|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Jim DeBenedet called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Members Jan Vanderwall; Joan Felice;
and Steve Gjerdingen
Members
Absent: Member Dwane Stenlund
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 June 28, 2011Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the June 28, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 9, paragraph 7 (Vanderwall)
Spelling correction from “resent”
to ‘recent”
Ayes: 2
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 2 (DeBenedet;
Gjerdingen)
Motion carried.
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 July 26, 2011. Mr. Schwartz advised that the Rice Street project
was slowly returning to work with the State back in operation and anticipated
another 1-1.5 months to get all traffic lanes open to traffic.
At the request of Member
Vanderwall, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the bridge opening timeline should
coincide with completion of the other work, once remaining median work was
finished.
Chair DeBenedet questioned the
status of private underground utility work as it related to sidewalk
installation; and expressed his concern and frustration with the contractors
maintaining handicapped accessibility throughout the project. While not
being clear on how the ADA addressed temporary access and handicapped ramps
during construction projects, Chair DeBenedet noted that there was
accessibility through the project are prior to the project’s start; and it
had certainly been interrupted in the interim, and asked that staff address
this issue at upcoming construction meetings to bring resolution on behalf of
the City’s handicapped citizens.
Mr. Schwartz advised that most of
the sidewalks had been installed, with few exceptions; however, he advised
that there were several subcontractor issues yet to be resolved. Mr.
Schwartz advised that several curb cuts needed to be redone to meet ADA
compliance requirements; and concurred that in the interim, the contractors
have not done a good job of facilitating handicapped citizens.
Chair DeBenedet noted that it was
a safety concern; and opined that there was no need for that lack of
accessibility other than for sloppy contractor work.
Mr. Schwartz advised that there
had been numerous contentious issues and meetings; one issue being erosion
control or lack thereof.
Member Vanderwall concurred; and
noted in addition to his personal comments at those meetings as a
representative of the School District, Mr. Schwartz had been very diligent in
bringing that very issue up at various times.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the large
rainfall event the weekend of July 16, 2011, had created additional issues,
and required a lot of clean-up work as a result, not having been designed for
such a rain event.
Member Vanderwall questioned the
status of the Dale Street project, and ongoing dirt piles and apparent delays
in work on that project.
City Engineer Debra Bloom advised
that the contractor had not been making significant progress, and following
discussions with them by staff last week, they were now moving forward
again. Ms. Bloom advised that the contractor blamed the delay on the
subcontractor who had planned to haul excess excavation materials to a state
project, but with the state government shutdown, that had negated that
possibility, and with no other place for disposal being readily available,
that subcontractor stopped work on the project. Ms. Bloom advised that there
were other segments of the project underway during that time, but not as
obvious since they weren’t on Dale Street.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
contractor had started on the south end of Dale Street earlier today; and the
curb was scheduled for installation on Dale Street by August 8, 2011. Mr.
Schwartz noted that this project had also been impacted, and required
clean-up, as a result of the massive rain event.
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
on the 2012 City Budget process to-date, and impacts to the Public Works
Department budget related to the City Manager-recommended budget, and
affecting virtually every department in the City. Mr. Schwartz advised that
impacts to the Public Works Department would include reductions in building
and street light maintenance; a significant reduction in pathway maintenance
and reduction in the seal coat program; in addition to other miscellaneous
impacts, as well as elimination of the annual fall residential leaf
collection program. Mr. Schwartz advised that the drop off site would remain
open. Mr. Schwartz noted that discussions would continue over the next few
City Council meetings; and that the Council had expressed some concerns with
identified impacts at their meeting July 25, 2011.
Discussion included impacts to
snow removal in the maintenance discussions, with the potential loss of one
(1) FTE, thereby reducing snow plow routes by one, and extending plowing by
approximately forty-five minutes.
At the request of Chair DeBenedet
and plan designs / construction schedules and plans for Rice Street from
County Road B-2 to County Road C-2, Mr. Schwartz advised that preliminary
engineering plans were anticipated later this fall. Mr. Schwartz advised
that, at their last meeting, both the Cities of Little Canada and Roseville
were on the same page; and while the project was originally planned for 2012,
rights-of-way acquisition and clarification, the state then intended to defer
it to late summer start in 2012. Given that late start date, Mr. Schwartz
advised that City feedback had requested delaying the project for another
season with work then beginning in the spring of 2013; and thus allowing all
private utilities to complete their work in 2012.
