HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-22 MINUTESCITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
November 18, 2013
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the Public Works Commission of
Cottage Grove was duly held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway,
Cottage Grove, Minnesota on Monday, September 16, 2013 at 7:00 pm.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Commission Chair Tony Jurgens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Tony Jurgens, Michael Edman, Andrea Cloutier,
Jeff Podoll, Michael Smith
Members Absent: Peter Black
Members Excused: Matthew Forshee
Staff Present: Les Burshten, Director of Public Works
Harry Taylor, Public Works Supervisor
Gary Orloff, Street Department Foreman
Rick Alt, Utility Department Foreman
Adam Moshier, Special Projects Intern
Also Present:
3. APPROVE MINUTES
Council Member Justin Olsen
The minutes of the September 17, 2013 minutes were approved.
4. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS
None
Agenda will stand approved.
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 2
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. City Maintenance of Yard Trees — Pine Arbor 1St, 2nd and 3 rd Additions
Les Burshten explained Pine Arbor resident, Kevin Raun, called recently inquiring about
boulevard or front yard trees and how they pertained to their association, the Pine Arbor
Homeowners Association. Homeowners in this area would like to discuss the Tree
Planting Maintenance Policy as it relates to other cities.
Burshten explained that historically, boulevard trees were installed as houses were built.
There is a misconception that the City pays for these trees and their installation, which
is not true. The home developer pays for the trees and the City provides a location
where the tree will be planted. At one point, these responsibilities were transferred and
the former boulevard tree was now referred to as a front yard tree. Generally speaking,
about 10 -15 feet behind a curb is where the right -of -way ends and the private property
begins. The right -of -way area is City property and is used for snow storage; work in the
streets and things of that nature.
Burshten went on to state, "Since that time, the configuration of lots has changed and
the City has now gone back to boulevard trees. The Developer's Agreement for Pine
Arbor clearly states there were to be front yard trees in these areas.
Kevin Raun, 6791 Pine Arbor Boulevard, stated he is here representing the Pine Arbor
Townhome Association. "As a 30 -plus year resident of the City, the first home that we
lived in had boulevard trees and it has the most beautiful canopy now. That was one of
the cons we had when we moved away into a new subdivision. We found out we had
front yard trees, they are not boulevard trees and so we've been learning the vernacular
on those types of trees. Our association is about seven years old and we have 60 units
with its own front yard tree. In the last seven years, we've had one tree die. We
thought it was a boulevard tree so we called the City and to and behold, that's what
started this whole process. We thought it would be worthwhile to come up here and
address the Commission tonight with regard to that ".
"We did a lot of homework, as Les said ", stated Raun. "We looked at Woodbury,
surrounding cities, the core cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul. What we found is that most
of the cities buy the trees, put them in and maintain them because then they have
control over the growth of the boulevard canopy and that seems to make sense."
Pine Arbor resident, Steve Cavaluzzi, 6840 Pine Arbor Lane South, stated that he, too,
serves on the board for the Homeowners Association of Pine Arbor. He added there
are some concerns as to understanding what the policy is for the City and what can
happen in the future.
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 3
Mr. Cavaluzzi stated, "Pine Arbor has 32 twinhomes and 64 units. Each unit does have
a tree in the front of the home either on the boulevard or set back anywhere from 10 to
20 feet and some of it will vary because of the nature of the design of the development
where we have full court or a semi circle, or whatever you call some of the designs so
the trees will vary in position where they were planted. The majority of our trees, if we
take 64 of them for the units, 25 are linden and the balance of them are ash. These
trees right now, vary from 15 to 20 feet in height." Mr. Cavalluzi produced a photo of
Pine Arbor Lane where trees are set back about 15 -20 feet.
"I noted when looking at Pine Arbor 1, 2 and 3 Developers Agreement, Section 5 -10, it
states the developer pays the City and the City locates where a tree goes ", indicated
Cavaluzzi. "The question is, 'Where does Pine Arbor fall into the City's guidelines for
replacing dead boulevard treesT Pine Arbor Boulevard has a sidewalk running all the
way through it and the trees are set back about 3 or 4 feet behind the sidewalk. Are
they considered boulevard trees? The other question would be if these trees do fall
under the ash borer bug, and they all get infected. Right now, maintenance is done on
these trees but we can't control what comes from outside of the neighborhood so that's
an issue for us. If we have 40 -50 trees go down and they have to be taken out because
they are diseased, that is quite an expense for the association."
Cavalluzzi stated that association residents are concerned if these trees get damaged
from a storm and they come down, does the City cover them or are the residents on
their own? "All Pine Arbor homeowners are taxpayers for the City and every resident
should be treated equally. They are requesting the City to take that under
consideration. If the Pine Arbor residents are not covered under the City's plan, if
something major happens, can they obtain trees at the 'City's cost for replacement ?"
