|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair DeBenedet called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Members Steve Gjerdingen; Jan
Vanderwall; Duane Stenlund; Joan Felice
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; City Engineer Debra
Bloom; Mr. Pat Dolan
Others
Present: Craig Hulbert of Tremco, Inc; Residents: Randy Neprash;
Richard Lambert; and Sarah Barsell, representing the Roseville Citizens
League Executive Board
2.
Public Comments
No one was present to speak at
this time.
3.
Approval of February 22, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Member Felice moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, approval of the February 22, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1, paragraph 1 (Chair)
Notation to staff on corrections
of previous minutes (page 9) related to changing “land” to “lane;” with
Member Vanderwall suggesting that the comment be disregarded and left as is
·
Page 7, 3rd paragraph, 6th sentence
(Gjerdingen)
Clarify connection of the
pathway where it dead ends; near Hamline Avenue for better definition
·
Page 8, 2nd to last paragraph (Gjerdingen)
During discussion of Lexington
Avenue and private property, note that the fence cuts off private property
from Lexington Avenue
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Schultz
reviewed the status of the State/County Rice Street/Highway 36 bridge and
intersection; continuing to move at a good pace despite weather conditions.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the majority of the City’s water main connections
had been made; and it was anticipated that the interchange should be
functional in July or August of 2011, with site restoration and construction
wrap up work completed by fall.
Street Project Update
City Engineer Bloom noted two (2)
project newsletter updates included in the agenda packet: Dale Street
Reconstruction Project; and 2011 Pavement Management Project (PMP). Ms.
Bloom noted that the same contractor would be performing both jobs, but two
newsletters had been done for the benefit and proximity of those residents
impacted by the projects. Ms. Bloom noted that bids on the project were
opened on March 31, 2011; coming in 20% les than the engineer’s estimate,
reducing the estimated cost of the project at $1.7 million and providing a
cost savings to the City as well as Dale Street residents who are slated for
assessments. Ms. Bloom advised that the Dale Street preconstruction and
mill/overlay project meeting is scheduled with North Valley Construction on
April 28, 2011, with anticipated construction start next week. Ms. Bloom
noted that this could be delayed while Xcel Energy coordinates several
utility issues prior to moving forward. Ms. Bloom clarified that the area
for mill and overlay on County Road C-2 from Snelling Avenue to Hamline
Avenue; and advised that the City’s sewer lining was being done prior to the
road projects, with the majority of Dale Street able to be lined; as well as
Rice Street near the bridge project, a portion of which was funded through a
grant.
NE Suburban Connector
Ms. Bloom advised that, until the
scope and project limits were finalized by Ramsey County on their 2012
concrete intersection reconstruction at Fairview and County Road B-2; the
pathway project had been divided into two (2) phases: with the pathway from
County Road B to Larpenteur done and south to the University of MN with
pathway striping; followed by the second phase for everything north of County
Road B to County Road B-2 to connect the backbone trail. Ms. Bloom
anticipated biding the project in June of 2011.
Discussion included location of
bike and pedestrian lanes, and determinations made that due to a lack of
available real estate, the portion under Highway 36 on Fairview Avenue would
be multi-use. Ms. Bloom noted City staff’s meetings and partnering with the
affordable housing property owner at Sienna Green (AEON) to build a sidewalk
from County Road B to their apartment complex on the west side of Snelling
Avenue frontage road to connect to those sidewalks constructed as part of their
rehabilitation and construction project; with the City serving as a conduit
to design and implement that sidewalk meeting. Ms. Bloom anticipated bidding
the concrete sidewalk project May 9, 2011. Ms. Bloom clarified that the
sidewalk would not follow the curve due to a lack of right-of-way, but would
be a direct route, based on human nature in following the path of least
resistance. Ms. Bloom noted that the sidewalk would have a crosswalk at the
curb, and while not an ideal situation, it was better than the current lack
of sidewalk.
Josephine Woods – Pulte
Residential Development
Ms. Bloom advised that the final
plat had been approved by the City Council and that staff was continuing to
coordinate and negotiate the final design details for the Public Improvement
Contract with the developer and their consultants; anticipating seeking City
Council approval in May, with construction anticipated moving forward in
June.
At the request of Member
Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom noted discussions at last night’s City Council meeting
and direction to staff to move forward with a traffic study to determine the
impacts of opening County Road C-2 as an independent study. Ms. Bloom noted
that staff’s directive to put together a work plan and scope for such a
traffic study had been a direct result of the Public Hearing held at the
Planning Commission level for the Josephine Woods project, based on public
comment brought forward once again and considerable discussion held by those
supportive and those opposed to opening the County Road C-2 access. Ms.
