Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.

1.            Introduction / Call Roll

Acting Chair Stenlund called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.

Members Present: Acting Chair Dwayne Stenlund; and Members Steve Gjerdingen and Joan Felice  

Public Works Director Schwartz advised that Chair Jim DeBenedet would be arriving later in the meeting. 

Members Excused: Member Jan Vanderwall

Staff Present:        Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and City Engineer Debra Bloom

Others Present:     Randy Neprash; Todd Shoemaker, Wenck & Associates; Bob Fossum, Capitol Region Watershed District

2.            Public Comments

None.

5.            William Street Stormwater Partnership Project Presentation

City Engineer Bloom introduced Bob Fossum with Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and Todd Shoemaker with Wenck & Associates for a presentation on the William Street Stormwater Partnership Project, as detailed in the staff report dated November 23, 2010.

Bob Fossum

Mr. Fossum reviewed the various components and goals for the project to increase water quality treatment efficiency for the pond, a/k/a “Armory Pond,” on the southeast corner of William and Elmer Streets within the northeast drainage area to Lake McCarrons; with the project currently scheduled for construction this winter. 

Mr. Fossum reviewed detailed construction drawings for the project area to direct the drainage area to address annual phosphorus contributions, correct the erosion to the inlet, address a small gully, and other historical issues that had developed over the years.  Mr. Fossum noted that this area drains forty (40) acres and was owned by the Armory, with an easement by the City of Roseville.  Mr. Fossum reviewed capacity and management data and comparisons over several years, and anticipated goals to be achieved through this retrofit project. 

Mr. Fossum further reviewed engineer’s estimates for the project as detailed in the report, and cost-share between CRWD, Ramsey Conservation District (RCD) and the City of Roseville, with Wenck and Associates under contract with the CRWD for project engineering.  Mr. Fossum reviewed the components of the preliminary engineering that included soil borings and bottom sampling with the summary indicating clayey sands, loan and dense clay and peat, creating poor soils for infiltration, requiring other options to be considered to meet Minnesota Wetland Design Issues through the Water Conservation Act.

Todd Shoemaker

Mr. Shoemaker reviewed the construction plans in detail, addressing existing conditions; trees to be preserved and a limited number to be removed to facilitate the project; and reviewed the proposed three-pronged practices or techniques:

·         Pretreatment to capture large core sediment before entering the pond

·         Excavate pond back to its design scenario; pond excavated to 1991 elevations 

·         Iron-enhanced filtration bench

Mr. Shoemaker reviewed the technology treatment of iron filings developed by the University of Minnesota over the last few years and successful trials beyond those found with previous steel wool treatment in reducing dissolved phosphorus.  Mr. Shoemaker illustrated the process for installation of a weir in the outlet structure to force water laterally through the filtration bench (rock and iron filings), and then through the drain tile.  Mr. Shoemaker clarified that the iron filings were clean iron filings, a by-product of some other mechanism that were broken down for re-use; with the only supplier at this time in Chicago, requiring shipment to the metropolitan area, while several local firms in Minnesota are discussing development of this technology locally.

Mr. Shoemaker noted that the engineer’s estimate for the base bid was approximately $66,000 for the project, with total project costs broken down, and based on pond maintenance, by the three (3) partners as follows:

Ms. Bloom noted that the engineering costs would be covered by the CRWD; and construction costs shared by the three partnering agencies: Ramsey Conservation District (RCD); City of Roseville; and Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD).

Ms. Bloom welcomed members of the audience in attendance for the presentation and sought their comments or questions.

Public Comment

Jim Moncur, 294 N McCarrons Boulevard

Mr. Moncur noted that his property was now the recipient of items coming down and covering the beach, and opined that this sounded like the proposed project provided for a dramatic improvement.  Mr. Moncur addressed past failures from previous silt collection pond projects in Villa Park, opining that the major reason for their failure was a lack of maintenance budgeted for the projects; and questioned if that had been a consideration with this project to include that maintenance budget as part of a priority funding system.

