|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Vice Chair Jan Vanderwall called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Vice Chair Jan Vanderwall; and Members Joan Felice and Steve
Gjerdingen; with Member Duane Stenlund arriving later during the meeting, at
approximately 6:45 p.m.
Members
Excused: Chair Jim DeBenedet
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; City Engineer Debra
Bloom
Others
Present: None.
2.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of May 24, 2011Meeting Minutes
Member Felice moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, approval of the May 24, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 6, paragraph 5 (Gjerdingen)
Clarify Member Felice’s interest
in two separate coordination efforts with the Parks and Recreation Commission
related to transportation implications for bicyclist and pedestrians; and
coordinating tree census implications.
·
Page 9, 4th full paragraph (Gjerdingen)
Member Gjerdingen questioned the
intent of Member Vanderwall’s statement, with clarification by Member
Vanderwall about county and state authorities having final say for arterial
streets. No change to meeting minutes as written.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Member Stenlund arrived at this time, approximately 6:45
p.m.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz noted that updates on various construction projects were included in
tonight’s meeting packet or available on-line, as detailed in the staff
report dated June 28, 2011. Mr. Schwartz provided an update on the 2012 City
Budget process to-date and impacts for supplies and materials, maintenance,
annual leaf program, staffing and other areas for reallocation, depending on
final City Council direction; and impacts to the City with a potential State
Government shutdown, primarily the Rice Street Project.
Member Felice asked about impacts
to the City’s Pavement Management Plan (PMP) with deferred maintenance
efforts creating more potential costs in the future; with Mr. Schwartz
advising that staff was currently analyzing impacts by using the City’s
software program that will be provided to the City Council.
Member Gjerdingen sought
clarification on responsibilities of the contractor and subcontractors for
traffic control for Rice Street during any state shutdown.
City Engineer Debra Bloom noted
that long-term state government shutdown may impact the Fairview Pathway
Project, which had received authorization to apply; however, the project
could be advertized during any state government shutdown, but no bid award,
possibly delaying the project from 2011 to 2012.
Ms. Bloom responded to questions
related to the Dale Street Project and use of recycled materials, based on
weather-related scheduling; with Vice Chair Vanderwall noting the need for
construction schedules to facilitate the start of school bus routes in the
near future.
5.
Review of Joint Council/Commission Meeting Discussion
Vice Chair Vanderwall noted that
he had been unavailable to attend the joint meeting, and invited feedback
from those members in attendance at the joint meeting: Members DeBenedet,
Stenlund, Felice and Gjerdingen.
Mr. Schwartz noted that a copy of
the City Council meeting minutes and discussion outline were included in tonight’s
meeting materials.
Member Stenlund noted the
apparent interest of the City Council in trees and maintaining their root
health; noted that the City Council appeared appreciative of the work of the
Commission and had passed several ordinances based on recommendation of the
Commission; and noted the many and varied questions of the City Council to
Commissioners. Member Stenlund expressed frustration that his question to
the City Council on what they saw as areas of focus over the next year was not
adequately answered from his perspective.
Vice Chair Vanderwall suggested
that perhaps the City Council needed more time to consider that question
outside the scope of the meeting.
Member Gjerdingen noted the City
Council’s interest in the Commission pursuing and making recommendation on
traffic management.
At the request of Vice Chair
Vanderwall related to discussions with the City Council related to organized
garbage collection, Member Stenlund reported that the issue remained
politically-charged; but the City Council seemed supportive of the Commission
continuing to study the issue.
Member Stenlund noted that
Councilmembers had seemed appreciative of the presentations (e.g. Randy
Neprash) at Commission meetings; and seemed to be supportive of those ongoing
presentations that some individual Councilmembers reviewed by tape, as well
as seeming to be supportive of the field trips as the Commission researched
various issues (e.g. intersection safety). Member Stenlund advised that the
City Council also seemed to be supportive of the Complete Streets concept.