Bloom advised that the City Council’s directive last night had been to
proceed with the Origin-Destination Traffic Study process this summer at a
cost not to exceed $15,000 with funding through the Street Reconstruction
Fund. Ms. Bloom noted that the study would only focus on numbers, existing
and once completed; followed by findings presented at a public forum with the
neighborhood and then presentation of the results and public comments to the
City Council.
Ms. Bloom reiterated and
clarified that the purpose of the study is not a feasibility report as to
whether or not County Road C-2 should be opened; but only to study the
impacts of all scenarios if it should be opened. Ms. Bloom noted that any
future City Council decisions would be a separate policy discussion.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom further clarified that County Road C was not part of
the study without further staff discussions with the traffic engineer, as
every node added to the study added another approximate $500 cost. Ms. Bloom
anticipated the month of June for the study, July for the public forum; and
August for presentation to the City Council.
As a special note, Ms. Bloom
noted that County Road C-2 is on the City’s mill and overlay list for 2011;
and staff needed to coordinate completion of the traffic study before or
after that work to ensure its accuracy.
Applewood Point
Ms. Bloom advised that staff was
awaiting final documents for the street construction by the private developer
of the roadway to Langton Lake off Cleveland Avenue; anticipating that work
would start next week.
Overall, Ms. Bloom noted that it
would be a busy year in 2011; in addition to planning for the 2012 projects.
Discussion among members and Ms.
Bloom following her presentation included ensuring that the City’s utilities
under the intersections are in good shape in the area proposed for work on
County Road B-2 between Fairview and Snelling, since the proposed material is
concrete and would be costly to remove and replace if any of that
infrastructure should fail; lack of desire on the part of residents/major
property owners in the vicinity for any private sidewalk connections, and the
inability of staff to require their construction if there is no land use
being done; and property ownership of businesses along that stretch and
difficulty of installing a sidewalk as part of the project given the lack of
right-of-way.
2012/13 Budget
Mr. Schwartz provided a brief
update on the budget process and prioritization of programs/services; and the
City Council’s anticipation to have a preliminary levy available much earlier
this year and build the budget around that number. Mr. Schwartz noted the
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) challenges currently under focus; with the
upcoming presentation on roof maintenance a part of that CIP challenge.
Reliability of Xcel Services
in Roseville Neighborhoods
Ms. Schwartz noted that a
resident had recently approached the City Council regarding Xcel Energy’s
pending rate increase request before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC);
based on their experience in specific neighborhoods; with the City Council
requesting a review in the near future for recommendation to the City Council
on this and other issues related to Xcel Energy’s service, power outages, and
response time throughout the community. Mr. Schwartz noted that the Suburban
Rate Authority, representing suburban communities in utility matters, had
submitted a letter to Xcel Energy, intervening in their current rate request
before the PUC, requesting that their reliability information be provided to
the City of Roseville, with additional follow-up anticipated to be received
by the City Council at their Monday, May 9, 2011 regular meeting.
Chair DeBenedet requested that
staff provide copies of the materials submitted by Roseville resident Dick
Lambert to the City Council be forward to the PWET Commissioners.
Joint Meeting of the PWET
Commission and City Council
Ms. Schwartz noted that Monday,
June 13, 2011 is the annual joint meeting of these two bodies.
Williams Street Pond
At the request of Member Stenlund,
Ms. Bloom provided an update on the Williams Street Pond project, noting that
completion of the project remained pending (finishing the bench work and
installing the baffle on the NE corner of the pond), but advised that the
majority of the utility work had been completed; with a filter bench still
needed on the SW corner constructed of steel filings to dissolve phosphorus,
with that remaining work slated for May or June of this year. Ms. Bloom
noted that the contractor performing that work was also a subcontractor for
the City’s upcoming project, which may have provided a reduced bid on their
part, since they would only need to mobilize once. Ms. Bloom noted the
difficulty in continuing BMP’s once the significant winter snowfall
occurred. Member Stenlund expressed his appreciation to the contractor for
their winter stabilization of the road.
Aladdin Street
As part of our maintenance
project on Aladdin Street, Ms. Bloom noted the City’s receipt of a grant
through the Grass Lakes Water Management Organization (GLWMO) to provide
pretreatment prior to Aladdin Street water (American Legion Club and street
water) to facilitate a 7% grade into a settling area into the DNR-protected
wetland on the south end of Central Park. Ms. Bloom noted that the grant
funds had been for a sand filtered rain garden at the bottom of the hill, for
which the City had partnered with Ramsey Conservation District (RCD for
technical assistance, and the GLWMO.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom clarified that the pathway around the rain garden would
remain; and that property owners had been taking the initiative to clear snow
to make a connection to the ag-lime path in the park; but that the City was
not proposing to pave that connection.