Ms. Bloom responded that CRWD and City staff had discussed maintenance issues as part of the process proceeding to this point; noting that the pond was covered by a City easement for drainage, with the City planning maintenance for a 10-15 year period in the sedimentation basis for mowing the filtration bench to ensure no trees grew there and maintaining its functionality.  Ms. Bloom advised that at least twice annually the manhole by St. Anthony Falls was removed to clear any large particles; and that an agreement was pending for Roseville City Council approval to clarify those maintenance responsibilities.  Ms. Bloom noted that future reconstruction projects undertaken by CRWD would be scheduled for long-term maintenance. 

Mr. Moncur expressed his appreciation for the coordination by various agencies in addressing this situation and the City’s commitment for ongoing maintenance.  As a member of the McCarrons Neighborhood Association, Mr. Moncur questioned if the property owners would be required to pay for part of this project over and beyond regular property taxes. 

Ms. Bloom responded advised that proposed funding sources for the project were covered by the three (3) partnering agencies; and that annual maintenance would be funded through the City’s stormwater infrastructure fund, with CRWD allocating funds from their annual budget, and RCD funding the project through grant funds through the Board of Water and Sewer Resources (BWSR.)

Mr. Moncur expressed appreciation for the project and his anticipation of substantial improvements and planning for periodic maintenance.

Mr. John Plummer, 258 N McCarrons

Mr. Plummer addressed the pond on the other side of the National Guard Armory.

Ms. Bloom clarified that the pond was behind Galilee Lutheran Church and not physically connected to this Williams Street Pond; but served as a wetland overflow through the armory property to Williams Street, and that nothing was proposed.

Acting Chair Stenlund suggested the engineer that they consider sand bags instead of silt curtains and compost logs instead of silt fences as a more cost-effective method; and recommended that rock not be used, but a “net pave” be installed as soon as possible in the operating schedule, or require a mud mat version using bamboo textile, as other options won’t work in an urban best management practices (BMP) scenario. Acting Chair Stenlund further strongly suggested that the engineers consider forcing rock under the apron outlet as an exit control, as required under the NDPES permit.  Acting Chair Stenlund explained various failures and their cause based on low flow, and suggested that from an engineering standpoint, a plug be installed and removed at the end of the day to address several storm drain inlets and staging plans in an effort to address inlet protection for the track out area, making sure the material doesn’t reach the streets, or that the dump trucks don’t leak any sludge during transport. 

Acting Chair Stenlund opined that, while the engineer’s winter stabilization plan was not clear, there should be no need to return to the site in spring for further restoration, with this being a good time of year to accomplish the work.  Acting Chair Stenlund further opined that, from a design level, the St. Anthony Falls baffle structure should be retrofitted to trap oil so it never reaches the pond, through use of floatable chemicals available at a low cost, and available through the money that could be realized from not installing the silt curtain. 

Acting Chair Stenlund expressed his anticipation in the project proceeding, and seeing the new technology of the iron filings at work; and thanked homeowner representatives for their attendance for tonight’s presentation.

Acting Chair Stenlund questioned if there was any opportunity for tree planting by community groups; with Public Works Director Schwartz expressing interest in coordinating that work with Mr. Stenlund.  Acting Chair Stenlund opined that there would probably be more space needed and more trees removed than anticipated facilitating getting the trucks in; and he saw a great opportunity for one or more Eagle Scout projects.

Discussion among Members and Mr. Shoemaker and Mr. Fossum included project construction anticipated in December of 2010 or January of 2011; lake volume and water quality comparisons; the success of past alum projects to improve water quality; internal sediment loadings versus those from outside sources; alum treatments in comparison to the iron filings, with alum being a component of iron; expense of alum removal; and common phosphorus loading in urban environments due to sediments from lawn fertilizer and organic material (leaves); and challenges for most urban lakes in maintaining or improving water quality and the need to develop and publicize BMP’s and make people aware of the contributing factors in the water quality of community lakes.

Acting Chair Stenlund requested additional information for any changes to operational plans.

6.            Dale Street Reconstruction Design

City Engineer Bloom provided an overview of the final planning process with the neighborhood over the last few months; and recommendations going forward as the Feasibility Report was presented to the City Council on December 13, 2010.  Ms. Bloom noted that the meeting presentations held to-date and preliminary plans were available on the City’s website: www.cityofroseville.com/dalestreet for public information.

