whether or not that road should be sealcoated. Sealcoating is a relatively inexpensive maintenance procedure at approximately $1.10 per square yard. What we're trying to accomplish is reduced oxidation because once that top layer is off, asphalt becomes pretty brittle and also asphalt is somewhat absorbent. We're trying to prevent water from penetrating the sub base because once you destroy your sub base, many other procedures are thusly eliminated. You know, if you were to consider mill and overlays at any point and your sub -bases are destroyed, you have to go to another procedure and it could eliminate that process. Referring to Allan Larson's memo, Ken Brittain asked based on this 4 year limit, are there potential streets that could have 11 years from the time they were sealcoated to Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 7 the time that the road is going to get improved? The City may end up in a situation where there is a large gap. Brittain inquired if 4 years is too long. Brittain asked if there should be an opportunity for Public Works to say if they're within this 4 year period, under certain circumstances they should be doing a sealcoat anyway. Derrick Lehrke stated his question involves the 7 year cycle (as noted in the Typical Pavement Management Life Cycle (7 Year Cycle) table in the memo: "The first time it's 2 years, then it's 7 years four times but then at year 30, it's two years later at 32. Then it goes to five years, then back to seven years. Is there a reason for that ?" Gary Orloff said the 30 year point is a mill and overlay, so you are technically bringing the road back to 100 percent. Jeff Podoll stated you should not sealcoat without joint sealing that area first. "A joint seal should be included on all of them." ADDED AGENDA ITEM Assessment Percentages Commission Chair Gary Kjellberg stated the present assessments percentage is a 45 %/55% split (45% homeowners /55% City). Kjellberg supports these percentages and does not wish to see any change. "If you were to do a 60 % -40 %, (where 60% is the City and 40% is the homeowner, everybody who already had their streets done will end up paying more ". City Administrator Ryan Schroeder did a cost sheet using standard assumptions on what the interest rate policy costs the City, changing the interest policy from what we are doing currently (assessing the 7% to 1 '/2 %0 over the bond rate) assuming the bond rate is 3 percent. If there is a two million dollar project, 200 homes, 45% assessed, $4.500 benefit assessment and 35% of the homeowners prepaying. With the interest rate change, given my kind of base assumptions, cost over the 15 year life of the project is $85,000 or rounded to $5,700 per year. This 45/55% conversation, using the same assumptions and assuming the interest rate" change already, the additional cost by changing the 45% property owner share to 40% property owner share over 15 years is $446,280. Schroeder concluded, "So, if you are inclined to have that discussion, just know it will have a significant impact on our ability to do pavement management on the schedule that we have been serving." IMTF Member Herb Japs commented that would be without raising taxes. Schroeder stated yes, and he should clarify when he talks about the cost, he was talking about the tax levy (the additional money the City would have to levy in order to make the numbers work). Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 8 Ken Brittain stated during the original discussions last month, he recalled the focus of the percentage was based upon the value that the homeowner was going to receive, which was fair because we felt that the homeowner should be sharing as much of the burden as possible and with what we could justify on appraisal so that we wouldn't get into a position where we had to fight things in court. If we were too close to the perceived benefit, the 50% mark seemed like something we could probably do, but the 45% mark was something that we felt was a little bit under, and we're likely to not have issue with people going to court. "I don't see lowering that based on anything else, I don't see that should change. They are still getting the value that they are getting. It's a supportable percentage rate in the legal system, and it seems reasonable." Council Member Derrick Lehrke stated he could take this either way. "I've got lots of reasons I like 100% assessment if that were legal or reasonable. I think the City could pay 100 percent, this is a difference of $30,000 for the City. But if the percentage to the homeowners is less, is the City is more or less likely to actually complete the project. That's been a common theme I've heard from a lot of the people. The people that were here before and the people that don't want to do it again, they're asking, what do we do to get the City Council to stick to it? 1. The City is going to have to pay more so we're less likely to actually do it. On the flip side the citizens are more likely to be in favor of it because they are paying less so then you don't get the blowback and maybe the City Council moves forward." Kjellberg stated as a reminder, if the City pays more, the citizens are the City. Lehrke stated from his point of view, if a citizen lives here for 15 years, they are going to pay the same amount whether the City pays 100 percent or 0 percent because it's either coming from their property taxes or coming from their property taxes. It's coming from the same place because the assessment will be put on the property tax. Olson stated this is not a property tax, but