5.
Roof Infrastructure Management Presentations
As detailed in the staff report,
Ms. Schwartz noted that the Public Works Department was responsible for
maintenance of buildings on the City campus, including City Hall and the
maintenance buildings. Mr. Schwartz noted the roofs on portions of the buildings
were scheduled for replacement in the next 2-4 years according to the City’s
CIP. As part of preparing for this needed replacement, and in lieu of
funding constraints, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had been exploring
alternatives to complete replacement and how those assets could be managed to
better maximize the City’s investment in facilities. In contacting various
asset management firms, Mr. Schwartz advised that Mr. Craig Hulbert of
Tremco, Inc. had been asked to provide a short presentation to the PWET
Commission on their specific program for managing roof assets.
Craig Hulbert of Tremco, Inc
Mr. Tremco provided a brief
overview of his firm’s philosophy for enhancing facility asset management for
government entities and their methodology to avoid replacing assets
prematurely to maximize costs. Mr. Hulbert reviewed challenges of asset
management; common reactive versus preventative maintenance; and traditional
warranties versus those offered with a more thoughtful approach to asset
management. Mr. Hulbert noted that traditional methodology for maintenance
was to “replace, repair, and repeat,” with the result being twenty (20)- year
designs were failing in 7-15 years, creating additional risk for the owners.
Mr. Hulbert suggested the methodology should be proactive in determining how
the design could be maintained to last beyond its normal life expectancy.
Mr. Hulbert reviewed three (3)
components to enhance asset management:
1) Integrated = roof asset
management activities must be integrated to work toward common goals:
improved facilities performance at lowest life cycle cost / highest ROI
2) Programmatic = roof asset
management must be programmatic at the point of execution; repair and
replacement vs. preventing leaks and premature replacements
3) Shift technical &
financial performance risk = every component of the program must include a
significant transfer of both technical and financial risk.
Mr. Hulbert opined that this type
of methodology works through various phases as follows:
·
Know what you have – inspections, diagnostics, condition
assessment and program design
·
Triage what you have – maintain the good; restore the marginal;
replace failed or in distress. – repair, restore and replace
·
Protect what you have through preventative maintenance
·
Trace the program’s progress
Mr. Hulbert advised that Tremco
had a ten (10)–year performance warranty approach; depending on the roof
cycle, providing an annual inspection, and it any leaks are found during
their management, they will pay to fix the leaks, thereby shifting the
responsibility from the public to private sector; and not dedicating funds to
assets not needing attention that can be used for other items.
Member Vanderwall asked if
Tremco’s program was proprietary or a commercial database; with Mr. Hulbert
advising that it was proprietary.
Mr. Hulbert likened their asset
management program to similarly structured Pavement Management Plans (PMP’s),
with roadways rated through the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Mr. Hulbert
advised that their program uses a similar index for rating roof conditions,
allowing the City to dictate strategies for maintaining its assets; in
additional to addressing sustainability; as well as providing great
incentives through management to achieve net square footage savings. Mr.
Hulbert briefly reviewed some of their techniques for diagnosing roofs,
including infrared scans and laboratory testing of membranes to determine
wear. Mr. Hulbert advised that his firm was not a contractor, but that they
did have a maintenance division.
Discussion among members and Mr.
Hulbert included eventual replacement of assets even with good construction
and maintenance; goals to exceed warranties for roofs, with Mr. Hulbert
anticipating an approximate 15 year increase in a normal roof cycle; and how
Tremco accommodated putting roofs under warranties.
Mr. Hulbert noted that Tremco
could serve in several different capacities at the discretion of the City and
the amount of oversight they chose. Preferences could include detailed
specifications, design and budget estimates for roofing projects; overseeing
the projects; overseeing the bidding process; or working with architectural
or engineering firms cooperatively or with labor bid separately with
contractors. Mr. Hulbert noted that municipalities could access state
contracts already in place through state bidding processes. Mr. Hulbert
clarified that Tremco was not seeking to push contractors out, but to enhance
what the City was doing and take their program up another level to realize
life cycle cost benefits through asset management.
Mr. Schwartz noted the
significant dollars pending for roof replacement for the City over the next
3-4 years; resulting in this preliminary investigation by staff to attempt a
longer life cycle for its assets. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was
considering submitting this type of proposal as part of their recommended
budget to the City Council.
Chair DeBenedet opined that this
was an interesting topic, and may require more in-depth discussion at a
future meeting.
Member Stenlund concurred that
this was an interesting concept; and that it would be interesting to hear
from other vendors providing this or similar asset management services.
