Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-20 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM #Y4 DATE 2/20/13 PREPARED BY: Public Works Les Burshten - ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST: Accept and place on file the minutes of the October 8, 2012 and December 10, 2012 Public Works Commission meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the October 8, 2012 and December 10, 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 ❑ 0 PUBLIC WORKS 2/11/13 ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY. ❑ ❑ ❑ - ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: ❑ MEMO/LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: OTHER: Approved minutes of the October 8, 2012 & December 10, 2012 PWC Meetings ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: ityy Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑APPROVED F DENIED FIOTHER CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION October 8, 2012 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, October 8, 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: Members Absent Members Excused: Staff Present: Also Present: 3. APPROVE MINUTES Gary Kjellberg, Matthew Forshee Jeff Podoll Alex Chernyaev Michael Edman, Jeff Rolling Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director Harry Taylor, Public Works Supervisor Derrick Lehrke, City Council Member Kent Wolf, Ameresco Upon a motion made by Matt Forshee, seconded by Jeff Podoll, the minutes of the August 8, 2012 meeting were unanimously approved. 4. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS Parks and Recreation Referendum — Informational Presentation by Zac Dockter Zac indicated the referendum project is a culmination of many years worth of work. City Staff, along with the Community Center Task Force, have worked on studying various recreational facility options. For. every community survey that is taken, the general consensus of the population indicates "there's not enough for kids to do ". Public Works Commission October 8, 2012- Page 2 Public Works Commission members were given an outline in tonight's meeting packet summarizing the culmination of those efforts. The Community Center Task Force made a recommendation to the City to go to a, referendum and pursue a community center less than a year ago. Two of the biggest components within that potential project were the fitness center, because there wasn't one in the community, and the second, an aquatic center. With the potential of LA Fitness coming into town and. having a private entity running the fitness center, it encouraged the City to step back and realize they didn't want to compete with these potential recreational facilities. The City believed there were at least three potential projects to address. The first question on the referendum is: 1. Shall the City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota be authorized to issue its general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $6,500,000 to finance the acquisition and betterment of a family aquatic center. Zac indicated that neither a design, nor a location for the aquatic center has been decided, however there would be interactive features in the pool along with a large patio and picnic area. Locker rooms and rentable party rooms would also be available along with a.concession stand. The second question involves two projects in one: 2. Shall the City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota, be authorized to issue its general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $7, 000, 000 to finance the acquisition and betterment of an indoor /outdoor play center and the expansion and betterment of Hamlet Park. This project would involve the renovation of the existing pool. Preliminary conceptual designs have been done and are pictured on information mailed to city residents. Admission would be charged for the indoor play center. The facility would be ADA accessible (including the playground equipment), new restrooms would be constructed along with a gated outdoor play area. Landscaping, an outdoor water feature, an amphitheater and fire pits would also be constructed. Financially, it is believed this would be a break -even operation. The second part of the question involves the Hamlet Park Improvement Expansion which includes three parts. The first item is the new lit baseball field which would be south of the existing park and is currently undeveloped. The new area would include four lit'baseball fields, a concession stand and a storage building. Additionally, there Public Works Commission October 8, 2012 — Page 3 would be three new parking lots. Access would be available from 95th Street relieving some of the congestion in the Thompson Grove neighborhood. The second part of the project would include the renovation of existing ball fields to baseball and softball diamonds. One of the issues that was brought to our attention is that softball leagues don't have a tournament complex in which to play. Games are played all over the community with most of their games played at Grey Cloud Elementary. With the potential renovations, both baseball and softball tournaments could be run from this site. Existing playground equipment would be renovated and expanded. A small splash pad would be added, the skate park facilities would be improved and landscaping enhanced. The old storage building would be torn down with the new storage area on the south end area of the ballfields. There will be additional batting cages and a parkway connecting the existing parking lot to the new parking lot. The third part of that project would be an improvement to the north side of Hamlet Park which is mostly the trail area and pond area. The City would create that area as the third entry point into the park as a recreational entry point only. No vehicles, just pedestrians and bicyclers would be allowed park access via this entrance. Landscaping will be enhanced at the front entrance of Hadley and 80 Street including an arboretum, patio area,. benches and landscaping elements. Along the path, there will be openings into the pond area which will also have seating areas and additional landscaping. Also included is a complete replacement of the trail on the east side of the pond. If either or both referendum questions pass, there will be an impact on property taxes. Information regarding taxes is also explained on the handouts mailed to residents in their utility bill. The yearly cost would be charged residents for 20 years. Improvement -$100,000 $175,000 $230,000 $360,000 Property Property Property Property Aquatic X92 1year $261year $36 1year $58 1year Center Playground & $13 1year $28 1year $38 1year $62 1year Hamlet Park Total if both $25 1year $54 1year $74 1year $120 1year are approved The costs noted above are just to finance the construction of the facilities. Ongoing operational costs would be paid through user fees from patrons of the facilities. Commission Chair Gary Kjellberg asked if the City