Member Gjerdingen noted the City
Council’s interest in the Commission looking at crosswalks as part of their
traffic management study, specifically on collector or arterial streets, with
the intersection of Larpenteur and Lexington Avenues as one area of concern
as expressed by Councilmember Johnson.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting
several other examples of unsafe crosswalks, especially on four-lane roads.
Member Felice also concurred,
expressing concern with vehicles not taking note of pedestrians even at
painted crosswalks.
Member Stenlund referenced page
12 of the City Council meeting minutes referencing asset management and
organized solid waste collection.
Member Felice noted her
attendance at a recent “Talking Trash” meeting, and comments by
representatives of the Cities of White Bear Lake, North St. Paul, and
Maplewood, and their specific experiences with organized collection, both
positive and negative, and some with ten (10) years in the program. Member
Felice noted a number of points beyond wear and tear of the roads and safety,
that were brought up that she had not previously considered in the
Commission’s research, including:
·
Trash collection is a public health issue to ensure that trash
is properly and adequately collected
·
Graphic comparisons showing that the most expensive,
single-hauler system was still significantly less expensive than the cheapest
open system
·
Provides a level of control to the City in knowing exactly how
much garbage is being produced
·
Better service levels are provided through one vendor, as they
pick up at every address, and don’t need to search addresses on their routes
·
The City is assured where trash is taken, another protection
for citizens, as if trash is hauled to a questionable or illegal destination
out-of-state service, charges could be filed if the origination point for the
trash was specifically identified
·
Complaints from people about the City taking over private
industry was found irrelevant based on established criteria:
o
Cost,
o
Service, with both cities at the meeting served by a single
hauler now the most highly rated service by citizen surveys
o
Ability to work language into a contract with a single hauler
for compensation of residents, and
o
A more simplified process with a single hauler for who picks up
unauthorized trash on the boulevard
Member Felice noted that billing
for a single hauler could also be incorporated into the City’s utility
billing process for further cost efficiencies. Member Felice advised that,
overall, the single hauler seemed to work well for those three (3) cities
reporting. Member Felice advised that when the City of White Bear Lake first
began the program, they took whatever items were on the curb for trash
collection without any stipulations; now however, residents are charged by
the size and number of containers, but could arrange for additional pick up
of unusual or large items at additional cost. Member Felice noted that it
was a state mandate that every municipality provide for trash pick-up for
every household in their jurisdiction.
Mr. Schwartz noted that some
rates included the pick-up of three (3) large items per year, provided
arrangements were made with the hauler; negating those items found dumped in
remote areas or dead-end streets.
Vice Chair Vanderwall noted the
unauthorized use of dumpsters at schools, businesses, or other areas by
residents not having garbage service or needing to dispose of excess items.
Mr. Schwartz noted the City
Council had also asked the Commission to look at the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) costs recommended by a Council CIP Subcommittee for increased utility
rates over the next twenty (20) years to facilitate those needs.
6.
Traffic Management Policy
Mr.
Schwartz noted that this topic had been introduced at last month’s Commission
meeting; and the Commission had requested a more detailed review at a future
meeting of the preferred City of Blaine Traffic Management Policy model in
practical application in Roseville.
City
Engineer Bloom noted that overall, it was much easier for staff to work with
residents when a policy or process was in place to provide consistency. In
reviewing the Blaine policy, Ms. Bloom noted a lack of established criteria
that had been included in some of the other models reviewed.
Using
requests for a stop sign as a primary example and one that often comes up,
Ms. Bloom reviewed some of the possible considerations and/or criteria,
referencing Page 17 of the Blaine model. Ms. Bloom reviewed current practice
for the City of Roseville in their review of whether a stop sign was
indicated or not, including a warrant analysis, with the Blaine model not
talking about under which circumstances would be applicable.
Member
Stenlund opined that there were always a lot of questions creating a need for
consistent answers, which he thought was the best part of the Blaine model,
specifically addressed in the Introductory/Purpose statement.
Vice
Chair Vanderwall noted the Blaine model talked about conducting a study, but
he suggested that, if a tight policy for stop signs was in place, there may
not be as much variation for a local response, and a local study provided
staff consistency in response.