Commission Vice Chair Michael Edman had a couple of questions. "In purchasing into
the townhome association, I assume all residents were given a set of rules, covenants
and bylaws as to what type of landscaping costs is covered by the association outside
of regular mowing."
Raun responded that the association only covers mowing, and irrigation is obviously
built in, but the trees are not part of that association covenant. "They are up to each
individual, either we as the association or the homeowner. In some cases, the
developer put in extra fir trees and obviously these are front yard trees and the
association is responsible for those trees too. Another issue is the confirmed list of
trees that the City uses in planting boulevard trees and we are kind of caught in this
center ground. When the trees die, we don't have to replace them, there's nothing in
the ordinance that we could see that would require us to do so. We're not sure we
could replace them all if a major storm came through at roughly $500 -$700 per tree."
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 4
Commission Member Smith asked, "Has the association received any sort of written
notification from the City forester regarding the emerald ash borer situation that exists in
the City over the last couple of years ?" Raun responded, "I think we receive the same
information that comes to all homeowners, whether it's in the water bill, or that type of
information. I don't recall a special mailing of any type ". Smith also asked if they had
ever received a letter stating that a tree under a certain diameter would be removed per
the City Policy, to which Raun responded they did not.
Commission Member Jeff Podoll stated that this involves private property. "At one
point did the City take the responsibility of going on the private property to address
these tree issues and if they do, what's to say to a homeowner on my side of the
highway? You're doing it for private property over there, come over here and take care
of my front yard tree. I think we have to be most leery of the private property aspect. If
it was on the right -of -way, obviously we wouldn't be having this discussion but since it is
on private property, I don't know if the City would want to get involved in as far as if
someone gets hurt trimming a tree or something like that. At what point in time is the
City not going to have any responsibility ?" Chair Tony Jurgens stated these trees are
not within the right -of -way, they are further back on private property. Raun stated he
actually thinks some trees are within 15 feet of what's considered the boulevard.
Les Burshten stated 15 feet is just a benchmark and the trees observed were outside of
that, but this can be double checked. The right -of -way could be eight feet in some
areas, ten in others. Now, if a tree fell in the street, the City would cut the tree off and
remove anything that fell in the right -of -way or the street but the other portion would be
the responsibility of the homeowner or the association.
Kevin Raun stated, "Now the City is requiring the trees come back into the boulevard
area so they can own and maintain them, is what I understand. There was a period of
time where they were bumping them behind the actual City right -of -way or boulevard
area and so that's where we're at with this. I don't know how big these trees will get, if
branches will go out into the street and impede the traffic for high profile vehicles or
whatever, but any kind of trimming, anything like that is our responsibility and that's the
decision we are trying to make. We don't know if that's a responsibility that we should
take on or maintain. We are looking for a couple of things, from a public policy
standpoint. I have some information from the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants. Had the City decided to get out of the boulevard tree business, I guess
we would be OK, but they decided to get out of it for a few years and then get back into
it, therefore a few of these subdivisions such as ours are now on the outside, we don't
have that benefit. I can assure you that our tax money goes to provide and replace
trees in other parts of the City. What we're looking for tonight is an equity issue. Can
we reach some sort of middle ground? If our trees die, can we maybe go onto the City's
bid for tree replacement or maintenance ?"
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 5
Podoll questioned, "Kevin, what is the current situation with the homeowner's
association as far as backyard trees, trees that aren't in question. Do you maintain
those now or does the homeowner "? Raun responded, "They are ours to maintain, we
have let our residents, through petition, put in extra trees, but it's very clear if they put in
other trees, we don't allow them in the boulevard, but it's their responsibility if they
become diseased or if they are blown over, they have to take care of them. Otherwise,
the association is responsible for these trees."
"My point before was ", stated Podoll, "just the liability of the City being on private
property. I don't know how that would really wash out. You're paying taxes as well as
am and my tree has gotten replaced twice in the last 10 years ".
"Mr. Chair," stated Raun, "If I may, we have just one tree now that's gone. And I guess
the question is, could that replacement tree go into the boulevard and could that be the
start. We are not advocating you come and rip out 60 trees and start over again. If for
some reason storm or disease takes these trees out, could they go into the boulevard
area and become part of the City's tree program ?"
Edman questioned, "Why is the homeowner's association taking responsibility for
people's trees ?" Raun responded, "Because we need to make a decision for our own
policies. The yards are not owned by the homeowners: they have privileges or right -of-
ways such as a boulevard area but they are the property of the Association so the
Association is the decision making body in this particular situation ".
"So the private property that these development agreements refer to are the
association's property ? ", asked Edman, to which Mr. Raun responded, "Correct ".
Edman asked, "Do you collect dues from your members to maintain that land ?" Raun
answered, "We do."