is considering to expand or remodel the skate park or would it be moved? Dockter responded right now it would remain in Public Works Commission October 8, 2012 -- Page 4 the current location. Kjellberg also asked if the aquatic center construction were to move forward, would it be combined with a community center? Dockter responded this would depend on where it's located, but perhaps could be built in a way it could be added on to in the future. Right now, three locations have been discussed including Norris Square Market Place, Highlands Park and the new Public Safety /City Hall site. Zac went on to state regarding the skate park question, he envisions a task force working on these things together to make sure we get what the community wants. He realizes there are some issues with the skate park now, but once a splash pad is put in place along with a bigger playground, there will be more people using the amenities than at this time. Kjellberg stated he hopes at some point, activity will transpire with the community center. Council Member Lehrke asked if we have any idea what it, will cost people to, use the pool? Dockter responded there is not a set rate, however, indicated the standard rates currently are in the $7.00$9.00 per visit range. A residential pass may be sold for $250.00 per year which is standard in the metro area Lehrke went on to state that last the Council heard, an aquatic center would always have a deficit, possible between $50,000 and $100,000 per year. Dockter responded this would be his estimate. Lehrke commented he believes the information going to the City residents was written in such a way to be very positive, slanting towards "pro- referendum ". Dockter responded that. he and three staff persons worked on the referendum informational brochure and made a large effort to not sway it one way or another (one of his biggest concerns). "As we get closer," stated Council Member Lehrke, "there should be some sort of projection what the facility will cost long term because that's what residents will be asking, along with what it will cost to use the facility ". Zac responded the Hastings Pool cost is approximately $100,000 per year with the Eagan Pool breaking even. The Apple Valley Pool costs about $50,000 per year. Because Cottage Grove is in the East Metro, pool users may come from Woodbury, Stillwater and perhaps Hudson as those cities do not have outdoor pool facilities. Council Member Lehrke asked if there would be any sort of changes on how Hamlet Park would be funded. It was thought the City would be paying about $25,000 - $75,000 per year over the current cost. Will the City be taking on these costs or would the athletic association be picking up any of the expenses? Zac explained the additional $75,000 cost was arrived at from the estimate of additional needs (fertilizer, staff, electricity for lights and other utilities). The Cottage Grove Athletic Association has not been asked about contributing to the ongoing long term costs, but typically when there are tournaments, fees are charged and that's where the City regains some of the costs back. All of the associations typically contribute in some Public Works Commission October 8, 2012 -- Page 5 fashion toward capital projects. As an example, the baseball association built the dugouts at Woodridge Park. Commission Member Matthew Forshee asked if the potential $9.00 aquatic center admission charge would be for adults or children to which Dockter responded the admission would likely be $5 -$6 per child and $7 -$9 per adult. There maybe 'twilight hours' for around a $2 admission. Forshee also inquired why the second question has two questions in one? Why not have three questions? Dockter responded there were four potential projects and one question was removed. City Council set the direction and felt the family aquatic center should be on its own because it's a high cost project expected to be subsidized pretty heavily compared to the other two. Dockter indicated the goal of the informational brochure is to ascertain residents have an understanding of the referendum so when they get to the polls, they already know how they will vote. Zac encouraged he be contacted should anyone have any questions or concerns regarding the upcoming referendum. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. LED Lighting Fixtures Pilot Proiect — presentation by Kent Wolf of Ameresco. Public Works Supervisor Harry Taylor stated Ameresco is an energy solution company and their task is to assist municipalities and hopefully save the City some money. Ameresco has created an engineering assessment document and the goal this evening is to focus on a potential pilot project for City streetlights. Mr. Wolf stated he is a project developer working with municipalities to find out if there are opportunities for energy reduction and to use those savings to improve infrastructure through a budget neutral process. He added Ameresco has been in business for approximately 20 years. Once on board, Ameresco will design all the systems that need to go into place. Energy savings, month by month and on a year by year basis will be paid to a finance company that funds the project up front. Ameresco guarantees the savings year after year to pay the total cost of the projects. All of the improvements are based on the energy savings that come into play. The company has completed $5 million dollars worth of projects over the past 20 years. These projects are their core business. Ameresco does not manufacture any equipment, lighting or any product they install. The company is vendor neutral. Mr. Wolf concluded that Ameresco has never had a project go bad on them adding the customers' expectations are always met. Commission Chair Kjellberg asked who would be responsible if the lighting should fail. Mr. Wolf responded that the equipment Ameresco installs comes with a wraparound warranty that will be passed onto the City. Ameresco only selects equipment they are assured will perform to standards that generate savings. If there should be a failure Public Works Commission October 8, 2012 — Page 6 after the warranty expires, it would be the City's responsibility, however Ameresco will stand behind the product they recommended/ installed and will work with the City to get it replaced. Ameresco is assured the fixtures being installed today will last 50,000 hours based on an L -70 test which is a 70% light output for 50,000 hours before replacement is required. Ameresco works exclusively with larger manufacturers such as GE, Sylvania, and a variety of others that are standing behind their products and have been in business for a number of years. Mr. Wolf went on to state Ameresco is Boston - based, however, the company has worked on projects in the State of Minnesota for the past four years. Their goal is to help cities make an effort to keep taxes to the very minimum. During these times, equipment wears out, needs are going unmet and this project will offer the City an opportunity