Mr.
Schwartz observed that the Blaine model was quite broad and covered a lot of
areas; things that may be related to an engineering study; and suggested the
need to make sure who and where the discretion was.
From
a staff perspective, Ms. Bloom opined that there wasn’t a lot of discretion
for stop signs, and as a professional engineer, she would not recommend any
stop signs without consideration of the warrant analysis. Ms. Bloom noted
that, as staff, there were things allowing for latitude beyond normal
standards, but there were established parameters for other things, such as traffic
calmers, flashing pedestrian signs, and those things had established
criteria. Other things such as speed limits, Ms. Bloom advised that there
was no control, as only the State Commissioner of Transportation could change
speed limits; and the City only able to request bike lanes or speed studies.
In
response to Member Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom advised that road width and speed
limits were not necessarily entwined, and that with the exception of
parkways, the State minimum speed limit was 30 mph. Ms. Bloom advised that,
therefore, she would not sign off on any roads with design standards of less
than 30 mph.
Discussion
ensued on design standards for various types of streets and those having
multiple speed limits (Dale Street); jurisdictional authority, whether state,
county or local; established streets versus newly-constructed streets; and
current practice for Roseville to “push the minimum” of eleven foot (11’)
wide lanes.
Ms.
Bloom noted the need for consistent, city-wide established criteria for requests,
including those to close or open roads, and based on functional
classification, traffic patterns, number of vehicles and their speeds,
whether someone could request a cul-de-sac and what criteria would determine
approval of such a request; and the overall goal to assist staff in providing
better customer service through a traffic management policy.
For
the benefit of Member Gjerdingen’s comments, and as part of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Bloom advised that Roseville has a functional classification
grid for road types and how they’re laid out at 1-2 or 1-4 mile sections.
Mr. Schwartz noted that spacing guidelines were beyond the scope of this
policy, and that those types of streets would not even be considered, but
would be related to neighborhood streets.
Member
Stenlund suggested separate criteria for stop signs, based on various
scenarios.
Member
Felice noted the City of Kent, WA model providing a disclaimer for such a
policy or program, and suggested it be incorporated into the Roseville model.
Ms.
Bloom noted the need to have this policy as part of the tool box to provide
rankings but not set expectations.
Further
discussion of items to include in the Roseville model policy included
multiple and specific illustrations to provide sufficient understanding for
the public; aerials of various types of road or similar situations to those
requests being considered; costs associated with each physical improvement or
conversion; and consideration of trial or temporary applications before permanent
changes are installed.
Additional
discussion included reactionary changes versus permanent changes as part of a
reconstruction project and cost considerations for each; human factors and
3-6 months to obtain a consistent and typical reaction to changes
implemented; whether priority ranking should be given to areas slated for
reconstruction; maintenance challenges (e.g. snow removal in parking bays)
for certain traffic calming measures; additional lead time for reconstruction
projects that would allow temporary installations to determine if they should
be included as a permanent installation upon reconstruction; and cost share
between the City and residents for certain traffic management items and how
criteria would be established for such a cost-share.
Discussion
ensued related to staffing to meet demand; traffic engineer versus city
engineer expertise; funding to cover those additional costs (e.g. 25% of
construction/installation costs); criteria for whether a feasibility study or
traffic study was required before approval of certain installations; and
realistic cost-share based on whether the problem was related to cut-through
traffic or neighborhood traffic.
Ms.
Bloom noted that both the Comprehensive Plan and Imagine Roseville 2025
documents addressed preferred strategies for traffic plans that discouraged
cut-through traffic in the community.
Vice
Chair Vanderwall noted the need for established priorities or criteria to
move the community toward acceptance of such a strategy; and noted the efforts
by the City of Minneapolis in their diverters and discouragement of
cut-through traffic in various neighborhoods.
Ms.
Bloom cautioned that diverters should not be installed in a vacuum to avoid
simply shifting problems from one neighborhood or street to another.
Member
Stenlund suggested, and Vice Chair Vanderwall concurred, combining criteria
from other models with the Blaine model as a Roseville model was developed.