Commission Member Smith asked, as a point of clarification, "So, are you asking in the
future circumstances, when a diseased tree needs to be removed or one falls by a
storm, that instead of replacing that tree within a close proximity of where it was, to be
able to move it within the right -of -way so it becomes a boulevard or City tree ? ". "That is
correct, Commissioner," responded Raun. "That would be one way to do it at that point
in time it becomes a City tree, and then at that time the City maintains the autonomy
over the type of replacement tree that would go in ".
Chairman Tony Jurgens asked, "Do you know what the average cost per tree is ?"
Burshten responded, "To replace the tree is probably somewhere between $250 and
$350 dollars ". Jurgens went on to state, "There's a cost to removing the dead tree,
probably stump grinding, I'm not sure what all this involves, all those things are
included." Burshten stated, "Stump removal, depending on the size of the tree, I would
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 6
imagine would be between $60 and $100 dollars. When the trees are taken down,
depending on the size of the tree, the cost would be somewhere between $50 to $200
for a tree removal. If they are real large trees, it would be much more than that- up to
$500 to $1,000 dollars." Jurgens asked, "What would be the City's current policy as far
as the request to replace a tree and put it on the boulevard. Would it then become a
boulevard tree ?" Les responded "No, that doesn't fit with any policy we have. That
option would have to be presented to the City Council to see if they were interested in
looking at something like that."
Jurgens commented that he believes he has seen a list of approved trees. "Right now if
I want to plant a tree in my backyard, I probably couldn't plant an ash tree today, is that
accurate ?" Burshten responded, that the City is now just dealing with trees that would
be on public property: parks, right -of -ways, that sort of thing. There is an approved list
for those areas however, if a resident wanted to plant `X', `Y' or `Z' tree, they are able to
do that."
Tony stated, "So, theoretically these yard trees, whether it's the association or
homeowner, they could plant a tree that's not on our approved list as a yard tree. We
would not have any say so over that, is that accurate ?" to which Les responded, "Yes ".
Council Member Olsen stated, "Generally speaking, I don't like to get involved in the
conversations at the Commission level because I get my time at the Council, but I did
want to make sure the Commission was aware that Kevin Raun, who is standing in front
of you, is a former Council member for the City of Cottage Grove. He's very well versed
in a number of the affairs of state as it were, and based on what I'm hearing, it sounds
to me like prior to my time on the Council, the City decided to get out of the boulevard
tree business and so we have some other neighborhoods that fall within this same area
of concern so whatever your conversation and decision may be in terms of
recommendation to the Council, it is going to impact more than just the fine people in
Pine Arbor. There's also Silverwood and Pine Cliff, so whatever decision you make or
conversation you have, I want you to be cognizant of that too."
Edman said, "I'm inclined to think we should get back out of the tree business. I'm glad
Council Member Olsen gave us an idea this is the tip of an iceberg. To me, the best
people to address the concern is the association as a group. You have control of your
joint land. You can decide if you want to replace trees or not, it's entirely your discretion.
I think that's probably where it should stay. Once you start getting the City involved,
then you have some people that have a City tree in their yard, and there's no discretion
by the homeowner or the association. I think we agree the developer agreements are
pretty clearly intended for this to be a private property tree. In this case, its unique this
is an association, but I would be inclined to leave it that way, personally ".
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 7
Chairman Jurgens said, "I would tend to agree, but I wonder if there's a way we can
work with them, - have the City work with them on maybe pricing or something like that
as Mr. Raun suggested. Do you have any comments or suggestions along those lines
Les or Justin ?"
Les responded, "I don't think that would be a problem, I know we would have to verify
that, but I certainly think we could include them, or any homeowner's association. We
take bids a couple times a year for trees and tree trimming and that sort of thing. We
would have to have the attorney look at it ".
Olsen stated, "When we do projects of that nature, generally speaking there are
contracts involved and my suspicion would be, I'm not an attorney, but we do have a
very fine city attorney that would probably meet and consult with Les on this. My
suggestion is could there be some sort of contract language to include interested parties
like homeowner's associations but that's purely speculation on my part. I don't know
whether that would fly legally, but to my uneducated mind it sounds like a potential
middle ground solution ".
Commissioner Smith stated, "I think when we're talking here about the different
associations, it may get potentially quite dicey because every association is going to
have different covenants, bylaws and restrictions as to how yard maintenance is
typically to take place. It may be a slippery slope if we venture down that path with the
associations. And as homeowners, we all buy into, if we choose to purchase a home
within an association, we know there are restrictions that go along with that, good or
bad, but that is a choice that we as a free market system have to comply with and
voluntary opt into or not, so I would venture to say that I think its best we leave the
policy as it sits ".