Ms. Bloom highlighted various components of the proposed project, including pavement widths; rights-of-way and on-street parking area on the west side, with no parking on the east side, but including a striped shoulder on the east side; right turn only lane at County Road C; scope of the project from County Road C to South Owasso Boulevard; and road width and parking adjustments south of the railroad crossing.

Traffic Management

Ms. Bloom discussed options for speed reduction and safety aspects of the project, including speed tables (humps) or a “neck down” (choker) at Iona Lane to reduce speed; with further review pending, but recommended by staff, as part of the Feasibility Report process.

Off-Street Pathway (as per petition) /Pathway Master Plan

Ms. Bloom advised that a new pathway was proposed on the east side, with several options still under review with comparable prices for an eight foot (8’) wide bituminous or a six foot (6’) wide concrete pathway.  Ms. Bloom noted that the Feasibility Report would contain life-cycle cost information and analyses, including those costs for ongoing maintenance.

Public Works Director Schwartz advised that, from a maintenance perspective, a snow plow operator prefers bituminous rather than the joints in concrete.

Drainage

Ms. Bloom advised that the project would include adjusting existing catch basins; regrading yards to drain to the storm sewer; extending catch basins into yards where not possible; and construction of infiltration options based on BMP’s with the goal of adding additional capacity to the system.  Ms. Bloom specifically reviewed several problem areas, including the Terrace Drive intersection, with an infiltration trench proposed along 628 Terrace Drive and 608 Terrace Court; additional options considered at 2518/2823 Dale Street and 629 Terrace Drive; and removal of sediment from the Terrace Court pond.

Public Utilities

Ms. Bloom advised that this portion of the project would include a complete water main replacement; and repair of sanitary sewer as required, with a lining project to precede the reconstruction project.  

Private Underground Utilities

Ms. Bloom noted that Xcel intended to replace their gas main; and, while some residents had requested undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines (including Comcast, Qwest, and electric services), with eighteen (18) existing poles in the corridor, the City’s Assessment Policy required a petition supported by 100% of the property owners, and there was currently not that level of support.  Ms. Bloom advised that another option would be for Community Requested Facility Surcharge (CRFS) as a separate process, with Xcel preparing preliminary estimates at this time.  Ms. Bloom noted that the property owner services would not be included in any CRFS and would be an additional private property owner cost responsibility.

Street Lights

Ms. Bloom advised that the corridor was currently served by overhead lights, on City easements, with their installation and maintenance the responsibility of the City of Roseville, and not included in the surcharge; and estimated at $6.32 per foot for a total estimated cost of $25,000.  Ms. Bloom advised that it was current City policy to assess 100% of underground areas.

Estimated Project Cost / Funding Sources

Ms. Bloom advised that the engineer’s estimated project cost was $1,915,172.53, allocated as follows:

Total estimated assessable costs = $755,689.17 *(based on a 7-ton capacity roadway for assessment calculations); at approximately a $4,000 assessment for an average 85’ wide residential property.

Estimated City of Roseville Project Funding

Minnesota State Aid (MSA) Funds    =       $1,071.250.24

Assessments                               =            188,922.29

Utility Funds                                =            655,000.00

Ms. Bloom noted that online aerial views were available for individual homeowners for a review of the specific project components impacting their property were available through a new CADD program. 

Chair DeBenedet arrived at this time, approximately 7:28 p.m.

Discussion among members and staff included how to integrate and improve storm water treatments and their design; problem drainage areas and issues as previously identified and specific options reviewed; pathway connections still under discussion; materials and grading of the pathway at driveway connections and their ongoing maintenance; and incorporating recycling and green aspects as part of the project goals.

Further discussion included ADA requirements for pathway construction and standard crossover slants; decision-making process in determining the location of pathways and sidewalks based on connections to existing facilities, location of power poles, driveways and their existing slopes; utilities; safety concerns for crossing and intersection areas; and public feedback.

Ms. Bloom noted that there were many and varying opinions among residents throughout the planning and informational process; however, she advised that the residents had achieved consensus for the recommendations going forward to the City Council in the Feasibility Report.

Additional discussion included shoulder and boulevard width between the roadway and pathway depending on existing grade and drainage challenges and snow storage considerations; and concerns in snow storage and freeze/thaw cycles creating hazardous and icy conditions of pathways and sidewalks.