Chair DeBenedet noted the need
for discussion on undergrounding utilities on that segment.
Mr. Schwartz noted that staff had
requested Xcel to provide preliminary cost estimates; however, they could not
do so until a preliminary plan was in place.
Member Felice questioned the
status of the Fairview Pathway project, with Ms. Bloom advising that now that
the state is operating again, bids had been opened on Friday, July 22; but
had been substantially above the engineer’s estimate, with the lowest bid at
$850,000 for Phase I, and only $1 million allotted for the entire project.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff was now meeting with MnDOT to determine the next
steps; whether quantities in the bid document aligned with proposed work; and
whether the bid will proceed to award or be rebid as concurred by the various
partners (MnDOT, U of MN, Cities of Falcon Heights and Roseville, and Livable
Communities Grant funds administered through TLC). Ms. Bloom noted there was
a possibility of additional grant funds being available, but it was too soon
to tell at this early stage.
5.
Utility Rate/Capital Improvement Program Funding Discussion
Mr. Schwartz apologized for
Finance Director Chris Miller being unable to attend tonight’s meeting; and
proceeded to detail the information on the proposed 2012 utility rates, as
outlined in the July 18, 2011 memo and referenced documents attached. While
staff annually reviews utilities for rate adjustments, Mr. Schwartz noted
that an added piece this year was recommended by the Council-appointed
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Task Force, consisting of Mayor Roe,
Councilmember Johnson, City Manager Malinen and Finance Director Miller. Mr.
Schwartz noted later during the discussion that the Public Works Department
had provided technical assistance on the various infrastructure systems and
their needs anticipated and projected over the next thirty (30) years. Mr.
Schwartz noted that that infrastructure overview had been presented to the
Commission at last month’s meeting.
Member Vanderwall observed that
documentation confirmed that the CIP was underfunded by huge amounts.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed how the
analysis had been done, through addressing fixed, personnel and variable
costs (wholesale water purchase and treatment of storm water); and the
resulting recommendations of the Task Force for all utility operations as
detailed in the report.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the
underfunding for capital financing over a number of years between annual
funds available and actual annual needs; with the Task Force recommending
these one-time significant rate adjustment to bring funding levels in line with
capital needs for the next twenty (20) years, providing for less of an impact
annually than by projecting needs in advance. Mr. Schwartz identified
proposed base rate and use rate impacts.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Council and Task Force was asking the PWET Commission if they were
supportive of that recommendation; and if not, an alternative recommendation.
Mr. Schwartz responded to
Commission questions, comments and clarification needs throughout the
presentation.
Water Operations
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
actual 2012 reduction of 1.1% in the budget was due to determining that a
projected rehabilitation of an existing water tower was reduced to draining
the tank, cleaning off rust and corrosion, and spot welding; and that it had
been concluded that further work could be deferred following analysis of the
tower.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
largest increase, anticipated to be 4.5%, was in wholesale water purchase
from the Saint Paul Regional Water Utility (SPRWU).
Mr. Schwartz noted that these
substantial increases in water costs were metro-wide due to declining water
use; and the need for the SPRWU to spread their water production costs over
that smaller number of gallons being used. Mr. Schwartz advised that if
water usage was stable or increasing, the percentage of increase would be
reduced accordingly.
Sanitary Sewer Operations
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
single largest operating cost for the sanitary sewer operation is treatment
costs paid to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division (MCES)
as detailed in the report. Mr. Schwartz noted that the MCES had notified the
City that there treatment costs were expected to increase by approximately
11% in 2012; based in part to the continued presence of significant storm
water infiltration into the system.
Member Vanderwall observed the
obvious need for more maintenance to stop inflow and infiltration (I & I)
into the system.
Member Felice observed that more
upfront investment would save money long-term.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed how the
Metropolitan Council sewer lines were metered coming into and leaving the
City of Roseville, allowing them to determine how much was attributable to
the City. Mr. Schwartz noted that, in previous surcharge programs, all was
attributed to Roseville; however, he noted that the City had been successful
in negotiating with the Metropolitan Council, based on pipe diameter, to
accept half as their responsibility in the new program starting in January of
2012. Mr. Schwartz noted that they were not willing to renegotiate any past
differentials; only going forward with the new program.