Edman said, "I agree it's a fair idea for a common or middle ground but I still think it's
OK for us to say no. If we're doing pavement management, I know that a lot of times the
road works company will send out flyers saying they'll be in an area and will give you a
discount. So, if Wright Tree Service is out and they want to solicit a homeowners
association's business because they already have their trucks in there, by all means,
piggyback, but if your HOA gets a Groupon by the City, why can't I, as a regular
homeowner, that's not in the association? What if another association doesn't have the
same problem? It's a completely unnecessary quagmire for the Council. I think legally
you could craft something like that but I also would point out, Cottage Grove has a
company now, Arbor Hill Tree Farm that sells trees. Give Jerry a call and ask how much
is this tree gonna cost? Maybe it'll surprise you. I don't know how much buying power
the City can give you, but talking maybe $500 bucks, I think it's just a potential for real
mess. I would say no ".
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 8
Mr. Raun commented, "I respect these comments and we weren't sure where this would
go tonight. If I may, in all fairness, I don't know what the forestry bill is for the City, but I
do know that I am paying the same as any other home of an equal size and not getting
the return on that dollar, so it is a public policy equity issue. I, too, was going to bring up
the pavement management, this can happen, I think what we are looking for is maybe a
compromise, and I would appreciate it and support it if the City could look into it. Could
we take advantage of the economy of scales the City gets when they bid out hundreds
of trees versus us getting one or two trees, where we pay a lot more, Or tree trimming, If
the City could do that, that would be a real win. I have to tell you that if you go to buy a
home, one of the last things you do on your investigation is to decide whether the tree is
a boulevard tree or not. I didn't do it and I'm a pretty savvy buyer. I had no idea we
had gone to this thing called a front yard tree, but it happened, it is what it is and we just
thought we would come up tonight. I really respect it, we've taken a lot of your time but
thought it was a good public policy debate to have and maybe some other association
will come and you will have covered this territory before setting precedent and there
was benefit to discussing it this evening and we appreciate it ".
"For the record ", stated Edman, "I appreciate the organization and the thoughtfulness of
your presentation of the legal documents. I like seeing that. Normally you don't see
that attention to detail and thoroughness, so I do appreciate that ".
"What would you like from us ?" asked Burshten. I think we have direction, we can just
look at some different options and maybe bring something back. I think some good
points were raised."
6. OLD BUSINESS.
A. Ordinance Amendment to Solid Waste Hauler License
Burshten stated the City Attorney reviewed this item last September and it's been
requested this be put on the agenda in order for the Commission to review it before
being forwarded to the City Council. The wording has been changed to clarify the
ordinance. Tony asked if there were questions, or comments. If not, he'll take a motion
recommending the Council approve it. Motion made by Podoll, seconded by
Commissioner Cloutier to approve. Is there any discussion ?"
Edman said, "I'm confused as to why this is before us now. It wasn't mentioned when
we were reviewing this topic two months ago. You don't need the body's lay opinion as
to the language proposed. The attorney reviewed it and I would agree with the
recommendation. Are you are asking us for the opinion on the policy, what's behind the
language? That is something we just talked about months ago. And I know it's been
back down and nothing has happened, so, this seems to be perfectly appropriate to roll
into that discussion, I think my comments are reflected pretty accurately in the meeting
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 9
minutes about what I thought about this topic so I'm not going to support this language,
not that I don't think it's legally sufficient, I just think from a policy standpoint, it's not
consistent with what this body recommended just two months ago, that is, add real
competition. This doesn't address that. If you say this is good language, that's one
thing, but to formally change it, it does appear to be an endorsement. Read the
minutes, that says it all. That's my discussion on that motion"
Jurgens stated, "There's a motion on the table: To recommend to Council that they
approve the recommendation by the City Attorney for the language change to the
ordinance. Motion carried three to two.
"I would say for the record, Mr. Chair, stated Edman, "Commissioner Forshee, had he
been here, tonight, he would have voted no and it would have passed, based on
reading his comments in the minutes, but also talking to him before the meeting about
not being here, so I think the message is that this isn't 100 percent clear, like everything
else we've done. This one is very up in the air ".
Tony said, "Unfortunately, votes only count for the members that are here, so, it has
passed 3 to 2 ". Edman went on to state, "I was just saying, Mr. Chair, as an advisory
body, it's important to note that this is an advisory body which makes our opinion not as
valuable as it could be ".
7. PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE
Burshten reported:
• There will be no December meeting
• Last year, we were out snowplowing 45 times which was a rather high number
having 72 inches of snow. Snowfall occurred pretty much late in the
season. We were still plowing as of May 2 The year before we were out 23
times.
• Our Water Meter Replacement Program began this year and 1,800 or so meters
were replaced. The program went very well.
• Spring Clean Up on May 4 th went well with over 800 cars that passed through.
200 appliances were discarded by residents along with 503 tires. The Crime
Prevention Board sponsored a clothing drive that was very successful. Paper
shredding was offered for the first time this year and was very popular with
residents.