an assessment. "We must be careful what language is used ". Olson added, "You can't say the City pays the same no matter what because we are using the words The City to mean the citizens of Cottage Grove" Lehrke stated his point is, "If the project will cost $1 million dollars, the City pays for it and you have to take into consideration people moving and leaving. But if we just all lived here for the 15 years, if the City paid 100 percent of the million dollars we would pay our share. The same would be true if everyone got the road done, and just paid for it out of pocket and the City of Cottage Grove paid zero. The citizens are still going to pay 1 million dollars. So no matter how you look at it, right now, a million dollars is going to be paid by citizens. If you move out or move in, you can benefit. I still see this as a horse apiece. In the extreme, the citizens are going to pay the same amount. My only point that I'm throwing out is should we change or should we not is it seems like a lot of people want there to be something set in stone for the Council to stick to. That is what I've heard a thousand times. They want the Council to stick to it. And again, I can Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 9 give you reasons why the Council is not going to want to go to 40% and there are good reasons to stay at 45 %" Gary Kjellberg commented, "No matter what we do, we're not going to be able to tell the Council what to do. Whether it's this Council, or the next Council, they'll do what they want to do. I was frustrated when they stopped the pavement management this year because that just pushes us further and further into the hole. And when you talk About the individual homeowner being assessed, I like that idea better, because that's going to get paid whether they are here or not. If they leave, they are still going to pay it because it will be paid when the house sells. I think what we have right now, we should keep it. " Olson stated he wants to support what Ken Britain stated earlier. "The original group solidly arrived at the conclusion if the City had to go to Court at 50 %; we believed we could hold that. When we decided to make it 45% to make absolute certain that there wasn't going to be any of that kind of problem that the assessment wouldn't hold up in a court case." Jeff Rolling added from what he heard from all the Council discussion, the percentage wasn't really the piece that was getting thrown back in your face, as much as the interest rate. "Changing it may be opening a can of worms and not making anyone happy." Ken Brittain said the Council we have today isn't necessarily the Council that delayed all these projects. "The Council is going to be changing and the current Council's newer members are having questions, and we must have enough documentation to discuss with the homeowners that are having questions about this to explain the process to them in an understandable manner. Today, this is why the policy is what it is. I believe that we can put together some sort of documentation to go along with the policy to allow Council Members to stick to it. I see this as a separate issue of can we can stick to versus what the percentage rate is." Michael Edman said he doesn't have the material in front of him at this time, however his recollection in comparing ourselves to other cities is: "we have the worst share as a private citizen, meaning the private citizen pays more in Cottage Grove for their road than a comparable citizen in a comparable city. The City paying 60% seems to be more common occurring in the material provided. The easiest thing to do is make sure we are not an out -liner being too generous or not generous enough. Based on the sheet we were given earlier, we are on the wrong side of the middle, when we talk share. When we are talking about other things we are amending, landscaping or adding little things to this but we shouldn't use the excuse of we want to change or address the percentage. It's on the table just like everything else is and I think it's worth merit to change it to 60 % -40% based on the lion's share of comparable cities." Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 10 Rolling stated to argue back on that point, when he was looking where to move, he didn't look at comparable cities with a 60/40 percentage of pavement management. "I don't think that's going to be a swing vote." Ryan Schroeder stated "Any Council is going to want to be able to provide a benefit for the citizens at a cost that the citizen won't find objectionable. The run on the other side of that is, can the City afford to do whatever that is? As Dave already mentioned, the original IMTF thought it was an equitable approach, to have a 50 -50 share. We wanted to make sure there weren't assessment objections. I think if it was a perfect world, I think a City Council would want to have a project done based on a map and just move on through. We don't have the ability to do that unless both folks want to see the tax rate go up. Typically, cities, want to see their tax rate in an area or neighborhood perceived as modest. You have all these competing things and I think at the end of the day it is worth striving towards consistency. If you have been treating people in a certain way, it's easiest, to continue to treat them in the future in that same way. I think that's part of what is being argued here is a year ago, then two years ago and five years ago, people were assessed a 45% share. In my mind, and I would think the Council would want a compelling argument that there