While specific projects were not
addressed in CIP needs, Mr. Schwartz advised that age and deterioration in
various segments of the sanitary sewer system pipes were considered in
determining those projected needs, as well as the type of pipe in that
section of the City and standard engineering practices. Mr. Schwartz noted
that there would be some areas where pipe lining would suffice, with other
areas requiring replacement, each option ultimately providing a useful life
of the system in the 59-80 year range.
Chair DeBenedet opined that this
is one project needing recondition of all pipes in the system that are clay
or reinforced concrete sewer mains; and with more than 100 miles of pipe, it
would take a minimum of twenty (20) years to accomplish the task.
Mr. Schwartz estimated closer to
thirty (30) years; but the City was only taking the first twenty (20) years
into consideration at this time.
Member Felice questioned the life
expectancy of new materials and whether they had been used long enough to
know an accurate history on their lives.
Chair DeBenedet advised that his
research of the USGPA provided a listing for all different types of materials
and their life expectancies; with sewer lining material providing a vast
difference in predicted life expectancies; however, not historically proven
at this time.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
oldest of the Cities pipes would have reached the 80-year range before completion
of the twenty to thirty (20-30), long-term CIP program.
Chair DeBenedet opined that there
may be more leakages and infiltration or sewer backups that would increase
maintenance costs, but no major failures anticipated. Chair DeBenedet noted
that there may not be much agreement on life expectancy of material types,
but customer dissatisfaction with reliability of the service would be a
significant factor. Chair DeBenedet opined that the capital replacement
should not be put off so long that it becomes a political issue with no
public support or faith in replacement of the City’s infrastructure.
Mr. Schwartz noted another cost
impact for the Metropolitan Council was the downturn in the building trade,
since collection of Sewer Availability Charges (SAC’s) were used by them for
their CIP program; however, their revenues had diminished significantly with
the downturn in the economy and new buildings. Therefore, Mr. Schwartz
advised that they were shifting their CIP costs onto their treatment rates.
Chair DeBenedet noted that, as
sewer systems continue to age and leak more, that overflow passed into
wastewater treatment plants; and as they couldn’t treat it, they were only
able to partially treat that flow before it got to the river, creating violations
of environmental permitting requirements. Chair DeBenedet noted the need to
address that, as a society and from an environmental standpoint, before that
happened, and that could be accomplished by planning ahead. Chair DeBenedet
opined that the SAC charges were the best planning tool available, allowing
wastewater treatment plans to be installed to accommodate additional capacity
for new construction. However, if that new construction wasn’t happening,
Chair DeBenedet noted that the treatment plan may have more useful years, but
lacked revenue to support its operations.
Related to potential discharges
to the river, Mr. Schwartz noted that the recent July rainfall events created
the first time for the Metropolitan Council I Roseville where the trunk line
was over capacity and started to backup into homes in the southeast portion
of Roseville. Mr. Schwartz advised that the Metropolitan Council had
narrowly averted discharge to the Mississippi River due to that discharge.
At the request of Member Gjerdingen,
Mr. Schwartz confirmed that having a better CIP replacement schedule could
lower treatment costs; but that it would also be accomplished by identifying
and eliminating private services (e.g. sump pump inspections) to eliminate
additional I & I. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had thought they were
making progress; however, recent evidence indicated that the City needed to
be even more aggressive.
Storm Drainage Operations
Mr. Schwartz noted that a
proposed 6.8% increase in this fund was proposed.
Overall Rate Impacts
Mr. Schwartz addressed overall
impacts projected for a typical homeowner reflected in tables on pages 4-6 of
the report, estimated at $40 per household or a 32.1% overall increase.
Mr. Schwartz advised that neither
he or Finance Director Miller were seeing any significant change in usage
since conservation rates were implemented; while recognizing that the last
two (2) years had been wet and creating significant less water usage.
Whether there will be any recognizable impact on the part of homeowners with
differential rates that would cause habit changes or usage, Mr. Schwartz
opined remained to be determined.
Member Vanderwall opined that
some may become evidenced with the proposed rate structure.