7.            Presentation: Trees and Water Quality by Randy Neprash

Acting Chair Stenlund introduced Randy Neprash, former member of the PWET Commission, for a presentation entitled, “Integrating Trees for Water Quality in Your Community or A Reason for Public Works Engineers to Hug Trees.”  Mr. Neprash introduced the presentation in the context of his employment as a Civil Engineer with Bonestroo, and his involvement in the Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition.  Mr. Neprash provided the content of his presentation as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof.

Mr. Neprash concluded his presentation by noting that large trees needed large root space, not a large root ball, but space for root growth; and that stunted trees often found in parking lot islands and along boulevards were stunted due to stunted root space.

Discussion among Mr. Neprash, staff and Members included interest by regulatory agencies in providing potential credits for increasing trees on private property as well as public property; incorporation of design standards for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area to incorporate trees in parking lot islands to break up and shade the asphalt and the need to provide incentives to developers  for credits toward their overall storm water management plans, not just for  aesthetic purposes, and impacting their bottom line financial through those incentives through the “power of enlightened self-interest.”

Further discussion included cautions needed for underground infiltration systems on commercial parking lots with little pre-treatment prior to that heavily-polluted and highly concentrated water being routed to groundwater and/or storm water systems; recent attempts by a partnership of Ramsey and Washington Counties with Maplewood Mall businesses to add trees and the negative reception by those businesses based on their concerns with maximizing visibility of their businesses from adjacent roadways and their perception that additional trees would hinder that visibility .

Additional discussion included an estimated timeframe for integrating trees for water quality from research to watershed and/or regulatory agency credits; current plans for the “longest tree trench even” for the entire length (6 miles) of University Avenue in conjunction with the light rail construction project at an estimated cost of $8 million, partially driven by Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and part of the approval and permitting process for the light rail project by the CRWD.

Further discussion included current data available for canopy interception; evapotranspiration data still pending; use of tree systems to clean up superfund and hazardous landfill sites and the breakdown of chemicals and their transformation into elemental forms; and the continuing evolvement of this natural integration.

8.            Approval of October 26, 2010 Meeting Minutes

Member DeBenedet moved, Member Felice seconded, approval of the October 26, 2010 meeting as presented.

Ayes: 4

Nays: 0

Motion carried.

9.            Capstone Project Presentation by Chair DeBenedet

Chair DeBenedet provided a summary of his capstone project was done as part of his Master’s Degree program at the University of Minnesota and involved maintenance alternatives for the City of Roseville’s infrastructure maintenance.  Areas of research included review and findings that the maintenance of public utilities can improve customer satisfaction and be cost-effective.

Based on his career expertise as an Engineer and as a resident of Roseville, Chair DeBenedet opined that the City of Roseville’s Public Works Department was doing a good job in maintaining water and sewer systems well and consistent with other cities and recommended best management practices (BMP’s).

Roseville Positives Identified

§  Well-maintained and efficient infrastructure

§  Aging infrastructure requires planning for rehabilitation and replacement

§  Responsibly funds to meet long-term needs

§  Committed to sustainability to meet current and future needs

Roseville Problems Identified

§  Aging infrastructure, with the majority constructed in 1950 – 1960 and

      wearing out

§  Tight budgets limit funding for maintenance

§  Replacement or renewal costs estimated at $60 million

Project will answer questions such as

§  Can maintenance extend life of facilities and lower overall cost of ownership?

§  Life expectance of water and sewer mains

§  Cost-benefit relationship to aid maintenance and replacement decisions

§  Simple tools to aid making those decision

Why important to solve

§  Infrastructure wears out or becomes too expensive to maintain

§  When is it less costly to replace?

§  What maintenance can extend life of utilities at reasonable costs?

§  City knows of need to begin a major rehabilitation program

Chair DeBenedet reviewed a construction history of the City’s water and sewer infrastructure system between 1956 – 2009, with the majority in the 1960’s and reviewed the length of water and sewer main miles installed annually.  With reference to the City’s sewer system, he noted that the majority of the system was clay tile with unsealed jute joints, currently creating an infiltration problem that the City was mandated to address by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), the City’s wastewater treatment provider.  Chair DeBenedet advised that most of the City’s water pipes were cast iron and susceptible to breaks, with the City currently experiencing an average of thirty-five (35) breaks annually.