to repair systems and equipment that need replacement. A little over a year ago, Ameresco requested to do a preliminary analysis on the City's energy needs at no cost, looking to see how funds can be saved. Ameresco evaluated all of the facility lighting and compiled a potential annual savings of $130,000 that could be applied to equipment systems that would generate the energy savings. Ameresco desires to request the City Council to approve the project development agreement which is the next step in this process. Wolf stated, "One of the things we talked about was the LED street lighting. We've got this pilot study program that we worked with all the different manufacturers. We're able to bring up to $5,000 dollars worth of lighting fixtures to the City to create this pilot study. The City would determine where these light fixtures would go along with the type of fixtures used. We would look at color rendition to make sure it matches the requirements or the goals the City has for its street lighting and then we would have the City staff install the actual fixtures. What would Ameresco do during that time? We would do spot measurements on the existing fixtures so we can get a baseline as to What your current energy consumption is, then after the LED fixtures are in place, and had some burn hours on them, we would go back and take readings again. That way we could calculate, based on hours of operation, the difference in the energy savings. Not only are you getting energy savings on lighting, you are getting operation and maintenance savings. You don't have to maintain these fixtures nearly as much ". Mr. Wolf went on to state the City would obtain approximately five times the maintenance savings over the current lighting. "That number will be figured into an analysis to determine what the payback is for the equipment that will be installed because these projects can be financed with the City up to 20 years through the state legislation which describes how these guaranteed energy projects work within the State of Minnesota. The result of the pilot study would determine how the City might want to move ahead if they like what they 'see. If it turns out the goals were met for the City and they want to keep the streetlights, then the City would either allow us to move forward with a continued project development and implementation (and costs for those Public Works Commission October 8, 2012 — Page 7 fixtures would just be rolled into the entire project as part of the energy savings paying for it). There's no out -of- pocket money spent. If, for example, there's a negative result for the tests, the City would have to do nothing more than take the fixtures down, ship them back to us and there would be no cost out of pocket." Kjellberg asked if the project goes forward, how big of a project are we looking at? Mr. Wolf said that is up to the City. "Ameresco will work within your goals. Some communities are going full blast into complete LED replacement. They have done testing over the last 2 years and are comfortable with it." Harry Taylor stated the City might look at the C -1 or C -2 street pavement management project area, perhaps 100200 lights or something of that nature to include in the study. "We want to be real careful and make sure support equipment is there. We also want to make sure we have some options on the type of lights. Apparently there are different types of LED lights now which is a good thing in my estimation. The other good thing is that Ameresco is working with the larger manufacturers." Gary Kjellberg asked "if we move forward, at some point in time do we have to come up with any money up front? Or are savings where the money is coming from ?" Kent responded, "the savings is where the money comes from ". Mr. Wolf went on to state, "out of that $130 thousand we estimated the City could save in energy savings annually, roughly $70,000 of that was from the streetlighting itself. That was based on some estimated number of standards. And that's where we would go in the next step: a detailed study to get the exact count to be able to generate that. Ameresco looked at all the facilities in the City and found another $46,000 in energy savings to get these facilities through window replacement, furnace replacement, building envelope lighting, water conservation, anywhere there is energy use or operational maintenance savings from the installation of new equipment. We found we could build a project that would save the City $46,000." "We would build a project," stated Wolf, "and configure it with a City contract to have us come back to measure and verify the savings. The power factor is another factor you are being billed for by Xcel. We can correct that. I think you have done some of the power factor correction but there is still more work that can be done. These are all the things we would continue to investigate during the next phase of the project. The equipment we install will exceed, (other than the lamps, light bulbs) the life expectancy of the equipment installed. The equipment will always outlast the contract term." "Just to give you an example," indicated Wolf, "the $113,000 1 told you we found as an estimate would fund a $1.7 million dollar project. That is without any avoided operation and maintenance phase ". Public Works Commission October 8, 2012 — Page 8 Mr. Wolf stated, "This pilot study is an opportunity for you to look at what the .current technology is and get a ,feel for it and get some input from citizens and community people as they move throughout the area. Right now, funding rates are at the lowest we have seen in 30 years. We're working with the St. Paul Port Authority, who is providing funding for these projects. If the City has vendors and contractors they are comfortable with, we work with them. It's all about how you want to build a project." Wolf went on to say, "Here are the project steps: We've done a concept approval because we've done a preliminary analysis. I'm asking you to recommend to the City Council to approve the next phase of our project which is the project development agreement. That allows us to do is come in and do a detailed study of the items we have been talking about. Ameresco does the engineering that needs to be done, we write the. scope of work, we obtain fixed bids that can't be change ordered and then we determine the guaranteed energy savings that will build and fund a project like this. Then we work with the City to self fund a project like this. Because of our size and experience, we leverage our work to give you the best rates possible. That's the final analysis, the next step. We're engineers, but we're not an engineering company. We complete all of these steps to get to a performance agreement which allows us to build a project and guarantee the savings for a number of years." Kjellberg inquired "At what point in time does the $12,500 come into play? What point would the City have to pay the full price ?" Wolf responded, "the $12,500.00 is what they