|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, September 27, 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; Dwayne
Stenlund; Joan Felice; and Steve Gjerdingen
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and City Engineer
Debra Bloom
Others
Present: None.
2.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of July 26, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, approval of the July 26, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
Spelling of Member Stenlund’s
name
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
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 at the City’s website at
www.cityofroseville.com/projects, and as detailed in the staff report dated
September 27, 2011.
Specific discussion included the
status of the Dale Street and Rice Street Projects; the anticipated start of
the NE Suburban Pathway Project (Fairway Avenue) with completion yet this
year of physical construction and roadwork, and recognition of the challenges
of this project in retrofitting a pathway in an already developed area rather
than with new construction areas.
Additional discussion included
recent newspaper articles about “Safe Routes to School;” grants being
researched by School District No. 623 for such routes, with County Road B-2
seeming to be the most likely with five (5) schools within that corridor; and
ongoing parental concerns with children walking in the public, even to bus
stops. Options for safe walking for children was discussed, including
parents forming “pools” to supervise children when walking to the bus or to
school; and having facilities available that allow walkers to feel safer.
Member Stenlund noted that MnDOT
had completed the ADA project along Snelling Avenue, expressing his pride in
the work done by the contractor, and sought feedback related to the project.
Further discussion included
re-installing the crosswalk at the intersection of Snelling Avenue and Lydia,
even though it had been removed due to a pedestrian death on that north
crosswalk about ten (10) years ago, and its removal in an attempt to
encourage people to cross on the south side rather than the north; with Mr.
Schwartz expressing surprise that it had been installed in that same location
again, since the problems remained with right turns off Snelling Avenue.
Member Stenlund opined that at
least on Lydia Avenue, there was a refuge on the median for those unable to
get across on one signal.
Ms. Bloom noted that one of the
City’s concerns was maintenance and snow removal, with the resulting
relocation of some pedestals to facilitate a sidewalk and maintenance of one,
but remaining ADA compliant.
Member Stenlund mentioned one
concern with the Dale Street Project and bituminous failure on the south side
of County Road C; with Ms. Bloom reviewing that failure and its cause with
the two (2) rain events exceeding erosion controls in place.
Ms. Bloom noted that final
project completion would include a 7’ boulevard with storm water features and
trees to provide a better walking experience.
Budget process update
Mr. Schwartz provided the latest
update on the 2012 budget, with the City Council adopting the Preliminary,
not-to-exceed Levy at 4%; and moving forward with the Phase I Implementation
of the Parks Master Plan, as well as approving one city-wide Fire Station on
the City Hall campus.
Ms. Bloom noted that one portion of the $2 million identified in the Parks
Master Plan included as a high priority was the County Road B-2 pathway.
At the request of Member Felice
regarding Fire Department/Emergency response times, Mr. Schwartz advised that
the department’s average response time was 3.3 minutes, which was
significantly better than when three were three (3) stations, basically due
to the current business model of 24/7 on-call staffing.
Roseville Citizens League
(RCL) Organized Collection Meeting Comments
Chair DeBenedet noted that he and
Member Stenlund had attended the RCL forum on organized collection, opining
that it was a good forum, very informative and well-organized, with both
sides well represented, and approximately fifty (50) members of the public
attending. Chair DeBenedet opined that the various presenters addressed
their cases well; and the moderator ran the meeting well; further opining
that it had been an educational experience for all parties. Chair DeBenedet
confirmed that there was no conclusion reached, which had not been the point
of the meeting anyway, but to provide the various considerations.
Member Stenlund expressed his
interest in the kinds of questions asked and various views expressed and the
tremendous range of opinions, from one extreme to another whether for or
against; but concurred that it had been extremely well-run with everyone
remaining respectful of each other’s opinions.
Discussion included interesting
comments related to differentials of rates by contractors for long-term
versus new customers, with long-term customers often paying a higher rate,
while new customers were quoted lower rates; fairness to all haulers in
subdividing the community, with the frequency found that bidding eventually
ended up down to one contractor, sometimes based on merging of independent
contractors, or their no longer working in that specific geographical area.