Chair DeBenedet noted further
discussion could include how such an asset management firm was compensated;
and opined that risk was never actually shifted since the City was the owner
and retained the risk, even if they contracted to share that risk.
Member Vanderwall opined that it
was relevant to learn about this type of project from a vendor; however, he
expressed his trust in and supported the competency of staff to determine the
market and explore options to advise the Commission at a later date; rather
than the Commission attempting to micromanage staff.
Member Stenlund noted the
advantages of applying such principles and concepts for maintenance items,
since allocating significant dollars for that maintenance was an ongoing
budget challenge.
6.
Annual Stormwater Public Meeting
Mr. Pat Dolan provided a brief
overview of the City’s annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
and Permit Application for the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)
dated May 25, 2010, as included and detailed in the staff report as part of
tonight’s meeting packet. Mr. Dolan noted that the permit required six (6)
minimum control measures; and proceeded to review the Best Management
Practices (BMP) undertaken by the City in meeting those requirements: public
education and outreach; public participation/involvement; illicit discharge,
detection and elimination; construction site runoff control;
post-construction site runoff control; and pollution prevention/good
housekeeping.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
City’s vacuum street sweeper, recently acquired, was parked at City Hall if
the Commission wished to investigate. Mr. Schwartz noted that the first
swath of street sweeping had completed of the entire City, and a second run
of those more environmentally-sensitive areas was now in process.
Mr. Schwartz also noted the full
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) audit done last July in the City of
Roseville with City staff; and their findings dated December 16, 2010;
attached hereto and made a part hereof; and staff responses to those
findings. Overall, Mr. Schwartz opined that the City had fared quite well in
the audit, even though there were a number of items needing to be responded
to in the letter, there was nothing for which the City was written up by the
MPCA; and represented area for improvement that proved a good opportunity for
accountability for all.
Member Stenlund questioned
findings related to construction site management and minimum control
measures; and whether staff was satisfied with the language and terminology
of their response in that section. Member Stenlund noted review of the
Erosion Control Ordinance, scheduled for review later in tonight’s meeting;
and sought assurances that ordinance language was consistent with the City’s
NDPES permit (e.g. Section 4.a-1: minimum disturbance levels; plan). Member Stenlund
noted that staff referenced “construction site plan“ while he referenced it
as an “erosion control plan;” and suggested that the ordinance language
reflect MS4 language.
City Engineer Bloom advised that,
from her perspective as the identified “responsible party,” she concurred
with making language consistent; however, she clarified that the staff
response was a description of how staff intended to manage construction sites
and stormwater runoff. Ms. Bloom noted that staff was somewhat limited in
their response terminology due to the way the MPCA had formatted the
document. Ms. Bloom further noted that this audit was based on 2010 BMP
operating plans, not that being considered in the Erosion Control Ordinance
yet to be implemented in 2011. Ms. Bloom suggested Member comments and
revisions should be discussed for inclusion in the Erosion Control Ordinance
for recommended adoption to the City Council; and then built into the next
BMP summary sheet, attempting to achieve consistency in those documents. Ms.
Bloom opined that the Erosion Control Ordinance was a direct result of the
2010 audit.
In Section 4.B-1, Member Stenlund
questioned what corrective actions resulted from their review of submitted
plans, with ninety-nine (99) plans reviewed in 2010; and questioned feedback
benefits from those reviews.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff had
chosen to measure by the number of plans reviewed, not qualitatively; and if
they are approved, they have been determined to be good plans. Ms. Bloom
clarified that a submitted plan may go through a number of alliterations
prior to its actual approval; but when staff was satisfied in its review, the
plan was approved.
Member Vanderwall recognized
Member Stenlund’s intent in attempting to determine the quality of plans
presented. Member Vanderwall clarified that if staff was not supportive of a
submitted plan, it was returned until brought up to standard, at which time
staff approved it.
Ms. Bloom reviewed the MPCA audit
report in detail; concurring with Ms. Schwartz that the audit experience had
been a great experience, with MPCA staff spending July 14 – 15, 2010 with
City staff, both in-house and in the field. Compared with other communities,
Ms. Bloom felt confident in the outcome of that audit; recognizing things
that staff was doing well; and only one (1) “must do” indicated, creation of
the Erosion Sedimentation Ordinance. Ms. Bloom advised that the MPCA’s
concern appeared to be the lack of consistency in staff responses when
interviewed, and the need to coordinate interpretation and application of the
ordinance among building officials, inspection staff, engineering, and Public
Works staff. Related to “Stop Work” orders, they were not defined in current
ordinance; even though staff followed a precise process, the MPCA was not
confident that it was clear for applicants for use of this type of tool by
the City. Ms. Bloom advised that staff took that criticism as a constructive
opportunity to improve their process for consistency; and in updating the
ordinance.