call an exit fee. If the City. Council approves a project development agreement, we complete all the work. If we develop a project that self -funds itself, that meets the goals of the City and it's decided for whatever reason they don't want to do it, then they have to pay the exit fee which is $12,500. If we develop a project and it doesn't pay for itself, the pilot study doesn't' work because of the energy and maintenance savings, there is no cost. If we develop a project, it's self- funding and the City decides to move forward with it, all of those costs are rolled into the fund project financing at a later date. But if we develop a project with hard costs, a contractor, engineering, design scopes of work, contractor costs, financing and energy savings and the City, for whatever reason, decides not to move forward, that's when that $12,500 comes into play." Wolf reiterated there are no upfront costs. "We bring to you more than just engineering, ''we bring the technical skills to develop the project, we secure the scopes of work and the contractor pricing with no opportunity for change orders. We've put together the guaranteed energy savings., We come back to you with a proposal that says we can do this much work. On a yearly basis, the energy savings are figured over four seasons because there are variations in energy use over the seasons. The energy savings we guarantee will exceed the costs for the financial commitment to a finance party. Phase by phase, we would come back after the project development agreement Public Works Commission October 8, 2012 -- Page 9 is approved. The project will be a "phased approach." Commission Member Jeff Podoll inquired, how long the project development will take. Wolf responded it would probably be done in 90 days. "If the City wishes to limit the project to a select few facilities, that would be fine. If they want to do few streetlights, fine. We are working within your goals and your needs, not ours." MOTION MADE BY JEFF PODOLL, SECONDED BY GARY KJELLBERG TO RECOMMEND THE COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LED LIGHTING FIXTURES PILOT PROJECT. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. Kent Wolf thanked the group for inviting him to speak tonight and he looks forward to making a recommendation to the Cottage Grove City Council, whenever that may be. 6. OLD BUSINESS None. 7, PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE Harry Taylor reported: • Mike Weber, a new Streets employee started his* position last week. Mike formerly worked as a seasonal worker in the Parks Department. • Telecommunication companies are going to 4G so the City has been working with Sprint, T- Mobile, AT &T all trying to get their new systems up and running on the water tower sites • The splash pad is closed for the season • Irrigation systems are being winterized • Storm sewer areas are being cleaned • Street sweeping is taking place • New equipment purchases for next year are being reviewed by City staff • Fall hydrant flushing is complete • The Belden Quiet Zone Project went through, however, a few trains are still sounding their horns. • The new bucket truck for the Streetlight Department arrived today • The ribbon cutting for the Ravine Parkway Bridge went well last Saturday. • Barrels have been removed from the 80 Street/East Pt. Douglas /Hardwood traffic change area. Motorists are now getting used to the lane changes. Public Works Commission October 8, 2012 —Page 10 8, ENGINEER'S REPORT Harry Taylor reported: i Frattalone has completed the final grading work on the Gateway Pond., Citx staff with meet with Washington County regarding the County Road 19 and 70 Street Roundabout to come up with some landscaping plans, o The 2011 Pavement Management Project is being closed out after some minor seeding to be done in the Pine Coulee area along with some grass restoration, Work at Woodridge Pond is complete 80 Street Box Culvert work continues. it is hoped to have the project complete by the end of the month. Work is progressing well. 9. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE Derrick L.ehrke reported the last Council Meeting was pretty light. A majority of the discussion centered around the traffic control changes that recently took place at 80th Street /East Point Douglas and Hardwood Avenues, There was also a variance request from a resident who wishes to have the City allow an in- ground swimming pool and decking six feet from the rear lot line when 15 feet is the minimum rear yard setback and to place the in- ground pool and pool decking on drainage /utility easements. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REQUESTS, Commission Chair Gary Kjellberg commented there seems to be a large number of requests for variances to the City Code. He feels if there are ordinances in place, residents should abide by them. 11; ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Matthew Forshee, seconded by Gary Kjellberg, Motion was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Sf&rr�y CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION December 10, 2012 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, December 10, 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: Members Absent: Members Excused Staff Present: Also Present: 3. APPROVE MINUTES Gary Kjellberg, Jeff Podoll, Michael Edman, Alex Chernyaev, Jeff Rolling Matthew Forshee Harry Taylor, Public Works Supervisor Gary Orloff, Streets Foreman Allan Larson, Engineering Technician Derrick Lehrke, City Council Member October 8, 2012 Minutes approval tabled until the next meeting (No Quorum). 4. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS None. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. -City Sign Request - Stop Sign Change /Revision at 87 Street and Grenadier Avenue Intersection Engineering Technician, Allan Larson, explained that the area in question was again evaluated last week, however, the entire area was reviewed via a traffic study Public Works Commission December 10, 2012 — Page 2 completed by Bonestroo and adopted by the City Council in 2004. Since that time, traffic patterns have changed little, therefore, staff recommends no change be made to the current policy and propose the request for a 4 -way stop sign at the intersection of 87 and Grenadier be denied. Commission Member Jeff Podoll stated he lives two houses down from the intersection of 87 and Grospoint which does have a stop sign. He estimates about 75% of the motorists slow down, 20% do not slow down at all and just go through the stop area and only about 5% of the drivers actually do stop. Podoll stated stop signs are not a way to control speed. Kjellberg indicated he agreed with Podoll and this situation appears to be an enforcement issue and as such, should be reported to Public Safety. At this point Commission Member Michael Edman arrived and wished to further discuss the stop sign request. Edman asked that next time a sign request is on the agenda, he wished to have the actual