is a need to change, because if you change either to a 50/50 share or a 60/40 share, you are goring somebody." Lehrke stated at the 40% you are going to see less upset people at the public hearing. There will be less ability for people to challenge their assessment. Kjellberg asked if the assessment were changed to 60/40, would that mean we would have to raise the levy limit and increase taxes to pay for it? Schroeder stated the choices are, to know there will be a levy impact and so you either reprioritize and put things in differently or you continue on and it's likely to be a levy impact. Gary stated "with that being said, you're going backwards with the homeowner seeing 40% versus 45% and his assessment will be a little bit low but all of us are going to end up paying more and that being the case, that means taxes are going up and I know Councils are really trying hard to keep the levy limit down. So 1 don't see why going to 60/40 would be any benefit at all, I think it would be a detriment." Michael Edman commented with a million dollar project, right at 45/55, the City would have to come up with 5% more, $50,000 on a million dollar project. "I don't see how $50,000 is going to break Cottage Grove which seems to be doing very well. I'm not saying we should try to push it to the brink but we should be able to absorb that. Now we're building a new City Hall with cash on hand. We are keeping the assessment flat for a number of years. I say we could find an extra $50,000 ". Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 11 Kjellberg said this pavement management was started in 1994. so the question he has is how many times has the City had to go to court because people contested the assessment? Schroeder stated "once so far, and that was dismissed ". Levitt stated when the original IMTF looked at other pavement managements that had been done by market value. there was a trend line of what the typical percent breakdown had been on the total project cost, which typically was falling right around 45 %. This was taken into consideration when they set the 45 %. "If you were to lower that, you've now made that inequity go back even further in time. What they did in the original IMTF was build equity." Herb Japs commented when he was on the original committee back in 1997, and then a few years later when they went through it again, the goal was to have very good roads for the City for a long period of time. "How can we provide the best roads for the City at the lowest cost? The whole thing was predicated on the amount of money that we balanced out, that 45/55 that we came up with in '97 and it seems like that's where we got to that. During that time, we, as a group, including Jeff Podoll and Gary Kjellberg, met with the neighbors and we explained what was going on and we got everyone to buy in. What was never lost is the link where we could tell people: This is what the big picture looks like. I think the roads in Cottage Grove are pretty good. I really think they are well maintained, but it's all based on routine maintenance and the cost goes down when you do it on a regular basis and that's where the cost saving is. I don't think it's so much in 45% or 40% l think it's in getting it done on time. The 45/55 seems to work. Stick with that" Gary Kjellberg asked that since the pavement management this year is not happening, will that be added onto next year or how does that work? Levitt responded that is their proposal to Council. Kjellberg said he would like to leave well enough alone because there haven't been any problems with the current procedure. "I think the biggest hang -up is education to the citizens about what we're doing and why we are doing it. I think a lot of people miss that." Lehrke asked if it would be possible to look at the amount the City paid out on the past projects? "Maybe the City was paying $5,000 per property, but because it's cheaper now, the City is paying less." Levitt stated, "if we receive financial savings on the project, if it comes in lower engineer's estimate, we pass the same savings along to all the citizens. They pay the actual cost. If the City gets a good price, all 35,000 residents benefit along with those that have direct benefit, because we assess the actual cost." Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 - Page 12 IMTF Member Nancy Hanzlik commented, "I think it would be extremely difficult to compare pavement management projects, because in some projects you are actually installing storm sewer for the first time and in others, curbing for the first time. Olson stated. "If we're going to compare ourselves to these other cities, we should ask staff to find out if they have a 51 year life span on their roads and if they are sealcoating their roads every 7 years. What type of roads are they building? Are they building to the same standard we are? Because if you are at 40% and you are you're doing mill and overlay more often per street and you are doing complete reconstruction more often per street, then they are actually paying more as the assessed property owner for your road than you are here in Cottage Grove where the entire City pays for all sealcoating. If we're really going to start to slice and dice all the cities and see whether we have a market advantage or disadvantage to our cities in the metropolitan area, I think we have to have an understanding of their entire policy, not just a number on a piece of paper." Street Foreman Gary Orloff said, "In regard to talking about fairness to other cities, and that we don't have the same tax rate as