• The Public Works facility was painted this year and the painters did a very nice
job.
• The Voluntary Ash Tree Removal Program was utilized by approximately 100
residents.
• The Public Works Open House on September 19 was another successful event
with over 1,200 visitors. This event takes place every other year.
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 10
• Most in -house paving projects were completed this year with about 2,200 tons of
product applied.
• In early spring, a scrubber was purchased to use on inside parking facilities,
wash bays, the Ice Arena and the fire halls.
• The new street sweeper was approved earlier this year. It's a vacuum -type unit
and it's turned out to be a very good tool. Funds were received from the
Washington County Watershed to help with the funding of this equipment.
Street Foreman Gary Orloff commented the sweeper has been out every day for
the past 30 days and has really picked up production. "The operators really
seem to like it too."
• Another piece of machinery purchased this year was a spray asphalt patcher.
Using Class A aggregate mix. We're using trap rock right now with some
emulsified asphalt and this has been another good purchase. Initially, it was
used as an alternative for winter patch and now it's being used for permanent
patch material.
• The walk behind striper has been primarily used in parking lots
• The new garbage truck is used primarily in the parks and trails. It's nice to have
a piece of equipment that works all of the time.
• Another piece of equipment acquired this year is a crash trailer that enhances
the safety or our crews when they are out working on the roadways. It's also
used when boulevard and median work is being done.
Burshten went on to state some purchases were delayed this year because of changes
in the tax purchasing law. "We have a couple more large purchases that we will be
bringing forward. A couple of dump trucks are yet to be purchased with 2013 funds in
early 2014 ".
• Shop crews are in the process of finishing Department of Transportation
inspections in fleet maintenance and snowplow equipment is all getting prepared
8. ENGINEER'S REPORT
Public Works Supervisor Harry Taylor reported there have been a lot of projects this
year. The final punch list of the Pavement Management Project, the Box Culvert
Project and Hinton Avenue are all being completed.
Other projects currently worked on are some manholes that need to be lowered in the
Pine Cliff additions. "We've been working with contractors on that ", stated Taylor.
The 70 Street/County Road 19 is a Washington County Project. All water mains have
been installed, charged and pressure tested. The County had it open for traffic the
other week. Before finishing up for the winter, striping will be done.
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 11
70 Street has been re- striped, both near the County Road 19 area and closer to the
West Draw Water Tower with new turn lane configurations.
Spec homes are being constructed in the DR Horton Project (East Ridge Woods) near
Almar Village on the north side of 70 Street. The private utilities are out there
installing the gas lines and the project is coming along real well.
The Clear Channel Project, (the Watershed project, in the West Draw area between 65
and 70 Streets) is progressing. There will be some pipe work, ravine work and some
ponding work completed. It's moving along slowly and the game plan is to start again in
the spring.
The G -Will Liquor Center project over by Norris Square is moving along with backhoes
and excavators moving a lot of dirt right now. Retaining wall work will be done.
The Tumble Fresh Laundromat that recently opened for business is doing very well.
9. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
Council Member Olsen stated he will be brief and cover just a few highlights.
"The City is trending very positively year -to -date with respect to building permits, both
commercial and residential. There's been a good amount of activity this year on
residential homes so we're trending far beyond our expectations and we are expecting
next year to be a very good year because there are also contracts out on other property
in town that will start construction in the spring. So, we are feeling good about that.
Keep your eyes peeled in terms of some of the commercial businesses. It looks like the
ones we've been sitting on for quite some time are preparing to come on line within the
short term future. I can't give you specific dates but I would suspect by the end of
January I'll be pretty happy."
"Some other things I want to mention are in terms of upcoming events. As you know,
we've got the big Thanksgiving Holiday coming up. The morning of Thanksgiving, there
is a fun run called the Hale to the Bird Fun Run. This is their second annual event and
it's a fund raiser. Mayor Bailey will be present that morning to pardon the turkey so I'm
not how that all will work out, if you want to look up Hale to the Bird on Face Book or on
Google you can get more information on that."
And then, of course the big news that came out last week: The Holiday Train is going to
be quite the event in Cottage Grove. CP Rail chose the Cottage Grove stop as the one
stop in North America where they are going to celebrate their 15 Year Anniversary by
bringing in some talent to perform a free show for all the visitors and those who have
spent many years contributing to the Holiday Train and the Friends in Need Food Shelf ".