Ms. Bloom noted the urgency in
getting the ordinance update approved and enacted, since applications were
already being received, and staff was unable to enforce MPCA requirements
until the ordinance was enacted and published.
Ms. Bloom noted the various staff
assignments for BMP’s; and the number of staff representing various City
departments who were involved.
In addressing the BMP for
training for discharge detection, Mr. Dolan advised that training would be
across all departments to ensure the same criteria was being consistently
used; and that in initiating the action plan, the Fire Department would be
the first consulted and their industry standards used, as they were usually
the first on site in their role as First Responders.
In discussing SWPPP training, the
MPCA encouraged the City to provide training and review, and Ms. Bloom
advised that the City utilized inspectors through the U of MN for plan
review; and that would be reflected in her response to the MPCA’s recommended
action. Ms. Bloom advised that project coordinators who reviewed plans were
each certified; however, she noted that while she had knowledge of the plans
and requirements and due to current budget restrictions on additional
training, since she was not officially certified, she did not officially
review design plans. Ms. Bloom noted that, from the City’s and her
perspective, her response addressed MPCA recommendations and her comment was
based on her professional training and experience with her providing
oversight to those certified personnel, but did not actually certify the
plans.
In accordance with the Public
Works Department’s 2011 Work Plan, Ms. Bloom noted staff’s response to
Recommended Action #3 related to volume control standards, was that any
private infrastructure installed prior to 2004 was not included on the
department’s database; and that it would be implemented when it became
feasible to do so. Ms. Bloom advised that this was a project for an Intern
as time allowed: to develop that inventory and to inspect each basin on
private developments following submission and approval of their site plans to
ensure ongoing compliance. Ms. Bloom noted that this was another item that
required funding and additional staff time that was not available at this
time.
Member Vanderwall questioned if
this type of project was too technical in nature, or if it could be delegated
as a class project to a high school class as part of their research
requirements.
Ms. Bloom advised that commercial
developments needed identification; and a clear understanding of what was
being looked for, some of which could be underground. Based on her personal
experience, Ms. Bloom advised that she had found some basins built in the
1980’s that were already completed filled over. Ms. Bloom noted that
additional research would be required of City records after the actual field
identification. Ms. Bloom noted that, following those steps, it may be a
project that would be appropriate for an environmental class to document
various issues in the field.
Member Stenlund suggested that
the Erosion Control Stormwater Ordinance, Section 1017.02, be strengthened to
address post-construction stormwater quality; and that developers provide a
plan for infrastructure maintenance and structural treatment BMP’s.
Recommendations #4 and #5 were
included by Ms. Bloom in the 2012 Surface Water Management Plan, which would
include a future discussion with the PWET Commission as a number of City and
Zoning Code Chapters related to erosion/sediment control as part of the
permit process were reviewed and updated and moved into the realm of the
Public Works Department, in conjunction with the Community Development
Department; including the obsolete drainage section.
Ms. Bloom reiterated the need to
fast track the Erosion Control Ordinance, in consideration of MPCA audit
findings, to address construction permits coming in now, and staff’s need to
continue their approval based on the existing and outdated ordinance.
Ms. Bloom noted the MPCA’s
recommendation that the City use a digital process in the field as much as
possible, through providing laptops for field staff; however, she noted the
challenge of attempting to make that happen within existing budget
constraints.
Recess
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 8:10
p.m. and reconvened the meeting at approximately 8:18 p.m.
7.
Erosion Control Ordinance Updates
Ms. Bloom provided a draft and
staff’s recommended changes to the Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance, Chapter 1017, as detailed in the staff report. Ms. Bloom noted
that the revisions, additions and deletions were from tracking actual use and
experiences with erosion/sediment control since the ordinance was enacted in
2006; what was intended and identifying any unintended consequences or other
practical application issues; as well as other housekeeping issues found. As
previously noted by Ms. Bloom, another reason for this rewrite is that,
during the recently City Zoning Code rewrite, the Planning Commission
recommended removal of Section 800 from the Zoning Code, and included in the
Erosion Control Ordinance.
Ms. Bloom identified the
yellow-highlighted ordinance revisions as recommended by the City Attorney.
Chair DeBenedet noted that several
years ago, the PWET Commission had already been discussion a comprehensive
storm water ordinance, rather than the patchwork permitting and approvals
currently being used; and similar to that recently completed by the City of
Maplewood.