request form (source document) included in the packet. Upon further discussion, Edman indicated he can envision a scenario where a sign policy is deficient in addressing a problem due to growth in a community. Public Works Supervisor Harry Taylor indicated that traffic control (signage) issues are evaluated when pavement management projects are being done. It was reiterated that traffic patterns at 87 and Grenadier have not changed significantly since the traffic control study was done back in 2004. B. Boulevard Tree Discussion City Forester Steve Bowe stated he would like to get the ball rolling to put an ordinance in place specifying what citizens can or cannot do as far as placing trees or other plants in the boulevard. With the recent removal of a large number of ash trees along with routine tree trimming, staff has really taken note of how many residents place trees or other plantings on the boulevard. It would be very beneficial for staff to have a means of enforcing a potential ordinance since the City does not have a formal ordinance in place regarding plantings in the boulevard, only a `rule of thumb'. There are currently no ramifications for residents if they do plant items in' the boulevard. The importance of a policy /ordinance is especially necessary due to EAB (Emerald Ash Borer) coming in. When residents start losing their.front yard trees and if there's already another tree in place, there should be no more trees planted. Commission Member Edman asked, "When you say, boulevard, what do you mean by that? To me, a boulevard is a strip of land between two streets with one street going one way and the other going another direction. A strip of land in the middle, that's what I think a boulevard, is." Commission Chair Gary Kjellberg responded that the boulevard is 30 feet from the center line of the roadway towards the house. Public Works Supervisor Harry Taylor stated that generally, residential areas have a 60 foot right- of- Public Works Commission December 10, 2012 -- Page 3 way. "Generally the road is 34 feet back of curb to back of curb. From there,you have 13 feet up to the property line on each side of the road. Generally throughout town, that is what you are going to have: 13 feet of grass area actually is the City right -of -way. Past practices include planting a 'front yard tree' as opposed to a boulevard tree. At, that time there were too many private utilities and too many trees were being planted so the procedure was changed to once again planting on the boulevard. Generally residents are allowed one boulevard tree unless they are a corner lot. In that case, they can have one tree in the front and one tree on the side. It has been found that some boulevards have anywhere from three to nine trees. It's a costly feature for the City to pay to trim these trees on a five -year program. When people have too many trees on their .boulevard, there are no ramifications. The City actually becomes liable for the tree because it's on our property so if it comes down in a storm, we generally take it down, stump it and restore the yard, things of that nature." Edman asked, "Who told you that you had liability from a legal standpoint ?" Taylor responded, "the tree becomes our problem as far as maintaining it and taking it down ". Edman asked if we have any idea how many trees are within the right -of -way. Bowe responded, "About 14,000." Kjellberg asked, "How many do you think you take down each year ?" Street Foreman Gary Orloff responded , "Between 125,and 175 trees are taken down each winter by the Street Department, but that's not all of them ". Up to 300 total are taken down, including those by a contractor. Edman inquired what the rationale was for the 13 foot right -of -way instead of 10 or 15 feet. Taylor responded that 13 feet has been the standard right of way. Edman asked "If we moved the right -of -way to 10 feet, how many of those 14,000 trees would move outside the right- of4ay ?" Podoll responded 'that a 10 -foot right of way would be problematic and would likely involve the curb stops for the houses. Taylor added the right-of-way is needed for.utilities and sidewalks. Engineering Technician Allan Larson stated the 13 feet being discussed is back of curb to the property line. To move it to 10 feet would actually widen the street width and you would not be able to move the property line because that's been platted. Edman commented the word 'boulevard' is problematic because it can mean different things to different people and this term should be clarified. Kjellberg commented, "what we ought to do is forget about the terminology of boulevard and stick with right -of- way so there is a better understanding of what you have — as an example: 30 feet from the center of the road each way." Council Member Lehrke stated the right- of-way still belongs to the homeowner; however, the City has the right to use it as a utility easement. Edman stated the entire City is not residential so it's not a uniform situation for everyone. Taylor stated collector streets will have different right -of -ways. Public Works Commission December 10, 2012 -- Page 4 Edman stated he believes this issue is a serious problem because it opens up a lot of cans of worms. "We're talking about replacing thousands of trees potentially. Homeowners, or even the City, should have a real set rule other than a rule of thumb." Bowe agreed, stating an ordinance would give the City something to stand on. As an example, a homeowner with multiple boulevard trees would be given the option to move a tree or the City may cut it down. If a tree is 20 inches in diameter, it won't be out down, but once the tree is dead, they have to understand it won't be replaced. Gary Kjellberg asked, "What about people who have multiple trees in the right of way? If we leave them all alone, it costs the City more money to maintain them because they would be responsible for trimming and doing this and that. If the tree becomes damaged, the City is the one that has to pay to take it down, not the homeowner. That needs to be addressed." Commission Member Jeff Podoli stated, "It's fine if they want to plant another tree if they are going to be responsible for it, but they just plant it and then they're not" (responsible). He stated he recently had his silver mapl6 tree trimmed at a cost of $250 dollars. Edman stated there must be a hold harmless for trees existing inside the right -of -way as of the date the Council passed the ordinance and have- someone figure out how to keep track of that. "If you put a hold harmless in place when a potential ordinance comes into effect, it gives the- City the ability to manage and go forward ". Podoll asked Bowe if he has checked with other cities to determine if they have a similar ordinance. Bowe responded that he has spoken with one of his contractors and it appears the City of Hudson is experiencing this same issue. Hudson officials referred the issue to both their Parks and Public Works Commissions and it was kicked