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 12
"This year, you will be able to attend a free concert put on by Sheryl Crow and that is
funded by the CP Rail Group. There's also an opening act, Take 6. We are looking
forward to that and it will be on Saturday, December 14 and it will be at a different
location than normal this year because of the configuration of the event. They've chosen
to have it right down in the rail yard and then we will have remote parking locations
spread out through the City with luxury coach buses that will be transporting people to
and from the event throughout the course of the entire day. There will be a parking lot
that will be close to the site but that will strictly be for volunteers and members of the
Holiday Train staff and Public Safety because they will be shuttling people in and out
like crazy. If you are interested in volunteering, you can reach out to Mayor Bailey or
you can reach out to anyone here at City Hall at 458 -2800 and throw your name in the
hat. They are looking for somwhere in the neighborhood of 100 to 125 additional
volunteers. I know the outpouring of support thus far has been very positive so it could
be that all those spots are already taken. I don't know that for certain, if you are
interested, it doesn't hurt to reach out."
"Other than that, I don't have much to report beyond that. I wish all of you a very
happy Thanksgiving. I thank you very much for your service with the City this year and
for being volunteer advocates for Public Works and everything we do here in the City of
Cottage Grove and of course your advice and counsel is very much appreciated. Happy
Thanksgiving to you and yours."
Commission Member Jeff Podoll commented, "I noticed on the agenda for the last
Council meeting was the approval for the water towers. Now, did you approve both of
those? "Olsen responded, "We approved the first one. The second one did not get
approved on a 3 to 2 vote. Jen Peterson and myself were interested in approving both
but there were three other Council members that decided this was something they were
not interested in. We only approved the first one and we'll see what happens when it
comes time to bid out the second one."
Olsen went on to state, "I thought the presentation was very compelling and the
information we received included a `not to exceed' price which was based on hold firm
2011 pricing that they've been offering to all the other communities that they are
working with on this. Of course, I believe this body recommended unanimously to
approve both, but unfortunately, there were members of the Council that didn't agree.
We did approve the first and I'll guess we'll see what happens when it comes time for
the second to come around."
Jeff asked, "Did they want us to pay for the second water tower now ?" and Olsen
responded, "No they didn't." Chair Tony Jurgens stated there was an article in the
paper that seemed to miss some of the facts. "I wonder, did the members of Council
misunderstand something do you think ?" Olsen answered, "It's always dangerous to
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 13
try and crawl inside somebody else's head so I guess I don't want to necessarily do
that. My understanding is that there was some trepidation on the part of a couple of our
staff members, typically the members who control the money. They thought that this
was too good to be true so they were hesitant. The recommendation that they made
was to wait on the second water tower approval and the three Council members who
chose to follow that recommendation prevailed." Tony asked when the second water
tower approval may come up. Olsen stated "Your guess is as good as mine. I'm not
certain of that ". Jeff continued to ask, "Is there a timeline as far as the guarantee of the
prices ? ". Olsen responded, "I believe they are guaranteed through the end of this fiscal
year, so if it were to come before Council again before the end of the year, maybe there
would be a different argument that would be more compelling, but that would be up to
staff."
Edman asked, "So the article is factually inaccurate in some regard then ?" and Jurgens
said, "At least in a couple spots ". Edman went onto state, "The Finance Director,
Robin, said that by delaying one would increase expenditures but avoid a large upfront
cost in paying for both projects now. They weren't asking for both up front, right ?"
Olsen said, "No, they didn't ask for that ".
"Then,' stated Mike Edman, "The only thing, in my opinion, that we're gonna know next
year, that we don't know now, is that the price will go up." Olsen responded, "You can
certainly share those opinions with the City Council members."
Tony asked, "So Council didn't have any other financial information or any other
information at their disposal that we didn't' have for our review ?" Olsen answered, "I
thought the presentation was very complete. Obviously, our Public Works Director took
a great deal of care and a great deal of time in presenting his case and we also had the
representatives here from SEH and the other firm, Classic Coatings. We had other
folks here to answer questions and to provide information and unfortunately, that didn't
resonate as strongly as I would have personally hoped with some of my peers so we
weren't able to get both of those under contract at this point."
"Is there any plan to bring this up before the end of the year that you are aware of ?"
asked Edman. Olsen answered, "No, not that I'm aware of. That would be up to staff."
"Mr. Chair," stated Edman, "This isn't the first time, and it's not only one, everyone on
the Council has been guilty of this once or twice ... like in my previous statement about
garbage haulers, When this body is spending a lot of time going over documents,
going on site visits, having people come in and then having them come back, giving us
packets two inches thick, I don't appreciate having my time wasted when we made the
very thoughtful, thorough recommendation that we were unanimous on, none of us
holding back on this particular one and it's as if it never even happened. Obviously,
the Council doesn't have to agree with us, we have no authority. When it's not even
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 14
mentioned that `Hey, these 5, 6, 7, people spent the last 6 months really going into this
and they recommended we do it, but we're going to ignore those people and do part of
it.' It just busts me. I talked with Commissioner Forshee about it and he said, why am I
even bothering? It's a giant waste of my time. It's kind of like a dog and pony show.
think it's' regrettable. The water tower, for example, I feel the garbage issue is almost an
example, undergrounding power lines is an example, but this one, particularly, the
water tower, really irks me. Because we just discussed it, in this building. We did the
site visit and I talked with one of the members against the proposal and I think he didn't
really... I think there was some confusion, Mr. Chair. I'm confused why it appears to me
this evening that this body's work is completely worthless. It's completely seen as not
valuable. It's never mentioned, it's never followed and it feels that way. I know. Mr.