Ms. Bloom suggested, from her
perspective, that many items suggested over the course of the rewrite and
previously comment upon by staff and Commissions, may be more appropriate as
educational pieces and done as a manual rather than incorporated into the
ordinance itself. Ms. Bloom suggested that these items be incorporated and
adopted by reference in the ordinance; allowing for more frequent updating
and revisions, and a less complicated process than required for ordinance
enactment and the public hearing and publication requirements.
Ms. Bloom advised that some of
the strike-outs identified in her draft were specific to those references.
Ms. Bloom noted the additions made in the draft that addressed shorelands and
land disturbances, as that had been erroneously omitted in the original
ordinance. Even though the City required erosion controls in shoreland
areas, Ms. Bloom opined that those stipulations would be strengthened by
adding such language to the ordinance.
Chair DeBenedet commended the
clarity of Ms. Bloom’s recommended revisions; and in the interest of time,
suggested that individual Commissioners access the ordinance online or in
their packets; and provide any additional comments, other recommended
revisions directly to staff at their earliest convenience.
Chair DeBenedet and Member Stenlund
offered their written comments, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
to Ms. Bloom for her review and potential incorporation into the next draft.
Member Stenlund briefly discussed
changing the title of the ordinance to be more appropriate.
Ms. Bloom expressed her
appreciation to PWET Commissioners for their thoughtful review of the
proposed rewrite and for sharing their various areas of expertise in that
review.
Discussion included application
of language in Section 1017.06 related to temporary stock piles as
applicable; PWET Commission review of the next draft following staff’s review
and potential incorporation of their revisions; and in addressing Member Stenlund’s
concerns for post-construction plans, assurances that staff had provided
comment to the Pulte Homes (Josephine Woods) developer last week on their
submitted plans and additional requirements to ensure maintenance of the
ponds post-construction and potentially across private property. Ms. Bloom
reviewed the process currently underway for Josephine Woods, with the plat
initially reviewed by the City and a draft plan provided for reference; and
as part of the certified review previously discussed and from a Public Works
maintenance and operations perspective, everything that became public had to
be maintained. During that review, Ms. Bloom noted the comments incorporated
into the review process by staff addressing the right and wrong ways to
construct and maintain the site; and openly discussed and clarified with the
developer. Ms. Bloom advised that the plan was then revised accordingly to
make the infrastructure as successful and as cost- and labor-efficient as
possible for all parties, ultimately ensuring area water quality.
Ms. Bloom noted, as part of the
continuing public education process, the stormwater fees paid on each
quarterly utility bill for ongoing long-term maintenance and repair of that
infrastructure.
Ms. Bloom noted that the City’s
goal was to clean out 20% of the stormwater ponds annually; and depending on
how they were ranked, as part of the City’s operations and maintenance
portion of their stormwater permit, some were cleaned more often and on a
regular basis or as problems were evidenced. Ms. Bloom noted that many systems
had been constructed before current technologies were readily known, and
designs continued to improve; with every opportunity taken when retrofitting
was possible of existing designs, or to correct past designs. Ms. Bloom
noted that environmental awareness, laws and experience have also changed.
Ms. Bloom advised that many standard options used twenty (20) years ago that
were thought cutting edge at that time, were now considered high maintenance.
8.
Organized Waste Collection Discussion
Mr. Schwartz summarized the staff
report related to discussions in the City of Maplewood about organized waste
collection; and their recent vote to continue exploring organizing
collection. A copy of the City of Maplewood’s staff memorandum dated March
22, 2011 was included in packet materials, outlining their process; and
subsequent City Council approval in contracting with a consultant to develop
a Request for Proposals (RFP).
Sarah Barsell, Roseville
Citizens’ League (RCL) Executive Board
Ms. Barsell noted her attendance
at that hearing; and her perception of the City of Maplewood’s Resolution of
Intent to pursue the process in accordance with State Statute, Section
115A.94 on Organized Collection, to remain legal during throughout the
process.
Mr. Schwarz advised that his
conversations with Mr. Roger Toogood from the RCL indicated that the RCL was
interested in holding a public educational forum, possibly partnering with
the League of Women Voters, simply as an informational forum.
Chair DeBenedet noted that, in his
discussions with the League of Women Voters, they advised him that they had
already adopted a position on trash collection and therefore, didn’t feel
they could partner with the RCL on this project.