back because it was unclear how it should be handled. Large cities such as Minneapolis or St. Paul will be defined differently because their boulevard is 4 feet of grass and sidewalk. The City of Cottage Grove will have to look at similar -sized communities. Derrick Lehrke asked what would be wrong with saying the City does not own the trees and if additional trees are planted, they would be the responsibility of the homeowner. Taylor commented that in one of the newer city residential areas, the City went away from boulevard trees to a front yard free. The boulevard, or right-of-way was then clear, but the private utilities went up beyond that area and a tree was given to the homeowner, but there wasn't any place to plant it. The only place left to plant it was the boulevard. Lehrke responded that the homeowner should then be responsible for the tree. if the tree should need work, the residents would be required to pay for it. Taylor asked how the City could keep track of that. Bowe stated the City of Hudson actually had a permit system, but a permit system doesn't stop the City from having to trim the tree in the future. Lehrke asked if the City gets better deal, or a group rate to Public Works Commission December 10, 2012 — Page 5 trim boulevard trees. Bowe replied the City pays about $50 -$60 dollars to trim a 15- inch diameter tree. Lehrke added if a resident doesn't cut his grass, the City has someone cut the grass for them and the homeowners are billed. "if they don't have their trees trimmed, can we add this to the utility bill? Maybe that's the way to go." Mike Edman stated the real problem is the potentially large quantity of tree care because of EAR "If a homeowner obtains a tree planting permit, they would have to show where the tree would be planted. If it was in the right -of -way, it could be denied. A lot can be tracked with a permit system. Wouldn't it be better if everyone replaced their ash trees as opposed to not replanting them? You don't want fewer trees, you want more." Podoll stated his front yard tree was replaced in 2002 as part of the pavement management project. "They came with a clam this year and pulled it out and put in a new tree to be proactive, rather than wait for it to go bad." Bowe said that's the biggest issue. "If -we don't do anything, we're going to get a mono filter of maple trees. There are bugs out there that will affect everything. I think diversity is the key for us to manage a healthy forest ". Edman* stated if there is a permit system you can say the City would have some control as to what variety of tree is planted. Bowe said this would be a good opportunity to educate the homeowner as many people aren't educated on diversity of species. "They just think maples are the best." Podoll asked if this.permit option would really solve the problem? The problem is the City only wants a homeowner to have one tree on the boulevard. Steve mentioned they could take out a permit for secondary trees. Edman commented the City couldn't tell people what kind of tree to plant in their own yard, only what could be planted in the right -of -way. Kjellberg asked if there is a list of trees that can be planted on the boulevard to which Bowe responded that "Yes, we have a list of approved boulevard trees (there are about 12 varieties on the list)." Taylor said, "We don't need to overanalyze this. We just want some type of ordinance or policy that is better than what we have now. We just need some type of policy to help educate the homeowner." Lehrke asked, "Are we trying to specifically get to one tree on the boulevard or are we saying more than one tree is a problem? If a tree needs to be trimmed, we (the City), could bill the homeowner. If the resident is paying all the maintenance bills, they get the fairness. If the homeowner is paying for everything, is it a problem to have two trees or three trees? Would that work if someone from the City had the final say ?" Bowe responded, "Some yards could definitely handle that amount of trees. if this were done, especially with ash tree replacement and there's room. I'm not totally against the whole idea ". Gary Kjellberg asked, "Where do you draw the line on the number of trees ?" On his street, an older street, "Everyone has one tree and it looks nice. There is a yard across from mine with two boulevard trees and it looks cluttered." Taylor commented there is a big cost to boulevard tree maintenance. "If the tree dies, the resident comes to the City and says, "It's your tree, take it down. If a storm damages the tree, the homeowner Public Works Commission December 10, 2012 — Page 6 contacts the City to take care of it. For example, if a property has two trees and one is dying from EAB, the City should not have to plant a replacement tree because there is another tree on the boulevard. Those are the types of issues we can work through if we have some type of ordinance." Edman stated the City has to be careful. As an example, he has 300 trees in his yard. "I live in a wooded area, possibly classified as urban reserve or urban residential. Some new developments may have a giant oak tree that the developer decides to leave. It's hard to get a cookie cutter pattern for everyone, however, uniformity makes a lot of sense. If homeowners do not take care of the tree issues such as trimming, or removing it when it's diseased, the City will take care of it and send the homeowner a bill. Can we retroactively do that to .everyone? For years, the City has. been managing the trees essentially for free, and then all of a sudden, when these services used to be free to residents, they're now being charged an ad hoc fee." Gary Orloff added, "Tree care is becoming a bigger expense than it was forty years ago. Residents don't realize how much tree care is costing. The whole summer we had five employees trimming off single limbs that were hanging. It's expensive. People used to pick up the small branches that fell and just put them in their trash can but now they call Public Works." Podoll added, "During winter months, the Street Department has four to five employees out for two or three weeks taking down trees, full time, and then hauling these trees out. In spring, a stump grinding contractor is hired. Then, the area is marked for a new tree. The Parks Department goes out with the auger, augers in the hole and a new boulevard tree is planted. It's a very expensive proposition." Taylor stated what the City is looking for is to. go forward with some type of ordinance and check with other cities to see what they are doing. " We must keep in mind this is not a "one size fits all. The ordinance doesn't have to cover everything, but at least it will be a step in the right direction." Bowe stated as an example, the City of Woodbury doesn't maintain the boulevard trees, but has a permit system. The City of Eagan does the same thing. He added Woodbury does care for the trees in the older portion of their City, however. Bowe stated he attended a conference and had an