Discussion among members and staff included replacement of the majority of lead service pipes to-date with the remaining seven (7) lead services removed in 1987; and the City basically having a relatively lead-free system from its inception.

Lessons Learned and Outcomes

§  Roseville maintains its sewer and water systems comparable to other metropolitan communities

§  Field maintenance versus management of maintenance needs to be defined

§  Better understanding of options and opportunities

§  Cost-effective service delivery

Chair DeBenedet advised that one outcome of his research is that he now has a higher confidence in the future of the systems based on his awareness that the system is being well-maintained.

Needs Identified

§  Exercise all water valves annually, requiring additional staff resources*

*From his personal view, Chair DeBenedet expressed concern that when there was a need to operate or exercise a valve to isolate a leak, the valve may not close due to a buildup of sediment or other problems.

§  Implement asset management software – a big step for record and data management*

*Again, from his personal view, after reviewing a history of water main breaks over the last ten (10) years; and availability of a map showing sewer backups in City water mains (as opposed to those in homeowner service lines), there are an average of thirteen (13) sewer backups annually in City mains; and any problem areas or clusters need to be identified.

§  Develop an emergency response plan

§  Ramp up 25-year sewer and water Capital Investment Plan (CIP)

SWOT Analysis

Strengths = Institutional knowledge of the department; established preventative maintenance program; management knows each staff person and their individual capabilities; good public support/perception; funding support achieved through rates to-date

Weaknesses = Aging infrastructure; staffing levels; valve exercising program; lack of written policies; lack of written operational plans; lack of funding for outside staff training; lack of an asset management system

Opportunities = technological advances; able to draw on community expertise

Threats = future funding may be inadequate; lack of new entrants to public works careers; doing things “the way we always have” is safe, less risky

Chair DeBenedet noted that the overall situation will be addressed in the near future as the PWET Commission discusses water and sewer rates for addressing the future infrastructure needs for the  City of Roseville.

Discussion among Members and Chair DeBenedet related to the reports’ contents was a consensus that it was a very positive and informative report; need for development of an Emergency Response Team Consensus even though the Public Works crews know what needs to be done, there needs to be a written policy and subsequent training, such as how to address public relations issues when faced with sewer backups; how to make staff aware of immediate steps and how to provide essential services for water and sewer in the event of a tornado or power loss to booster stations or lift stations if standby power is not available or power not to be restored for a significant time or if any of the stations malfunction at that same time; identification of the “weak links” in the City’s water and sewer system and staff’s awareness of those areas; and coordination of that information.

At the prompting of Acting Chair Stenlund, Chair DeBenedet noted that one of his recommendations is for the City to consider lengthening the timing for flushing water and sewer lines since PVC pipe is the original construction material for pipes from 1975 forward, with other and older clay tile pipes having  recently been lined, allowing no roots to develop and lines unlikely to backup under normal operations.  By doing this, Chair DeBenedet opined that it would free staff for exercising other valves; with the City’s older systems requiring more maintenance and additional staff resources.

Acting Chair Stenlund opined that part of a logical asset management tool, and often standard engineering best management practices (BMP’s) found in other communities, is for cities with older systems to either ignore dealing with those issues or being unaware of them.  Acting Chair Stenlund further opined that the mentality of historically doing more with less, eventually you learn to do less with less; and the results of those failures are what we read about in the newspaper, and think they’re happening elsewhere.

At the prompting of Acting Chair Stenlund, Chair DeBenedet advised that his original intent was to include the City’s storm water system and from an asset management perspective of MS4 permitting; however, he realized the water and sewer components were enough to tackle at this time.

10.         Communication Items

This item was deferred to the January 2011 meeting.

11.         Update on Land Use and Development Review Discussions

This item was deferred to the January 2011 meeting.

12.         Update on Coal Tar Sealant Ban

This item was deferred to the January 2011 meeting.

13.         Possible Items for Next Meeting – December 28, 2010 OR January 25, 2011

By consensus, members agreed to not meet in December due to the holidays.

12.      Adjournment

Acting Chair Stenlund adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:55­­ p.m.

Next meeting on January 25, 2011