Vice
Chair Vanderwall expressed interest in included school districts in the discussion
(Step 5 of the Blaine model) and other internal government agencies (e.g.
police and emergency responders); and providing provisions that if a request
was beyond the City’s available expertise, a process and criteria would be in
place for funding outside expertise/consultants. Vice Chair Vanderwall also
noted the need for a junction between city and county/state domain and how
that could be better defined beyond the Blaine model when streets came
together, and to provide guidance or education for the public’s
consideration.
Member
Stenlund suggested that would also provide information for other
jurisdictions such as the county if Roseville had a policy in place,
encouraging the county to match the intent of the city; however, if there was
no policy, they had no standards to coordinate.
Ms.
Bloom advised that the city had used the Pathway Master Plan in such a
manner; however, in considering the focus of a Transportation Management
Policy, she noted that there were few things being discussed (e.g. calming,
management, signs) that the county would support on their CSAH roads, but
that they were receptive to working with the city for pedestrian crossing
issues and designs as well as center medians or facilitating pedestrian
crossings on multi-lane roads.
Member
Gjerdingen noted the need for the policy to be revised in the future as it
was practically applied.
Mr.
Schwartz noted a lack of consideration in the Blaine model for pedestrian
treatments throughout the city for safety concerns, and established criteria
needed for that, not just related to vehicular speeds. Mr. Schwartz
suggested one consideration could be a safe route to school, and include that
in the ranking criteria against some of the others that may add to rather
than detract; and ultimately improve neighborhood livability.
Member
Felice suggested including a provision such as in the City of Bloomington, MN
model for all requests to be considered in a given year to be submitted by
the first day of February, then forwarded to the Police, Fire, and Public
Works Departments for their review, as well as Metropolitan Transit and the
School District, allowing all of those agencies to provide input and
comment. Member Felice opined that it would be nice to have them all for the
year to be able to rank them.
Ms.
Bloom noted that this provision would also allow those priorities to be
included in funding and work plan reviews.
Vice
Chair Vanderwall noted consideration for ranking criteria for traffic
management on streets and adjacent areas identified in the Pathway Master
Plan for pedestrian and/or bicycle safety.
Member
Stenlund noted the problems with more bicycles on the roads and them not
being respectful of road rules and their need to practice safety as well.
Vice
Chair Vanderwall concurred, noting the need for additional education.
Further
items for consideration in a traffic management policy included street
parking considered as a traffic calming measure; costs to enforce illegal
parking; adequate time to see pedestrians in crosswalks; parking near
driveways creating sight line problems; consideration of “no stopping” areas
and signage based on street speeds; geography of crosswalks and impacts to
sight lines; research on types of flashing lights at intersections and those
that changed driver habits and those not having any impact; and overhead
lights to provide additional pedestrian safety at crosswalks.
Vice
Chair Vanderwall asked staff to begin drafting, and provide a work-based
model of a model traffic management policy for the City of Roseville; and to
provide that work product to individual commissioners at their earliest
convenience for their comments.
Ms.
Bloom advised that she would pull together the City of Bloomington and Blain
models as a start for the Roseville policy; and start a draft to be available
for discussion at the next Commission meeting. Ms. Bloom suggested the first
eleven (11) pages of the Blaine model as a starting point.
Mr.
Schwartz noted the need to look at collector streets; and other policy
models.
Member
Gjerdingen referenced the DePlaines, IL model addressing other agencies or
interested parties contributing to a policy.
Vice
Chair Vanderwall spoke in support of the once per year deadline, allowing for
more efficiencies and meshing projects together.
Member
Felice noted the need for other items outside normal funding realms (e.g.
pedestrian bridge over Snelling Avenue) and questioned whether a “wish list”
or portfolio of dream wises could be put together for future consideration as
potential funding was available or as related projects developed.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that the City Council had discussed such a wish list, and
thought it would be appropriate, while outside the realm of a neighborhood
traffic policy, but similar to the Pathway Master Plan. Mr. Schwartz noted
that this would allow consideration of those things as funding opportunities
arose and how they would fit in various areas as they redeveloped.