At the request of Member Gjerdingen,
Mr. Schwartz clarified that operating costs (fixed) included capital
replacements currently funded through the fixed part of the rate; with water
purchases from the SPRWU billed on the usage portion of rates; similar to
that structure used for sanitary sewer treatments with the Metropolitan
Council.
Mr. Schwartz provided comparables
with other metropolitan communities; with water/sewer rates remaining
average. Mr. Schwartz noted that variables were based on the level of
treatment for water, with Roseville delivering softened water to Roseville
homes, while many communities with groundwater systems were treated at the
point of the use – with home water softeners. Mr. Schwartz advised that
storm drainage rates were previously well-below average, and this proposed
increase would put the City on average with other metropolitan communities.
Member Felice noted that part of
the necessary infrastructure costs and rate increase could be justified on
the age of Roseville as an older metropolitan suburb requiring maintenance of
its older infrastructure, a situation not faced by newer metropolitan
suburbs.
Mr. Schwartz noted that Roseville
was the first City in the State of MN to implement a storm water utility and
begin planning for these needs, long before other communities did.
Mr. Schwartz called the
Commission’s attention to the supporting Task Force memorandums included in
the agenda packet materials and their specific recommendations to increase
2012 rates by $2.2 million overall; with a one-time transfer from the Storm
water to Water Fund to make it solvent.
Member Vanderwall noted the
difficulty in deciphering the chart at the bottom of the June 20, 2011
memorandum to determine total impacts of the Task Force recommendations; with
Mr. Schwartz apologizing for the black and white versus color copy of the
graph and referring Commissioners to the June 13, 2011 City Council meeting
packet for better copies.
At the request of Member
Vanderwall, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the proposed rate structure would
nearly fully-fund the CIP over that twenty (20) year period.
Mr. Schwartz reiterated the
request of the CIP Task Force and the interpretation of City Manager Malinen
and Finance Director Miller that the City Council would like a recommendation
from the Commission as to their support of the Task Force recommendations; or
an alternative rate structure suggestion.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz clarified that the CIP data was based on a financial
analysis performed by the Task Force, with background information and project
costs provided by Public Works staff.
Individual Member Comments
Member Vanderwall noted that City
staff was also proposing cutting services in other areas on the operational
side to assist in addressing these depreciation and capital outlay needs,
beyond the proposed rate increase.
Member Vanderwall recognized that
the proposed percentage increase provided some scary numbers; however, when
broken down into quarterly and monthly rates, it came out to approximately
$11.00 per month per household. Member Vanderwall opined that it then
sounded much less intimidating that the 62% increase that dollar amount
represented.
If the CIP estimates are
accurate, and Member Vanderwall opined that he believed them to be accurate
from his perspective as a PWET Commission perspective; he further opined that
good governance required that this burden not be deferred to the next
generation or the responsibility of the next City Council. Member Vanderwall
noted that the “kick the can down the road” approach to financial
responsibility was not working at a federal or state level, and that it
wouldn’t work locally either. Member Vanderwall spoke in support of a “pay
as you go” approach was much more prudent.
Member Vanderwall provided a
personal analogy with his townhome association and lack of adequate capital
funding; with the Board’s Finance Committee suggesting at 35% increase in
monthly dues, 6 x’s the current rate; and likened this to that situation.
Member Vanderwall opined that if another ten (10) years went by before
addressing this CIP need, it would only be more expensive; in addition to the
ongoing repairs and emergencies and added costs over that time span.
Member Vanderwall recognized that
this need is problematic, since it is essentially a hidden cost, since most
infrastructure is underground, and no one sees it when its working properly
or effectively; and only became obvious when problem developed or it wasn’t
working.
Member Vanderwall expressed
confidence in the community’s excitement to finally address these CIP needs;
and the positive steps being recommended by this City Council and staff to
address it now and avoid costlier and more major issues in the future through
continual deferral.
Member Felice opined that, by
taking steps now, there was some idea of what you were coming up against; and
if deferral of CIP needs continued, it created too many unknowns. While
being difficult to tell citizens they were going to need to pay more money
out, Member Felice opined that there was a good reason for this projected
rate increase to maintain what infrastructure the City owned; and to avoid
potentially catastrophic failures of the system.
Member Gjerdingen opined that the
only way this rate increase could be challenged is if the City was spending
too much repairing the infrastructure due to lack of good management of that
resource. Member Gjerdingen advised that his only question was how careful
the analysis had been and how accurate the numbers.