Member Felice reiterated a
comment she’d previously highlighted that provided evidence that the least
expensive individual hauler was less than the most expensive city hauler; and
the factors expressed by residents for refuse hauling with their top choice
being the price, and the second being the service. Member Felice opined that
this was why those communities having implemented organized hauling ended up
with their residents liking the service they were receiving with organized
collection.
Member Vanderwall, from another
perspective, noted that you expect service when you personally purchase
something, and your experience with that service determined how long you had
the service. However, in this situation, Member Vanderwall noted that this
would be a service a resident already had, and the options were being taken
away, and the only thing that appeared the most important was getting it to
the curb, and then forgetting about it. However, Member Vanderwall noted
that residents needed to care about how their refuse was collected, and where
it ended up; opining that this would be a result of a city setting some
standards.
While there had yet to be an
official City study, Mr. Schwartz asked Commissioners what future information
needs they anticipated needing from staff.
Chair DeBenedet noted that this
could be further discussed under Item #7 on tonight’s agenda.
Ms. Bloom noted that the software
tool to work with the City’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) software from the
Local Road Research Board she was working with should be available for the
Commission to view at their October 2011 meeting, clarifying that this would
be a viewing of the tool, not a report, since that data was still in process,
but the tool would provide the science behind the documentation and provide
industry standards to address truck weight and loading on local streets, not
just as it related to garbage trucks.
5.
Draft of Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy
Ms. Bloom noted that the
Commission had reviewed the City of Blaine’s Neighborhood Traffic Management
Policy at its June meeting; and staff had been directed to draft a similar
policy (Attachment A), specific to Roseville, using the Blaine format. Ms. Bloom
noted that the first draft had been provided to Commissioners in the agenda
packet for discussion and feedback.
Ms. Bloom advised that Member
Gjerdingen had provided written comments from his initial review, and she
brought those specific items to the attention of the entire Commission for
their feedback. Some of those items included: referencing comments related
to traffic volumes increasing in Roseville to determine roof or a qualifier,
such as the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Section map by 2030 and
projected changes on State Aid routes; how to and a purpose for checking high
volume roads, when nothing is based in fact or a percentage of annual
increase and what communication was being attempted; perception that traffic
is increasing overall, whether on neighborhood streets or larger streets
throughout the community and region; and how the Implementation Portion of
the document would validate the policy with actual data.
General Comments
·
Add a “Definition” section
·
Ensure consistency in terms and definitions throughout the
document
Section 1.0 Introduction
·
First sentence: consider changing “issues,” to “concerns,”
related to traffic values
·
3rd Paragraph, first sentence: consider changing
“residents” to “constituents”
·
2nd sentence: strike “in residential areas” to
clarify local streets – redefine
·
Behaviors based on perceptions of “a local street” (e.g. Long
Lake Road)
·
Rationale for concentrating on residential streets, not
business streets
·
Addressing business and institutional uses as part of the
community’s quality of life
·
Consideration of impacts to other areas when rerouting traffic
from another area to address a specific problem so as not to have unintended
consequences in that other area
·
Balancing more pedestrian/bicycle traffic in some business
areas as appropriate
·
Consider adding an additional bullet point addressing
technology available now and in the future (e.g. BMP’s, engineering practices
and standards); and advantages of that ever-increasing technology as it
relates to traffic management; and whether more attention should be given to
“solutions,” rather than intimidating people with “technology”
·
Determining who is the audience for the Traffic Management Plan
(TMP) and who is the customer, taking into consideration business and residents,
property owners and/or renters, and clarifying “citizens,” rather than
“residents” and/or “businesses” as well as the TMP being developed for
affected Roseville residents rather than commuter traffic through Roseville
Section 1.1 Purpose
Suggested language revisions for
consideration included:
·
4th line: Change to “violation of traffic laws,” not
“local traffic”
Section 2.0 Policies
·
Second bullet point: define “local streets” as they relate to a
livable community after business owners go home
In an effort to proceed with
review of the draft in a timelier manner, Chair DeBenedet suggested
individual Members provide staff with their comments for their consideration
and those items to incorporate into the next draft to come before the
Commission.