opportunity to speak with the City Forester from Fort Wayne, Indiana. They are in the thick of things with emerald ash borer with thousands of trees dying each year and are trying to deal with the handling of dead trees on private property. Edman stated, "There may be a dead tree in the middle of someone's back yard, and it's ugly. What if somebody's house is painted purple, what if someone has really mismanaged the shingle color? This could be a slippery slope when you start looking at the tree as an aesthetic nuisance as opposed to a hazardous nuisance." Taylor mentioned that a dead tree may be dangerous to a neighbor because the tree may fall on a house or a garage. It's also very hazardous to Public Works Commission December 10, 2012 — Page 7 take down a tree that's already dead because it doesn't fall right. Bowe added the forester in Fort Wayne receives about 140 calls per day regarding dead ash trees. Council Member Derrick Lehrke suggested to Steve Bowe that he gather information from other similar -sized cities and find out what policies they follow regarding boulevard trees. Edman added he would also request some thought process, like a five, ten or twenty year plan or is the tree management going to grow at such a rate that it becomes economically cheaper to hire it out? " We may think about this differently than if we are doing this in- house." Taylor explained the smaller tree maintenance is .handled in- house. Bowe stated the City is getting a very good deal from contractors for trimming. Edman stated he would be curious to see the actual numbers of a third party and then make an estimate of what the City's man hours are. If he were on the Council, he would like to know what is being spent so a fair comparison could be made. He asked if our tree trimmers are 1SA certified. Orloff replied that the employees who trim trees receive training. Harry added we could check with the League of Minnesota Cities on this issue as they typically have such guidelines. Lehrke questioned if it's a good idea to add a tree or is the City just trying to take down ash trees and replace them now before they area problem? Bowe responded this is a three year program and he's all for treatment which has been working, however, it's also a tool for staggered removal. At some point the trees are going to be gone so basically, treatment is giving the City ownership of when 'those trees will be removed. "These trees can be managed effectively when we have the time to bring them down now." Lehrke asked Bowe if it works for him to have that second tree growing and then take the other down at some point if it gets sick. Bowe stated at some point in the near future the City will determine which citizens want to have their ash tree removed which Would eliminate those trees needing treatment. Kjellberg asked if it's more difficult to take a tree down if there is an one next to it or in the way. Bowe said that makes removal more difficult. Kjellberg added when there is only one tree to remove, one must be cautious; however, if there's another one there, you really have to be careful. Edman stated, "if the longterm plan is to keep tree management in- house, we want to make certain we care about that." Lehrke suggested that perhaps for the next three years or whatever, the City will put a tree in. Ten years from now, however, the City will no longer be responsible for that tree anymore. Edman added that giving a resident a free tree is sort of an "olive branch ", but it may be worth it. "Many people get really nervous if we talk about charging." He added that perhaps if an ash tree is removed, it could be replaced with a maple or an oak or whatever because we are taking down their ash tree. Jeff Podoll stated if a resident already has one tree on the boulevard (that they planted), plus an 'ash tree and if the City comes and takes the ash tree, that's where Steve's problem is because they ask for another tree. Public Works Commission December 10, 2012 — Page 8 Bowe indicated he wants to come up with a policy that's uniform. "If we allow homeowners to have multiple trees on the boulevard, our budget is not big enough to handle that." Commission Member Edman said there are really two issues: "One is the ordinance issue — a tree can't be planted in the right of way without our permission. The other issue is a policy issue, what do we do with the trees we've already gotten rid of ?" Kjellberg said residents don't have to accept the tree if they don't want one. "As I understand it, there's a list of approved trees so a homeowner can choose what tree he wants as long as it conforms to whatever else is in the neighborhood. We don't want to have all one kind," Derrick Lehrke said that if the City is going to own the trees, it should be one tree per boulevard. "You don't get a choice on what the replacement is, It's our tree." Edman said, If a different forester comes on board at some point, a policy change is easy. An ordinance is a lot harder to change. An ordinance should .give the City clear authority and be clearly understood by each resident: You ,don't any trees inside the right of way. That right -of -way is a separate piece of property. The policy can be manipulated by a really mad homeowner or different people making the policy, kind of like how we worked on the Pavement Management Policy. Some policy items were changed as appropriate. Policies may change but we want to make sure the ordinance allows the policy to do whatever it needs to do. And the policy is that we manage trees the way we think is best." Jeff Podoll said this absolutely makes sense except for the problem inadvertently created a number of years ago when boulevard trees were changed to front yard trees. "Now we're saying everyone has to have a boulevard tree. In the PineCliff Development, they don't have boulevard trees, they have front yard trees. Can the City come in and put in a boulevard tree ?" Taylor commented Public Works did not support the front yard tree concept. "The trees ultimately ended up to be boulevard trees because there wasn't room to plant them closer to the houses due to the underground utilities." Lehrke stated, "The City is now paying for maintenance of a tree that was planted by a homeowner. That's the problem." Kjellberg asked if the wood from the diseased trees can be sold. Bowe said he looked into this when the program was started because the largest trees were cut down first. The contractor required 10,000 board feet before he would come out, For now the trees are being chipped at the compost site. Public Works Commission December 10, 2012 -- Page 9 Edman now asked "Do you envision, long -term, the City wanting to own trees in the right-of-way?" Taylor responded, "This has always been the policy: that the right -of -way tree is owned by the City. Can that change? Yes." Edman went on to state as the City grows, new development will happen. "We can restrict, in a better way, where they put their new trees, therefore, making the expansion of your