Chair DeBenedet, based on his
extensive background in Civil Engineering, his review of plans and
specifications for many infrastructure systems, and his first-hand experience
in working with his plumber father, and opined that the infrastructure issues
currently needing addressed were not a surprise to him. Chair DeBenedet
advised that installations and materials used in the 1960’s would no longer
be used based on changes in the industry and technology improvements. Chair
DeBenedet noted that the City of Roseville was not the only community facing
this issue; and many cities with even older infrastructure systems had been
dealing with it for an even longer time.
On a personal note, Chair
DeBenedet noted that his initial interest in applying to serve on the PWET
Commission, given his career experience, was to personally investigate
whether Roseville was doing a good job maintaining its infrastructure systems
in the most cost-effective manner; not necessarily the least expensive, but
through providing the most value for the longest period of time for
taxpayers. Chair DeBenedet noted that these pipe infrastructure systems
lasted a long time, between 50-100 years; and he had originally decided to
base his capstone paper for his Master’s program on this very issue. While
having a different idea initially, Chair DeBenedet noted his paper had caused
him to realize that this project needed to be addressed sooner, not later.
Following his extensive research
of the City’s infrastructure system, and as part of his paper, Chair
DeBenedet opined that he was absolutely in agreement with how the City was
proposing to handle its currently unfunded CIP and infrastructure needs. While
preparing his paper, providing consultations with Finance Director Miller and
Public Works Director Schwartz, Chair DeBenedet advised that he initially
thought it would not be possible to complete the CIP in twenty (20) years.
While taking into consideration street reconstruction projects and asset
management programs to schedule work and stage it for the lowest overall
cost, Chair DeBenedet opined that he determined that the newer materials and
technologies may provide a longer projected lifespan than twenty (20) years,
if and when they are properly constructed.
Chair DeBenedet noted that his
original concerns were whether the City of Roseville was being thoughtful
about its infrastructure replacement; noting that often when cities look at
being proactive and providing good governance, its elected officials are
faced with difficult issues and push off those infrastructure needs to future
elected officials. However, Chair DeBenedet opined that the City of
Roseville did not have that problem, with its current elected officials
willing to take the initiated to address these CIP needs, with much of the
Roseville infrastructure system at an 80-90 life by the time they’re
scheduled for replacement. Chair DeBenedet opined that there was no question
that new materials and technologies were better and would provide more years,
even those lined and not replacement.
Chair DeBenedet advised that he
was all in favor of doing this and was more than willing to pay his fare
share of the costs. Chair DeBenedet opined that sewer and water services
were one of the best utility values received by residents today; and people
didn’t realize the value of safe water compared to what other countries
faced, or what was faced by this country 100 years ago. While recognizing
that these seem to massive issues today, Chair DeBenedet noted similar
investments made when needed by previous generations, and the need to act
similarly today for the benefit of current and future residents and
generations.
MOTION
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, recommended to the City Council and fellow citizens that the
proposed rate structure recommended by the City Council-appointed CIP Task
Force was supported by the PWET Commission, and should be embraced and moved
forward.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
6.
Storm Event Update (7/16/2011 – 6+ inches of rain)
Ms. Bloom and Mr. Schwartz
provided a pictorial overview of various problems encountered on July 16,
2011 when the City received 5+ inches of rain in the early morning hours and
over 6” in the 24-hour period. Pictures provided areas with significant
street flooding in many parts of the City and property damage in some
locations. Ms. Bloom advised that staff was continuing to follow-up with
properties through surveys and future project recommendations to address
those problem areas. A map was included in the agenda packet showing areas
of concern and the number of sites impacted during the recent storm.
On a positive note, Ms. Bloom and
Mr. Schwartz also provided pictorial evidence of some successes from recent
drainage improvements put in place in recent years, with evidence of how well
various projects worked. Ms. Bloom noted that, while some of the past areas
continue to have drainage issues, recent projects had lessened the damage
that would have occurred without those past improvements.