Olsen, you're stuck with being here, but it really does feel that way ".
Council Member Olsen stated he was happy to respond. "I come from the perspective
of being a former commissioner. I was a Public Safety Health and Welfare
Commissioner for four years before I ever chose to run for a City Council seat so I've
been on that side of the argument as well and more than once have had the body's
recommendation that I was part of, go seemingly without merit when it came to a
decision that the City Council made. And certainly it was frustrating then and it's
certainly frustrating now. You know, from my own personal experience, my choice to
be a commissioner was simply that I wanted to give back to my community to volunteer
my time and I was also very interested in what was going on in City business and I
wanted to learn more ".
"So ", continued Olsen, "I never felt the time I spent was without merit or not worthwhile,
but yes, it is emotional and it is somewhat frustrating when you put in time, energy and
effort on a particular subject or project and you give your very best to make a well
informed recommendation to the Council and they choose not to follow that. But I knew
that as a commissioner that was as one of the things that could and often did happen.
I've seen it happen more than once and I've seen it happen with bodies other than just
the Public Works Commission. My guess is that will be a continuing issue for as long as
there are advisory commissions and policy boards. That being said, the
recommendations of all the various commissions are included in the Council packet,
whatever the project may be. So if the Council reviews that packet the way they should,
it always includes the information on recommendations of a particular advisory board
was with respect to this decision we are asking them to make. Whether or not the body
chooses to follow that, sometimes they have different information than you have,
sometimes they have a different view on the information you have. Sometimes they
have more detail. There's a multitude of reasons why they may or may not follow the
recommendation of a particular policy board. Please, never feel like your time is being
wasted or misspent because it certainly is not and if nothing else, I think it's a wonderful
opportunity to be involved in the day in and day out operation of the City and even to get
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 15
a handle on what may or may not be in front of your City Council on a regular basis with
respect to something that you are passionate about and you are all passionate about
Public Works or you wouldn't be here. So again, I appreciate all your service and your
time and I never want you to feel like it's time wasted because it certainly is not."
Jeff Podoll stated, "To me, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Here you've got a
company that is willing to go out two years ahead of time and enter into a contract and
not expect any money for two years after the fact and the water tower isn't going to heal
itself, it's not going to miraculously get better and not have to be done in 2015. We're
going to have to do it and here we have a company that's willing to, two years ahead of
time and set a price. I just, I can't understand why it wouldn't happen. Is there
something, can we possibly make another recommendation ?"
Council Member Olsen stated, "I do believe in the power of prayer, but I don't think it
works on water towers or trees, and I think it's one of those things, you're right. The
work is going to have to be done. You're sort of preaching to the choir in the sense
that I was comfortable in recommending both as was Council Member Peterson, but
you as a body can do whatever you would like. If you choose to ask the Council to
reconsider, you certainly can do that. I don't know if they will or not. But you could ask
staff to come back to the Council with a recommendation and you can do any number of
things. The former chair of this body, you're probably familiar with the procedural steps
you can take but you know, if you feel compelled to do that, certainly feel free."
Jeff said, "I personally would. I'd like to know what the deciding factor was for the other
City Council members to not enter into an agreement. There's a real profound reason
that they didn't."
Justin stated "Keep in mind you had a staff recommendation, a formal staff
recommendation to not pursue this contract."
Tony Jurgens stated, "Commissioner Podoll, I'm hearing, what you would like to
recommend is that Council revisit this before the end of the year." Podoll responded,
"As long as the price for the contract is still good, yeah. I would like to see that. I would
like to see whoever, the staff person is, doesn't have to work on the water tower or drink
the water that's coming out of the tower, what his thoughts were. Now that you said that
Justin, it makes perfect sense. You don't look to your City Administrator for guidance
on some things, that could be just what they did. They saw the administrator said no,
let's not do this, OK, that's fine, what he says, goes. But I think they should, I got a
feeling unless the economy takes a real downturn in the next two years, we're not going
to get a better price than we got right now."
Tony Jurgens said, "So, is that a motion to have Council reconsider the three million
gallon tank contract, for the end of this year. Is that a motion ..... to have the Public
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 16
Works staff lean on them a little bit as far as their recommendation? Motion was
seconded by Commission Member Edman.
