Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-05 PACKET 04.A.iii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGEND MEETING ITEM DATE 9/5/12 4* A 6 file Ism � . Public Works ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Les Burshten STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Accept and place on file the minutes of the July 9, 2012 Meeting of the Public Works Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the July 9, 2012 minutes of the Public Works Commission. BUDGET IMPLICATION $ $ BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ PLANNING ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ® PUBLIC WORKS 8/13/12 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of the July 9, ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS 2012 Public Works Commission Meeting Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Iml Z11, 1h, LN F WX e i Fm L 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, July 9, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 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 Excused: Harry Taylor, Nancy Hanzlik 3. APPROVE MINUTES The following corrections were requested by Nancy Hanzlik via phone to Jennifer Levitt to be made to the June 11, 2012 Minutes, Page 12: "IMTF Member Nancy Hanzlik commented, 1 think it would be extremely difficult to compare pavement management projects, because in some projects you are actually installing san+ta storm sewer for the first time and in others, curbing for the first time." Also on page 12, there was only one space between the word consensus and the name, Kjellberg. A space was added. Upon a motion by Jeff Rolling, seconded by Jeff Podoll, the June 11, 2012 Minutes were approved with the noted corrections. Public Works Commission July 9, 2012 — Page 2 IM- 4 - 01 9 i1 C67 r•1_\ W_ 1 1CIA Z>7_\i IIXTJ ? None. A. Review Draft IMTF Policy City Engineer Jennifer Levitt explained the draft copy of the IMTF policy was placed in tonight's meeting packet with changes indicated in red ink. It was decided to go through the draft policy this evening, page by page to address any questions or concerns of commission and IMTF members. Page 2 Prior to the conclusion of this process, there were some membership resignations which were indicated on the draft policy. Those members had participated, however, were not part of the group at the end of the process. It is anticipated this policy will go before the City Council in a workshop session on July 18 ". Council won't be taking final action on the policy until August 8, their regularly scheduled meeting. Page 4 The Table of Contents was updated to address Landscaping and Park Improvements (to make sure there is an understanding about park improvements not being assessed). Page 6 Levitt explained it was attempted to reiterate some of the rationale behind why park improvements and trail improvements are kept in the Pavement Management Program. "We added an additional sentence in the first paragraph here for the funding of new construction because we use this framework while we assess new developments and wanted to cross reference that methodology, even though it is governed under part of the City Code separately. We do use this to apportion the cost and use the same philosophy." Commission Vice Chair Michael Edman wished to eliminate the word "Then" and also the first three words after "IMTF" which were the words "to be assembled ". With the noted corrections, the paragraph now reads: Public Works Commission July 9, 2012 — Page 3 `7n 2012 the City Council directed the Public Works Commission and members of the original IMTF to review the policy and provide any recommended changes to the policy, since a number of pavement management projects have been completed" IMTF Member Ken Brittain had a comment regarding section 3.1.1: He wished to make sure the document read clear that if maintenance was needed, that it's more applicable for that statement to be addressed in sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 instead of 3.1.1. After discussion, the consensus of the group indicated that the Policy read as follows: 3. Types of Improvements 3.1 Surface repairs Pavement rehabilitation, specifically mill and overlay, reclamation, and reconstruction, work will not commence on a street segment in which the sealcoat application was applied within the last four years unless recommended by the Public Works Director. 3.1.1 Minor maintenance For the purpose of this policy, minor maintenance will consist of pothole repair, patching, crack sealing, sealcoating, skin patch overlays and general maintenance that the Public Works Department completes. Page 8 Levitt stated "Landscaping improvements may consist of trees, shrubs, flowers, decorative planting beds, colored and stamped concrete, hardscape, raingarden features, and irrigation. All landscaping elements shall be assessed as the total project cost. Resident petitioned landscaping elements shall be assessed at 100% to benefitting properties." In other words, anything we do as general landscaping as part of a project with those elements listed is part of the total project cost. If residents specifically come in and want their island in their cul -de -sac landscaped to outward elements listed here, they would be paying for that 100 percent ". Commission Vice Chair Michael Edman recommended the policy read "replacement to of conduits." Commission Member Jeff Podoll stated back in 2000 when the Thompson Grove area streets were going to be re -done, the Streetlight Maintenance Fee was implemented in order to pay for conduit, wire and street light bases in Thompson Grove. This fee is still Public Works Commission July 9, 2012 — Page 4 being charged and assessed to future projects. "Why wasn't this taken off after Thompson Grove was done and paid for ?" City Administrator Ryan Schroeder indicated the goal of this maintenance fee wasn't just for the Thompson Grove area, but was to provide conduit wherever it was needed. Schroeder responded it's a logical question to be addressed by Council whether there is still a need for enhancements when they address the Streetlight Budget. Edman stated there is only one way to do a street reconstruction (asphalt base, aggregate), however there are many ways to do landscaping, much of it being subjective. "How do you put landscaping in this whole project cost when it's subjective by hundreds of thousands of dollars, whereas the street cost is more fixed? You need to create a mechanism to address the landscaping portion of the assessment rather than the road because they are fundamentally different. One is going to be a lot more subjective." Levitt responded this section is primarily addressed toward the commercial or collector areas, such as the roundabout area. "I will say when it comes to the scale magnitude of the landscaping, City Council has the ultimate discretion on whether they approve the plans or not approve the landscape plans as presented in the budget." Edman stated his concern is that he doesn't want to put a wrench in future projects over a dispute with the landscaping if this tied in with the road funding mechanism. Ryan Schroeder stated this sort of question is what the neighborhood meetings and public improvement hearings are for. These gatherings allow the citizens the opportunity to say whether or not they like the project, or don't want a particular part of the project to be done. Council will then listen to this testimony and make their decision. Ken Brittain stated some items have come through the Planning Commission in the past and requests would not come through if 100 percent of the people didn't desire that significant improvement. IMTF Member David Olson stated "We have to be careful to not put too fine a point on what we are handing the Council to do. They are going to have the ability to move based on the circumstances at the time, and I don't have a problem with what we have written. I can see the wisdom of separating out this thing that if people want something special, they have to pay 100 percent for that. I can see separating that out but beyond that, if you tear up a road you are going to have to do some landscaping, that should be part of the assessment. I'm worried we might be trying to overcomplicate it." Ultimately, it was decided to word the Landscaping Section of the policy as follows: Public Works Commission July 9, 2012 — Page 5 3.2.4 Landscaping Landscaping improvements may include, but not limited to trees, shrubs, flowers, decorative planting beds, colored and stamped concrete, hardscape, raingarden features, and irrigation. All landscaping elements shall be assessed as the total project cost. 3.2.5 Petitioned Landscaping Petitioned landscaping elements shall be assessed at 100% to benefitting properties. 4.2 Benefited property The following sections were updated to the following: 4.2.1 Urban residential property will be considered to receive a benefit if the main entrance to the property has direct access to the street receiving major maintenance. 4.2.2 High and medium density residential property will be considered to receive benefit if it has direct access to the street being improved receiving major maintenance. 4. Method of Assessment The following section was agreed upon to be changed as follows: 5.1.1 The amount of assessment will include all statutorily allowed project costs (see "Definitions "). Levitt indicated it is standard to hold two neighborhood meetings before a project. Residents are `walked through' the steps and there is a specific slide presented during the meeting that focuses on interest rates and what residents will be charged. She also explained a flyer is distributed with the initial letter in case folks can't attend the meeting. After the project is bid, and the City is aware of the contractor's schedule, another neighborhood meeting takes place where this whole process is explained again to residents. When the project is over, there is an assessment hearing and that's when the costs are declared. Residents can be informed at that time what the interest rate will be. Gary Orloff suggested if there's too much information given, the more confusing it will be for residents. Schroeder also stated as a practical matter, he's not aware of how many residents have actually requested a copy of the assessment policy. It's really a constructional document for the City Council and should be documented so the Council understands it. Then, that policy will be interpreted and carried out by staff. Public Works Commission July 9, 2012 — Page 6 Commission Member Jeff Podoll recalls the City sent out a letter to residents laying out cost options for various scenarios, including if a resident wished to pay the assessment up front. Levitt responded there is a slide in the presentation given at the neighborhood meeting that will inform residents of how much interest they will pay, or other options: 1. Full payment, 2. Partial payment or 3. Assessment. 