Significant drainage issues
remained on the south side of Bennett Lake and back-ups from that water
body. Ms. Bloom identified damages to storm water drainage systems in place,
and failure of the sanitary sewer lift station at Long Lake Road south of
County Road D when electrical controls shorted out, at significant expense,
due to the depth of the water; and the Cohansey Boulevard Lift Station
controls close to shorting out, with water depths within 1” of the electrical
controls
Several of the pictures provided
by Ms. Bloom identified the importance to educate homeowners on the
importance of maintaining swales on their back and side properties, rather
than installing sheds of walls or some type of vegetation that prevents their
natural flow to minimize property and infrastructure damage.
Ms. Bloom noted drainage issues
with the ball field at Fairview Community Center, and advised that she and
Mr. Schwartz would be studying the area and seeking partnership opportunities
with the School District for corrective measures.
Ms. Bloom noted the staffing
partnership between the Cities of Maplewood and Roseville would allow the
Maplewood City Engineer to assist with some plans to alleviate ongoing
problem areas that are not simply related to pipe capacity issues.
Member Vanderwall suggested a
great neighborhood volunteer opportunity for Roseville residents in cleaning
up storm sewers after a rain event by raking them out and putting the debris
with their other yard waste, recognizing that with significant rain events or
on weekends, City staff may not be able to get around in a timely manner to
clean all of them out, considering their other priorities during a
significant event and emergency situations needing to be handled.
Pictorial evidence was provided
showing the size of debris going through the system, creating additional
issues, including undermining a retaining wall by McCarron’s Lake; and
failure of the weir walls at Villa Park. Pictures included the Williams
Street access road to the pond, recently bid and in process, with it faring
quite well, as Capitol Region Watershed District continued to monitor the
water coming in and filter benches (steel wool filing) functioning well with manhole
water found to be clear.
Ms. Bloom provided pictorial
evidence that the Prince of Peace Church rain garden had survived and worked
as intended, another success story with the City partnering for its
installation with the Ramsey Conservation District (RCD).
Chair DeBenedet observed the need
for additional upland infiltration and rain gardens to further address the
situation.
Ms. Bloom provided evidence of
the success of the Walsh Lake project; with no flooding of homes previous
flooded after a new pipe was installed. Ms. Bloom briefly reviewed other
areas under consideration through partnership with the Maplewood City
Engineer to do some model sharing to address chronic issues still pending.
Ms. Bloom noted that the 2003 Surface Water Management Plan indicated that
some retrofit may be needed in neighborhoods to install or improve swales or
install rain gardens. Ms. Bloom noted ongoing concerns with the Skillman
Avenue cul-de-sac; the Bennett Lake system; and pipe capacity concerns where
they were overtaxed.
As previously mentioned by Mr.
Schwartz, the Metropolitan Council’s main trunk line became overtaxed and a
number of homes experienced sewer backups, when the City’s lines couldn’t
discharge fast enough into the trunk line due to that overtaxing. Ms. Bloom
noted that the City did not observe any discharge from manholes (raw sewage),
but it was 6-8’ deep in the manholes.
Mr. Schwartz opined that the
overall message is that, while there remain a lot of issues, progress has
been made over the last ten (10) years in addressing chronic problem areas;
but work remains to be done. Mr. Schwartz noted that there were no
guarantees that catastrophic events will not happen nor that they will be
fully mitigated.
Chair DeBenedet opined that the
concept of a major rain event needs to change; and that a City would never be
able to design for all events; and that it was still a learning process to
facilitate emergency overflow routes.
Mr. Schwartz noted that storm
water management technologies and options had changed over the years as well;
and more understanding of those options and efforts continued.
Staff noted that the Fire
Department responded to the Fairview and Highway 36 flooding area, and as
typically done, the area was blocked off with barricades until the water
level diminished.
7.
Volunteer Opportunities
Chair DeBenedet noted his request
to staff to include this on tonight’s agenda, based on comments made at
previous meetings by Member Stenlund related to projects and volunteers
available for those projects.
In his recent bicycling along
County Road C toward the entrance to Acorn Park, Chair DeBenedet noted the
lack of a vision triangle with only 5’ between the pathway and access to the
park. Chair DeBenedet opined that this was a perfect volunteer opportunity,
as a lot of the underbrush preventing adequate and safe visuals in that area
was due to Buckthorn. With Mr. Schwartz expressing confidence that the Parks
and Recreation Department was supportive of any volunteer assistance, Chair DeBenedet
advised that he would coordinate with Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie
Brokke and Member Stenlund on this issue as a potential Boy Scout project.