Overall, Member Stenlund spoke in
support of the draft, that it was similar to the Blaine model and laid the
groundwork, and choices for people to see the process for their complaints or
concerns.
Member Felice spoke in support of
the draft, opining that it made the process clear for people.
Overall, Member Gjerdingen spoke
in support of the draft.
Section 3.0 Traffic Management
Background
Member Vanderwall, from a broad
overview, opined that reading through this section, the initial bulleted
portion should include bicycles in addition to pedestrian strategies, and
should be incorporated consistently throughout the document for
pedestrian-friendly, as well as bicycle-friendly.
Member Stenlund noted the
multiple negatives in the last sentence of the third paragraph needing
revision; and need to reconstruct the sentence related to traffic engineering
principles.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff had
attempted to include that language; however, it was difficult finding other
policies focusing on pedestrians and bicycles and providing equal footing for
both.
Section 4.0 Procedure Summary
Discussion included resolutions
contemplated in identifying project requests and groups affected based on a
percentage of signatures on an application; with “Project Neighborhood” and
“Affected Neighborhood” definitions added.
Table 1, Ranking of Traffic
Management Requests (page 5)
Discussion included density
comparisons for ranking purposes; revisions specific to Roseville in this
section to emphasize pathways and schools; considering gaps in pathways in
the ranking criteria; and future ability to refine the policy once put into
practical use.
Step 4, Develop/Evaluate
Traffic Management Strategies (pages 6 - 9)
Discussion included any
additional strategies to add to the toolbox: lane re-striping or “pavement
marking” allowing for more flexibility; and other areas of the policy – yet
to be developed and presented – that will address examples.
Step 6, Traffic Management
Strategy Approval (page 9)
Member Stenlund noted the need to
add “vegetation” and its role for traffic calming (e.g. vertical element)
Step 7, Implement Temporary
Strategy and Monitor (page 9)
Discussion included adding
disclaimer language for temporary strategies only where reasonable or
practical; whether it is the intention of the PWET Commission to include
pathways as a traffic management strategy, and whether a “complete street”
included pedestrian facilities off or on road, and whether the City’s roads
were wide enough for pavement marking to facilitate them on road.
It was the consensus of members
that pathways be included as a traffic management tool; with Ms. Bloom
advising that in Table 2, if they were added as a tool, case studies needed
to be provided showing what each of those tools encompassed; and how to
prioritize City resources as applications came forward.
Member Stenlund opined that such
studies were part of other documents, and he didn’t consider them to be part
of this policy; opining that bicycles and pedestrians, if part of a
roadscape, may also need to slow down. Member Stenlund opined that it was
imperative that cars, trucks, bicycles, and pedestrians could be integrated
to maintain the quality of life aspects, perhaps necessitating a volume
reduction with fewer cars.
Mr. Schwartz noted that trails
and/or sidewalks would not be appropriate for certain volume streets.
It was the consensus of members
that often this policy would be used to address existing streets of
approximately sixty (60) years of age as opposed to new construction where
tools and devices could be readily incorporated.
Ms. Bloom advised that she would
strengthen references for bicycles and pedestrians throughout the draft
policy.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen to limit the policy to arterial streets, Ms. Bloom responded that
it was the intent of this document for those road already completed over the
last 30-50 years, which applied to most Roseville streets, and not to those
on a list for future complete reconstruction. Ms. Bloom advised that traffic
control management was part of any reconstruction project discussion for
collector streets: how to address customer needs and who will be impacted.
To be consistent with the proposed policy, Ms. Bloom advised that the City
Council had suggested temporary measures be considered initially to ensure
that a safety hazard was not created for the traveling public.
Ms. Schwartz noted that collector
streets would need to be addressed on a case by case basis.
Overall, members expressed their
approval of how the policy was developing; and suggested cartoons,
illustrations or examples for the public’s benefit in the final document.
Ms. Bloom advised that it was
staff’s intent to add illustrations to the next draft to come before the PWET
Commission; and hoped to have the next iteration to the Commission within the
next two (2) weeks, as a strikeout version to incorporate those items from
tonight’s discussion; and asked that upon receipt, individual members provide
additional feedback to staff prior to the October PWET Commission meeting.