6. Financing After a thorough discussion, the following change was made to Section 6, Financing: Once the special assessments are levied and adopted, the special assessments will be certified to the Washington County Auditor to be added to the property tax lists for collection with real estate taxes. The property owner may prepay, at the City offices, the entire amount of the special assessment or an amount equal to or greater than $500.00 per parcel without any interest within thirty days after adoption of the assessment rolls by the City Council. Partial payment is not authorized by City Ordinance if not paid within 30 days of the adoption of the special assessment. 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 by the City Council. The costs are declared at the Special Assessment Hearing as outlined in Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429. Next, Levitt indicated a definition of the term "Property" was added to the Definition Section of the document. Edman indicated that "property is both improved and unimproved real properties ". He suggested the legal definition of property be used. Commission Member Jeff Rolling stated the reason he wanted to look into the definition of property was to clarify to residents that their house wasn't included in this property assessment, just the lot or the land value, not including the home. Levitt stated what we are really defining is `special benefit assessment'. The policy now reads (in Definition Section 8): Special Benefit Assessment ( "Assessment ") The dollar amount charged against a parcel of land receiving an Improvement benefit On Page 10 of the document, Levitt stated one question earlier raised was what happens if we have a street that is wider in a residential area? Do they pay for the Public Works Commission July 9, 2012 — Page 7 wider street? "One of the examples I used was located in the proposed pavement management area for this year, Jeffery Avenue. Jeffery is a wider street. As part of that process, because of 5.2, the very last sentence, we reduced the width. That greater width is not applied to their assessment. We will only charge them for a standard residential street (a 32 -foot base of curb to base of curb). The City funds 100 percent of that difference. Brittain asked to go over the definition of a standard residential street. Schroeder stated "we replace in kind. Whatever is there before, we replace ". Levitt added that Section 5.2. states: "Lots shall be assessed based on city standard street section, even if the width is greater." Levitt added there are standard details for various road segments. 6. OLD BUSINESS None, 7. PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE Les Burshten reported: • Sealcoating began today and went very well with favorable weather conditions. • Staff is looking ahead at the upcoming water tower painting project for next year. Ideas will be brought before the Public Works Commission to go over some options on how this project can be bid. • The City is pumping approximately 10.5 million gallons of water per day. We've been able to keep up fine with no problems up to this point • Staff is currently working on the 2013 Budget • A contract is being worked on for a new heating and air conditioning maintenance contractor. • The Splash Pad opened on schedule and has been very successful • Pond work (with an outside contractor) is being done with approved budget funds • Mowing and weed control are in full swing city -wide. • Trail maintenance contract was awarded at the last Council meeting. Work will begin in 2 or 3 weeks. Jennifer Levitt noted the Belden Railroad Crossing Project has been completed. Striping will take place next week following the sealcoating. Public Works Commission July 9, 2012 — Page 8 Saturday, September 29 at 10 :00 am has been set aside for the Ravine Parkway Bridge Ribbon Cutting The 80 Street Box Culvert will be under construction this fall. The Gateway Pond Project will be underway now that necessary permits are in place for the dewatering operations. Hopefully the weather will stay hot and dry. 9. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE Council Member Lehrke stated there's been only one Council meeting since the last time the Public Works Commission met. Schroeder indicated one item (Traffic Signal Agreement between MnDot, Washington County and City) was tabled until July 18 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Chair Gary Kjellberg wished to thank everyone for being here to work on this policy. Levitt stated she just wanted to verify the consensus for the changes the group made to the IMTF Policy so she can state to the Council the recommended changes were a consensus. Members indicated they were in favor of the changes. 11. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Gary Kjellberg, seconded by Alex Chernyaev. Motion was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm. Respectfully submitted, Pa ,x ,ate Starb q