these other cities who are getting the free roads, the fact is those other cities have higher taxes. In Edina they are going to pay for it one way or another, either taxes year round or they are going to pay for it every time a pavement management comes through. You want to compare apples to apples." Lehrke said it would be interesting to ask other cities if they are sealcoating every 7 years, or how often they do a mill and overlay. Maybe other cities are sealcoating every five years At this point Kjellberg stated, "We need a consensus on what we are going to do here and move forward." Podoll said "I say we leave it alone. For 15 years this has worked and I can pretty much guarantee you I won't be happy if we change it now and then all of a sudden I'll be paying 50% of everybody else's roads. Why reinvent the wheel ?" Kjellberg asked "How many here are OK with just going 45/55 percent? Upon this question of the group, two were opposed to staying with the current 45 %/55" split. Edman stated, "I would say the consensus we might be able to reach is that we should move on with our recommendation. That would be our consensus. Kjellberg asked "Can't we just let Council know we have so many people for and some against? Brittain stated it doesn't matter. If we're not going to change it, then I would consent we all move on ". Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 13 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Quorum Issue City Attorney Corrine Heine responded to the request of the Public Works Commission concerning the appointment of former members of the Infrastructure Management Task Force to the Public Works Commission. The specific question was whether the IMTF members should be counted for purposes of a quorum. According to the January 18, 2012 Council Meeting minutes, the City Council appointed former members of the IMTF as "ex officio" members of the Public Works Commission. Under Robert's Rules, Chapter XVI, sections 49 and 50, ex- officio members who are appointed to a board or committee have the privileges but not the obligations of a regular committee member. Therefore, they are not counted for purposes of determining a quorum (although there are circumstances where an ex officio member does have obligations of a member, none of these circumstances apply in this instance. 7. PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE Les Burshten reported: • Crews are out patching • More catch basins are being built due to many of them being broken this past year. Weed control is being done throughout the City • The Water Department is rebuilding fire hydrants. About 20% will be done this year • Cracksealing has started in Cottage Grove as well as St. Paul Park, Newport, Afton and Denmark Township. • Stenciling has begun in the City of Newport 8. ENGINEER'S REPORT Jennifer Levitt reported that before tonight's meeting, a neighborhood meeting was held for the residents that would be impacted by the box culvert to be installed on 80 Street just east of Jeffery. Four residents were in attendance. It is anticipated the project will be brought before the City Council on July 18 with construction to begin in late August or early September. 80 Street will be closed for approximately 2 weeks while the box culvert is installed. The majority of that project is funded by the Watershed District. The cost participation should be approved by Council on July 18 as well. Public Works Commission June 11, 2012 — Page 14 The Belden Railroad Crossing Quite Zone Project will be starting the 25 of June. Sealcoating will also begin that date, June 25 th . The Wal -Mart Project will go before the Planning Commission in July. The City will be working on road improvement costs and other items associated with the East Point Douglas reconstruction near the VFW Red Barn. 9. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Council Member Derrick Lehrke reported two meetings ago, the City moved forward with the project at the former Home Depot Site. Some zoning changes occurred with Ryan Schroeder noting the Council and the City have done everything they can in getting that project done. Now the developer must do his part. There is a deadline of June 30 to begin construction. Lehrke also reported there will be a public hearing on the West Point Douglas expansion assessment. At the last meeting, three of the property owners affected by this were in attendance. The item was tabled. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Brittain inquired on County Road 19 between Cedarhurst and 80 Street, there are partial segments where trails exist. Are there plans with the County or whatever as that portion of road gets reconstructed to have trails? Levitt responded in 2013, those trail segments will be connected. Mr. Brittain also noted it was mentioned Kingston Park was going to be worked on: are there plans to add a trail segment? The gravel trail that comes in back behind Kingston was discussed and inquiries were made regarding its completion. Levitt offered to send Mr. Brittain a proposed trail map. Gary Kjellberg stated the Woodridge Park building was rebuilt after the fire that occurred last year. It was noted City crews applied sod to the entire area, along with a new irrigation system and its really looking sharp. He invited members to do down and look it over when they have the chance. 11. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Michael Edman, seconded by Jeff Rolling. Motion was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 8:44 pm. Respectfully submitted, Pa,tri,c i a Sfm 4