As a frequent walker in Acorn
Park, Member Vanderwall noted Member Stenlund’s previous concerns with
erosion in the park; however, he suggested that sometime in October or
November, a weekend be set aside for an entire school or large-group project
to remove the considerable amount of Buckthorn in the Park, since they
appeared to be overtaking most of the underbrush.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that,
if the PWET Commission agreed to sponsor such efforts, the Commission ask the
Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff to communicate who and how to
take the lead; and how to coordinate with City staff on trucks and equipment,
along with assistance or supervision for volunteers.
Member Vanderwall suggested staff
train the PWET Commission on how to go about removing the Buckthorn.
Chair DeBenedet also noted
comments of Member Gjerdingen at past meetings on overhanging tree branches
near or over pathways; and noted his personal experience at Long Lake Road
and County Road C with a branch coming down on the pathway, creating safety
hazards for bicyclists. Chair DeBenedet suggested volunteer projects for traversing
pathways for tree trimming at appropriate times of the year, whether
privately or publically-owned if they were in the pathway easement area.
Member Gjerdingen cautioned the
Commission to determine who had the authority to trim, in accordance with
City Ordinance, and having certified volunteers or a staff person available
before trimming is attempted.
Member Vanderwall suggested that
a more cautious first step may be to provide notice to homeowners to trim
their trees as applicable to keep them out of the pathway easement area.
Member Gjerdingen noted a
problematic area near the park frontage along Lincoln Drive that would be a
huge step in the right direction if those areas were identified and mitigated
by volunteers.
Member Vanderwall noted that
Buckthorn was prolific in the entire City, not just in Acorn Park; and
suggested a Buckthorn Core of Volunteers to go around the entire City.
Member Vanderwall opined that this would provide a benefit in every
neighborhood and across the community, as well as most parks; and that after
the Buckthorn was eradicated, the next project could be Purple Loosestrife.
8.
Solid Waste Update
Chair DeBenedet noted staff
including several news articles in the meeting packet form communities in the
region, and recent overflow crowds for related meetings, such as the one held
in Maplewood.
Mr. Schwartz noted that Member
Felice had attended the “Talking Trash - Is Anyone Minding the Store?” event,
and a direct link was available on the website for that Maplewood event.
Member Felice lead a Power Point
presentation on that event, and provided her observations of the arguments on
both sides; and specifics related to ordinance enforcement and consumer
protection issues. Member Felice highlighted hauler rate comparisons for
cities with private haulers and those with organized collection, noting that
the most expensive of those organized collections for the whole city was less
than the least expensive private hauler rate.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City of Maplewood required an annual report of hauler rates; and when they
reviewed the actual bills experienced by residents, it was not the same as
what was actually reported to the City. Mr. Schwartz noted there were also
misconceptions about the fees for fuel/environmental recovery that were
included on bills, but not actually state or county fees, and their
definition varied from one hauler to the next.
Member Felice concurred, noting
that it appeared to be a government fee, but was actually a company or hauler-initiated,
similar to that of a cost of doing business fee. Member Felice noted
concerns with deceptive language tactics creating opaque surcharges and/or
arbitrary fees; causing cities to consider what sanctions the City could
realistically incur, when they needed garbage haulers available.
Member Vanderwall opined that
this issue had come up during previous discussions from a hauler’s
perspective. Member Vanderwall further opined that, in reviewing the price
list, it provided for experience of dollars, and disproved the perception
that everything done by government was at a higher cost.
Member Felice noted that
organized collection also provided for pick up of every can, and it became
less likely that someone’s service address would be missed; along with
assurances that the contract could stipulate where the garbage would end up,
and not allow it to be disposed of where the City could be held liable if not
properly taken care of; both valid concerns.
Member Vanderwall concurred,
noting that it was not only a liability issue, but also a philosophical issue
for the end point.
Member Felice noted that an
organized collection contract would allow the City to understand how much
garbage was being produced in the City; with cities paying a tipping fee,
with any changes addressed in the contract.
Chair DeBenedet noted that these
were more interesting points for the Commission to consider in its continuing
discussions. Chair DeBenedet noted other considerations were whether license
fees adequate to administer and enforce existing City ordinances; policy
brainstorming should Roseville adopt organized trash collection and concerns
that fees would remain the actual cost for administering the program and not
go toward a “slush fund” or another use or need.