duties smaller because you can tell them they are not putting a tree within three feet of the right -of -way. If that was done, a comprehensive plan accounting for new growth, can you continue to do the same thing you are doing now ?" Taylor stated that like any other ordinance, it must be followed. Engineering Technician Allan Larson stated one of the biggest problems, now and in the future is that there are utilities in the right-of-way. . "The City has 10 feet from the property line for utilities because the right- of-way is consumed with sign posts, streetlights, sidewalks and a few other utilities so the competition for that tree space is going to be where you can put it because as far as utilities, it isn't just Xcel Energy and Minnegasco, you have Access Communications and others stitching in a new line and that right-of-way is getting consumed and tight." Edman stated the group should probably go forward assuming the City will keep managing trees and what can be done from an ordinance standpoint to have better control in the future. Kjellberg believes we have to figure out how to get one tree per boulevard on an ordinance. But then asked "What do we do about residents that have multiple trees ?" Lehrke stated, "We don't want to pay for the care of two trees." Kjellberg doesn't like the `grandfathering -in' option either. If that option is used, how will the City keep track of, and also prevent people from planting more trees on the boulevard? Bowe said if it's possible for a tree to be moved if it's 4 inches in diameter or below. Lehrke also stated a problem may lie in the fact if an ordinance does not indicate there is one tree per boulevard. If a residence has multiple trees they maintain, they also will need to pay to have them removed. Edman believes residences with more than one boulevard tree should be grandfathered in because every lot is laid out differently. Kjellberg asked if some trees are grandfathered in, and there is a permit process, how do you enforce it? Edman responded there should be a database of people who have permits. Orloff asked, "If there are multiple trees on the boulevard, which one do we trim? Which one does the City care for ?" Edman said they could pick a tree because he doesn't want to burden the homeowner, having done nothing wrong. You - are still going to have homeowners that lose out if a new ordinance takes effect. He asked. Bowe how Public Works Commission December 10, 2092 — Page 10 many people have an excess of one tree? Bowe responded that you could get to this figure by counting all the residents that have corner lots. Kjellberg said if these corner lot homeowners were grandfathered in, he would want the ordinance to state if a storm takes another boulevard tree down (not owned by the City) that the City can still remove it and the homeowner then be billed. If homeowners decide to keep additional boulevard trees, they will also be taking on the liability if the trees fall. Edman inquired how many residences have more than one tree in the right of way. Bowe replied "about 50 ". Mr. Edman went on to state if we are dealing with just 50 homeowners with multiple trees, those residents could be given the option to decide which tree they desire the City to maintain. "The additional tree could be removed at no cost or if not, the homeowner would take full responsibility for the upkeep of the tree, The homeowner would then be given a form to sign indicating. which tree will be theirs, and which will be the City's," Edman also had a concern from a legal standpoint. "If a home is sold, what if the next homeowner does want to. care for the tree? There are some legal hurdles because a tree is not a fixture of the land. This is an issue that must be researched." Kjellberg suggested f=orester Steve Bowe return to a future meeting with a written document, something the Commission can go through and dissect. L.ehrke suggested the Community Development Department become involved in this issue to see what input they have. Mike Edman reiterated, "that's why you need data. If it's going to be an aesthetic question, you need to approach it. Scientifically, we are removing these trees because they are not healthy. Mathematically, we need a policy so we can better manage how we are properly maintaining the healthy tree population." Bowe added the importance of making sure it is clearly stated 'one boulevard tree per lot' in the developer's agreement. This topic will be discussed at a future meeting once Steve Bowe has an opportunity to work on a draft ordinance /policy. 6. OLD BUSINESS ►hfL- Public Works Commission December 10, 2012 -- Page 11 7. PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE Harry Taylor reported: • The 'City .experienced its' first big snow event of the season on Sunday. Before this, trucks had only been out salting one other time which was around Thanksgiving. Michel Edman inquired "How many times do you have to plow after an event like this to which Taylor responded "two to three times ". Streets Foreman Gary Orloff reported that crews worked from 6:00 in the morning until 9:00pm in the evening and then were up again the next day at 4:00 am. Taylor reported a 22 inch total snowfall last winter. Orloff reported yesterday's storm was the third largest December storm in history • Parks crews are working day and night shifts to ready the outdoor rinks Fleet Maintenance is working on equipment specs for a street sweeper, loader, and a new trash truck Pond trail work has been just completed in the Pine Tree Pond area 8. ENGINEER'S REPORT Allan Larson reported: • The 80 Street Box Culvert is 95% complete. The guard rails still need to be installed and in spring, touch up work and landscaping will be done. • Storm sewer improvements are done on Langley Avenue in Old Cottage Grove. • Pine Tree Pond work is complete • ..Joint Service agreements for sealcoating, striping and street sweeping are being worked on with the Cities of'Newport, St. Paul Park and Denmark Township. 9. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE City Council Member Derrick Lehrke reported the Council certified the Tax Levy, which was not increased from last year. The 2013 I�udget was also approved. Public Works Commission December 10, 2012 -- Page 12 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Council Member Lehrke wishes to discuss the Winter Parking Ordinance at the next meeting. Commission Chair Gary Kjellberg wished to thank the Public Works crews for the great snowplowing done over the weekend. Commission Member Jeff Podoll inquired about the status of the streetlight program that was presented a couple of meetings ago (LED Pilot Program). Harry Taylor responded there are other studies being done besides the streetlight portion and solar energy is being evaluated. 11. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Michael Edman, seconded by Jeff Podoll. Motion was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:03 pm. Respectfully submitted, PAtrici61 .storbU