Ms. Barsell provided additional
background on her meeting, along with Mr. Toogood, Dick Lambert, and Doug Root,
with City Manager Bill Malinen for initial discussion on holding an
informational forum by the RCL Ms. Barsell advised that City Manager Malinen
had requested that the RCL delay such a forum, pending further discussion by
the PWET Commission on the issues. Ms. Barsell advised that the RCL
continued to await the PWET Commission’s position; and their perception of
whether such a forum would be helpful or not; or if it would in fact be legal
in accordance with state statute. Ms. Barsell advised that it was the desire
of the RCL for the City’s legal counsel to review and provide a legal opinion
prior to their holding such an informational forum.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he had held a follow-up conversation with City
Manager Malinen this afternoon; and while staff could hold additional
discussions with the City Attorney, the problem appeared to be that the City
needed to remove itself from any involvement in the forum process to avoid
violation of state statute, including avoiding the PWET Commission’s
involvement or holding such a forum. Mr. Schwartz noted that organizations
such as the RCL or LWV were not sanctioned by the City and they could proceed
with such a forum.
Ms. Barsell sought assurance that
there would be no legal repercussions if the RCL were to proceed with an
informational forum to educate the public on the pros and cons of various
types of collection programs. Ms. Barsell noted that it was the desire of
the RCL to provide an open forum for discussion; to hear the experiences of
other communities, both their successes and failures; and
Beyond that update, Mr. Schwartz
advised that City Manager Malinen suggested that several members of the PWET
Commission form a subcommittee to work with City staff to explore a
recommendation by Mr. Lambert for an optional voluntary type participation
program as a type of collection program, determining if there were market
forces at work that could prevent the success of such a form of collection; discussing
both zonal and unified collections; or opt out programs. Ms. Barsell noted
that it was intended to have full representation at the informational forum,
including representatives from area trash haulers. Ms. Barsell suggested
that materials would be provided to allow public questions by a panel of
representatives, not an open microphone situation that would serve to avoid
the contentious situation that developed in the City of Maplewood during
their discussion process.
It was the consensus of the Commission
that, provided the RCL acted independently of the City and/or the PWET
Commission, there should be no problem in their proceeding.
Mr. Schwartz advised that in his
discussions with the City Attorney, that was the key; and that any
involvement by City staff would violate statutory language; even going down
the route for considering a voluntary program would still be defined by
statute as organized collection. Mr. Schwartz advised that this was the
rationale in the City of Maplewood pursuing an RFP to explore options and
addressing opposition for those wanting to opt out of such an organized
collection program.
If not accessible on the City’s
website, Chair DeBenedet asked that staff provide the spreadsheet presented
in the March 2011 PWET Commission agenda packet materials for his reference.
Ms. Barsell questioned reference
materials on various pro/cons as researched by the PWET Commission and City
staff; and whether those materials would be allowable at a public forum
sponsored by the RCL, as long as their authorship was duly documented.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
spreadsheet referenced by Chair DeBenedet had actually been generated by
Ramsey County for a survey, and was public information, therefore not in
violation of any statute provisions.
Ms. Barsell noted that the RCL
was attempting to organize this public forum in mid-May; however, she was
unsure if this was still feasible. Ms. Barsell advised that it was the RCL’s
intent to hold the forum at the Roseville Skating Center, depending on its
availability.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that,
due to potential legal and/or political considerations, the RCL did not hold
the forum in any City-owned or affiliated facility.
Member Vanderwall suggested
holding the forum at the Roseville library if the occupancy was sufficient.
Ms. Barsell advised that she
would report back to the RCL Executive Board for further consideration; and
sought an opinion from the PWET Commission if the forum was even a worthwhile
endeavor.
Chair DeBenedet advised that he
had no opinion one way or another, but personally saw no problem with a
private organization hosing an informational meeting to discuss any subject
of interest to the general public.
Member Vanderwall opined that
there was a need for the public to get educated on the overall subject; and
that the RCL providing that educational perspective to the general public was
appropriate.
Members Gjerdingen and Felice concurred
with the comments of Chair DeBenedet and Member Vanderwall.
Member Vanderwall clarified that
this was just individual opinions; and that it was the general consensus of
the PWET Commission that, at some point in the future, they may take a formal
position on trash collection for recommendation to the City Council. Member
Vanderwall opined that the RCL had many issues they could consider and that
had good potential and value for additional public education, including this
topic.
Dick Lambert
Mr. Lambert referenced a handout
he’d provided to staff related to opt-out features as a third option, and
providing a history of that option; attached hereto and made a part
hereof. Given the number of more highly ranked items for governments
to consider and the need for support of its taxpayers for an annual budget,
Mr. Lambert questioned if such a low priority item as trash collection should
be taken on by local government at this time.
Discussion among Members, Mr.
Lambert, and staff included challenges in setting up an RFP for selecting and
contracting with a selected hauler; guarantees to ensure a minimum number of
customers; willingness of haulers in lowering price to compete in order to
shift their existing customers over to a city-controlled contract; and
logistics in establishing a collection system.
9.