Chair DeBenedet elaborated on the
consensus direction provided from the City Council at their recent joint
meeting with the PWET Commission, with the next step indicated for the
Commission to get an engineering opinion on the actual impact on local streets
from multiple haulers versus organized trash collection systems. Chair
DeBenedet noted an interesting post on the Roseville Issues Forum recently,
addressing current practices for weekly versus bi-weekly recyclable
collection and response rates plus how that additional traffic impacted City
streets, even though recycling trucks were smaller and should have less
impact on the streets. Chair DeBenedet opined that it was an issue worth
discussing.
Member Felice opined that it was
easier to remember to put it out every week; and further opined that there
was only one recycling truck for an entire neighborhood versus multiple
garbage haulers.
Chair DeBenedet opined that it
was time to move this issue along; and the proposed next step was a prudent
one.
Mr. Schwartz noted the tool for
local research developed by the Research Board at the University of Mankato;
and anticipated availability in approximately two (2) weeks; with the tool
designed to predict truck impacts on roads.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the Maplewood
Engineer currently partnering with the City of Roseville engineering staff,
Steve Kummer, was in his Master’s Degree program, and his capstone project
was trash truck impacts on local streets.
Members concurred that it was
time to move this topic forward.
Member Felice noted how nice and
positive it would be to have the potential to reduce prices for residents for
trash collection, since utility rates had been raised significantly.
Member Gjerdingen questioned if
the City had a current ordinance in place requiring residents to have their
own private trash hauler, with Mr. Schwartz and Chair DeBenedet confirming
that such an ordinance was in place.
Member Felice noted another
positive with the City having an organized waste hauler contract would be
that if a trash house was encountered, it provided a relationship with one
hauler to take care of it more immediately; and also a contract could be
written that allowed residents up to three (3) large items to be hauled
annually.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – August 23, 2011
·
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff anticipated having a draft of
the Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy available, and should serve as the
main topic for that meeting to facilitate the City Council’s interest in
having a recommendation from the PWET Commission at its earliest
convenience.
Member Vanderwall announced that
he had a meeting conflict in August, and may not be able to attend the PWET
Commission meeting. Member Vanderwall advised that, if he was unable to
attend the August meeting, he would submit his written comments before then;
however, he noted that it was a detailed project, and discussions would
probably continue past the August meeting.
·
Chair DeBenedet requested an item addressing Asset Management
for Public Utilities; and advised that he would e-mail reference documents to
staff for dissemination to individual Commissioners.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the
purpose of such software was to provide a process of thinking about assets
(e.g. sewer mains: their condition, age, maintenance frequency, schedule and
how to coordinate other reconstruction in the same general location – storm
sewer, water mains and street reconstruction)
Mr. Schwartz noted that it was
getting problematic and unmanageable to not have the information contained in
a comprehensive database to track work orders, etc.
Chair DeBenedet noted that this
was another significant function to accomplish with an in-house staff person
available long-term to enter, as well as filter and decipher reports from the
data once entered
Mr. Schwartz suggested that this
could be considered part of the implementation costs for the magnitude of the
CIP program being discussed; and planning costs, software and staff resource
could be part of those costs
Member Felice opined that she
liked the idea of a GPS-like system of where you want the City to go and how
to get there, further opining that it should pay for itself over and over
again
Discussion ensued on current
data tracking available to the department, while lacking cohesiveness and
inability to keep track of maintenance performed, and documenting any call
outs available in one software program tracked to specific city
infrastructure.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
software would include the City’s as-builts and other infrastructure data;
and with the robust software programs currently available, it could generate
work orders, provide for follow-up as well as send e-mail reminders for work
to be completed or already completed.
Mr. Schwartz advised that such a
program had been part of the Department’s 2012 budget request.
Member Felice reminded staff to
provide the website links from the Chair and Maplewood.
Member Gjerdingen, related to
Solid Waste, noted current ordinance and the statement for City Code Hauler
Requirements (last line) for exceptions being made if
environmentally-friendly alternatives are provided; and opined that this
would be an important statement to include even with a unified hauler system.
10.
Adjourn
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:40 p.m.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|