Vice
Chair Vanderwall referenced techniques used by Kiev, Ukraine as an example
for tunnels, even with winter weather considerations, rather than pedestrian
bridges and the markets and other community events in those tunnels. Vice
Chair Vanderwall noted the significant infrastructure cost to build them, but
reminded Commissioners that looking up may not be the only way to go. Vice
Chair Vanderwall advocated for his previously stated desire for a way for
residents on the south side of Highway 36 to access Rosedale; and highlighted
the recent results at Sienna Green Apartments in handling their storm water
management, and their pride in the project, and encouraged Commissioners to
review it.
Ms.
Bloom noted that the $70,000 sidewalk project currently being installed by
the City was a part of the Sienna Green (AEON) project, through CBDG grand
funds.
Ms.
Bloom left the meeting following this discussion.
7.
Utility Capital Improvement Program
Mr.
Schwartz noted the City Manager and City Council’s Capital Improvements
Subcommittee request for the Commission’s review and comment on the Public
Works CIP; and review of the Subcommittee’s utility rate recommendation to
address infrastructure needs over the next twenty (20) years. Mr. Schwartz
noted recent completion of a twenty (20) year utility capital improvement
plan for tax-supported and non- tax-supported needs of the City. Mr.
Schwartz advised that the City’s Finance Director would be providing
additional information and utility rate comparisons for the Commission’s July
meeting to further facility discussions. Mr. Schwartz noted the significant
rate increases being suggested in the Subcommittee Report to address CIP and
infrastructure needs.
Mr.
Schwartz summarized the spreadsheets included in the meeting packet for each
utility fund and their specific needs.
Sanitary
Sewer Needs (Total needs $27-35 million)
·
105
miles of clay tile pipe
·
$22-$28
million to rehab (lining) or replace (depending on grade and condition of
pipe)
·
2,100
sewer structures (concrete manholes with castings over them)
·
$3-$5
million to rehab or replace
·
13
lift stations
·
Rebuild/rehab
every 20 years, $2.5 million
Water
Main Needs (Total needs $37-47 million)
·
115
miles of cast iron pipe left, 12 inch and under
·
$35-$45
million to rehab or replace
·
Watertower,
booster station rehab
·
$2
million rehab costs
Storm
Drainage Needs (Total needs of $20 million)
·
125
miles of pipe replacement or rehabilitation
·
Minimum
need of $10 million rehab or repair
·
Ditches,
ponds, wetlands
·
$5
million maintenance and restoration need
·
5,000
plus structures (catch basins on each side of the street)
·
$5
million in repair/rehab need
Members
asked questions of Mr. Schwartz throughout the presentation for clarity on
various components of each utility and its related infrastructure; and
impacts to service and the community.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that the intent of tonight’s presentation was to summarize
the spreadsheets in the packet for each utility; providing background for
discussion at a future meeting as the Commission talks about proposed rates.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the ultimate goal was to provide feedback to the City
Council confirming whether the proposed, yet staggering, rates were
appropriate given the age of the City’s infrastructure and a CIP of that size
as recommended by the Subcommittee.
Discussion
included initial cost of the infrastructure system; repair costs versus
installation costs; repair costs less than total replacement costs, based on
restoration costs included in rates versus part of a reconstruction project;
and costs to construct pipes in roadways and installation of pumping stations
estimated to cost in excess of $450 million in today’s dollar.
Further
discussion included typical government accounting allowances for fifty (50)
year deprecation for utilities, longer than their usual life; and lack of
relationship from original installation to depreciation for original
construction costs.
8.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – July 26, 2011
Agenda
items for the July meeting included:
·
Utility
Rates/CIP Program
·
Traffic
Management Study, depending on how much was available based on staff’s
existing workload
·
Mechanisms
in place and/or impacts to City Financing if a state government shutdown
occurred
·
Solid
Waste – continuing discussions
9. Adjournment
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|