Edman stated, "I agree the Council is not obligated to look at this, but why isn't the
ultimate staff recommendation, which sure plays a big role when you are up here
deciding things, why isn't that recommendation coming here? We spent six months
doing all this work, the ultimate deciding recommendation of staff never comes to this
body for our opinion on it, whether or not that's useful. I would say the motion should be
the staff recommendation, that the Council relies upon, should be put in front of this
body so we could formally say this body doesn't recommend you follow the staff
recommendation because, if they even read the packet, we're talking about two different
things, because they might think, Ryan, the City Administrator thinks we shouldn't do it,
maybe he knows information we don't. My understanding is he does not have extra
information other than what we have. That is troubling to me that the recommendation
isn't even before this body."
Commission Chair Tony Jurgens stated, "I don't have much of a problem with that
because it's the chicken or the egg. Who gets it first. We made our recommendation
and staff made their recommendation and Council can put those together to make their
decision. If the City Administrator's recommendation came to us, we would be batting it
back and forth and never get it to the Council." Edman said, "Unless that decision is
made in over a two .week period, but we get staff's recommendations, in our packet all
the time for things as insignificant as a stop sign in somebody's neighborhood. Why
isn't the recommendation, the ultimate question, going through the process? That could
be a workshop conversation for you on how you filter the information ".
Council Member Olsen asked, "Can I chime in? We have our goal setting session
coming up for fiscal 2014. We're aiming for the last week in January or the first week in
February for our annual goal setting session and I would be happy, as your liaison, to
bring that recommendation forward because I think what I hear you saying is one of the
challenges that you face is you've made your recommendation to the Council and
you're feeling like that may be overlooked by staff when they put the packet together.
And if that's the case, I think that's certainly noteworthy and worth having a
conversation about. And it may be something as simple as the staff liaison to this
body, Les could be ultimately responsible for creating the staff recommendation that
goes to the Council based on what he hears here at the body and in his own
professional opinion versus having to filter that through X Y and Z but that's a
conversation we can certainly have about the way information gets disseminated."
Jurgens said, "What I agree with, Commissioner Edman, is if the staff recommendation
from Finance or Administration or whatever it is, if that is known when we get our packet
of information. Then, that should be included in what we are reviewing. That should be
part of our review process as well ".
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 17
Commission Member Smith stated, "A concern that I want to state, I think is an obvious
one, is that the funds are there to be used for this project and a concern I have
venturing into the unforeseen future and other potential large expenditures that may
come up as emergencies, that all of a sudden these funds that are available now may
not be available in the future when the water tower possibly fails or is on the verge of
failing. To ignore the Commission's recommendation is, I think, flirting with danger and
far larger expenses then what the Administrator is possibly seeing. I think we have a
good understanding of the City's position but it's troubling, I feel, to have available funds
now for this and to not take on the project knowing future expenses will be higher, than
or not as low as this. Do we know for sure these funds will be actually available for
expenditure at a future time ?"
THE MOTION IS TO ASK COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER THE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT FOR THE 3 MILLION GALLON WATER TANK. Motion was
unanimously carried.
Edman stated for the record, "I was as big a skeptic on this thing when it started,
thought it made no sense. I was 100 percent against it and doing the due diligence, I
100% changed my mind, took a 180. 1 rolled up my sleeves and dug into it and learned
that it wasn't a sketchy thing. That's what really frustrates me."
Olsen said, "The real question is, do you know how Commissioner Forshee was going
to vote on it ?" Edman stated "He wanted me to share his thoughts, on the record."
Jurgens stated for the record, "Going into this as a volunteer commissioner, I'm well
aware it is the prerogative of the Council to vote their own conscience on these things,
they don't' have to always agree with what we do and we expect there will be times
when they don't."
Justin stated, "We do tend to get the phone calls instead of you. We're going to have to
live with it ultimately, but the value we place on Commission recommendations is
certainly not something anybody should ever doubt and it's something we take very
seriously because we all come from that same position. Every member of your Council
has been on a City commission and in some cases, multiple commissions."
Edman added, "I would say Justin, the courtesy of telling us why you disagree with our
conclusion would be much appreciated because we can look stupid if we're all up here
saying "Yeah!" let's do this and then it's the opposite. We obviously saw this teed up for
a while in the papers, but it would be nice to see some follow through and to see why
the recommendation was ignored ". Justin responded, "When I vote no on any given
issue, and this is just my own personal approach to my position on the Council, I
always given an explanation as to why because I think the citizens deserve that. There
are others who perhaps don't feel as strongly about that as I do and that is certainly
their prerogative. But I agree with you, when you choose to not to follow a
Public Works Commission
November 18, 2013 — Page 18
recommendation, it's important to articulate why you feel that way because people can
certainly disagree without being disagreeable and that's well within the auspices of
making policy. It does leave a lot of room for confusion when you don't explain
yourself."
10. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REQUESTSs.
None.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn was made by Michael Edman, seconded by Michael Smith. Motion
was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:33 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia 5torky