Coal Tar Ban Ordinance
Randy Neprash, former PWET
Commission Member and professional in the field, provided two (2) bench
handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof,” related to polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH’s) and Coal-tar-based Seal coating materials on water
bodies in urban areas.
Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge
Avenue
Mr. Neprash presented a brief
slide show on additional scientific findings related to these materials.
Chair DeBenedet advised that he
had recently contacted engineering staff in the City of Maplewood, which City
had recently enacted a ban on these materials, as well as a ban enacted by
the City of White Bear Lake. Chair DeBenedet noted the incentive in doing so
included the need for cities to comply with fairly new MPCA regulations for
stormwater clean up; and the expense of dredging out and disposing of
hazardous waste. Chair DeBenedet advised that the City of Maplewood staff
found that most retail outlets no longer sold coal tar-based products;
providing further rationale for proposing such an ordinance for Roseville.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, in
2010, there had been an effort at the state legislature to enact a state-wide
ban on coal-tar-based sealants, which had ultimately failed. Mr. Schwartz
further advised, that while it was anticipated that such legislation may be
taken up again during the 2011 session, it had not yet happened; with local
the local legislative body stating that it was past time to introduce that
type of legislation during this session; providing the option to pursue local
bans. Mr. Schwartz noted additional information in tonight’s meeting packet
from previous PWET Commission discussions; and staff revisions from the
undiluted language of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) model ordinance
previous presented, and revisions made similar to those ordinances adopted by
the Cities of White Bear Lake and Maplewood for a total ban. Mr. Schwartz
noted that the City Attorney had drafted this ordinance in Roseville format,
potentially banning coal-tar-based sealants for use in the City. Mr.
Schwartz sought comment and discussion of Members on the revised ordinance.
Chair DeBenedet suggested
including references of the goal/policy statements from the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, Section 8, to the Ordinance’s Purpose Statement providing
further justification for the ordinance. Chair DeBenedet further suggested
in the second paragraph including additional studies, such as demonstrated by
the USGS Study and that of the Austin, TX information, as further rationale
in addressing the “Adverse Relationship” language. In the Definition
Section, Chair DeBenedet noted an error in the description of the MPCA.
Member Stenlund noted that
enactment of such an ordinance would not harm responsible retail businesses
selling these products, as alternative products were available for the same
price on average; but such an ordinance would make a positive statement to
the public; and
Member Vanderwall noted an
additional typographical error in the second line of the last page.
Members concurred that the public
education component was an important part of enacting the ordinance, as it
would prove hard to enforce otherwise.
Stenlund moved, Gjerdingen
seconded, recommending to the City Council the draft ordinance as amended
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion Carried.
10.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – May 24, 2011
Staff and Members discussed
potential agenda items for the May 2011 meeting, including: further
discussion of a traffic management study generated by the Dale Street Project
and Josephine Woods/County Road C-2 discussion, which would include staff
researching other cities to determine their policies, and subsequent creation
of a draft policy for Roseville for recommendation to the City Council, that
would include traffic calming options and a process for handling citizen
complaints/requests for those options, as well as the responsible party to
pay for those options. Further agenda items included a discussion of topics
to address at the upcoming joint PWET Commission/City Council meeting; with
additional information forthcoming on the 2012 budget information and impacts
on programs.
Staff was asked to provide
additional information on how many different places in existing City
ordinance addressed stormwater, and prior to the next meeting, provide those
ordinances to Members, or point them to where to find them on line, for the
purpose of putting together a comprehensive stormwater chapter of ordinance.
Chair DeBenedet suggested further
discussion by the PWET Commission and Engineering Department on a strategic
plan to address upcoming issues with limited recourses, including all asset
management, infrastructure restoration/reconstruction for long-range
planning, and how future staffing needs could be met; and the City’s needs
met in-house rather than contracting those needs out.
Members briefly discussed the
proposal heard by Tremco and whether hiring them was the best option
available, or if other companies provided performance contracting without
having a specific interest in manufacturing a product.
Member Gjerdingen addressed his
concerns with the City’s current snow/pathway ordinance and his perception of
the need to address public/private pathways and a proposed ordinance modified
to refer to maintenance of adjacent pathways, including businesses and
residential areas.
Mr. Schwartz noted that this was
a grey area in the operation of pathways, with maintenance and snow removal
under the duties of the Parks and Recreation Department, who had their own
Commission to address such items. Mr. Schwartz offered to discuss Member
Gjerdingen’s concerns with Mr. Brokke to see it the Parks and Recreation
Commission would take up that ordinance.
Chair DeBenedet noted the
upcoming “Zero Waste Management Gathering” on April 28, 2011, and encouraged
Member attendance.
11. Adjournment
Member Vanderwall moved, Member Stenlund
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:30 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|