Ms. Bloom advised that, if conflicting comments were received by staff from
individual members, she would highlight those in the next draft for further
discussion.
Recess
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 8:04
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:07 p.m.
6.
Asset Management for Public Utilities
Chair DeBenedet advised that he
had asked Mr. Schwartz to add this to tonight’s agenda for PWET Commission
discussion, and in conjunction with his Masters Degree thesis for “maintenance
and management of utility infrastructure.” Chair DeBenedet provided excerpts
of his report to members related to asset management in general; and how the
Public Works Department could make use of asset management, and how staff
felt, as well as where their revaluation was at of various asset management
systems. Chair DeBenedet clarified that asset management was not specific to
software, but could also be a historical program available in your mind, on
paper, or in electronic format; as well as what was being done to maintain
that infrastructure. Chair DeBenedet opined that the City of Roseville’s
infrastructure system had reached the size and degree that a more formal
tracking or journaling method was needed.
Member Vanderwall noted that
additional information and links had been provided in the staff report for
those members seeking additional information.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the
intent of asset management in sustaining infrastructure was to provide an
adequate level of service to customers at the most reasonable cost. Chair
DeBenedet questioned the status of staff’s analysis; and any existing asset
management tools used by the City.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City currently used the Pavement Management Program (PMP), an asset management
tool from IKON as a vendor for that software program; a sign inventory
program; maintenance history data; and other manual tracking systems.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the
reason this became more of a priority and received the City Council’s
interest was due to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Task Force when the
number of significant liabilities became evident with facilities and their
useful life. While not necessarily in agreement with the Task Force’s report
on the fixed life estimates on various systems, Chair DeBenedet noted that it
became more of an issue the older a system got, and that more maintenance was
then required to maintain the same level of service, which in turn cost
more. With most Roseville infrastructure systems constructed in the late
1950’s and early 1960’s, and newer construction technologies now available,
Chair DeBenedet noted potential long-term cost savings and efficiencies.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the key
point in having an asset management system was to track data for prioritizing
decisions based on historical data, replacing the oldest first. Mr.
Schwartz advised that, while this had first been identified as a Public Works
Department-specific goal, the City Council expressed their preference that
all City assets be incorporated into such an asset management system;
buildings, park assets, infrastructure, etc. In researching such a program,
Mr. Schwartz advised that it was included in the Department’s 2012 budget
request, while not yet finalized; however, he advised that there seemed to be
support from the majority of the City Council for such a management tool; and
remained on the Public Works Department and City Manager goal lists; and from
that perspective, remained on everyone’s work plan.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City’s GIS lead on staff met with 8-10 software vendors for online or on-site
demonstrations of their asset management programs; and that had been narrowed
down to 3-5 who’s preliminary implementation costs would be affordable for a
city the size of Roseville and would be able to be implemented at current
staffing levels. With the City’s current GIS system, it could be used to
query basic data, but in terms of generating work orders and attaching it to
asset management, and long-term funding plans, using five (5) core questions
for asset management. Mr. Schwartz advised that determining other users in
the metropolitan area who shared similar issues, or could perhaps be
approached for a joint venture, similar to the current IT and Telephone JPA’s
was another important consideration to further reduce costs.
Discussion included whether
energy savings for a specific building was built into such a management
program, with Mr. Schwartz advising that this would be more of an operational
type of software, with this one specific to management based on information
tied to particular assets; difficulty in addressing underground assets versus
those that can be seen; advantages of sewer lining technologies and their
projected life of sixty (60) years versus installing a new line; and
reviewing underground systems as a whole for comparison purpose and
philosophical considerations.
Additional discussion included
costs for staffing to input data and facilitate reports; training included in
a software program; and significant dollars for proposed rate increases for
utility customers to facilitate CIP needs for the City’s infrastructure over
the next 20-30 years.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the City
currently performs approximately three (3) miles of sanitary sewer line
replacement and/or lining annually, as well as approximately one (1) mile of
water lines; in addition to addressing emergency breaks or other problems
from the aging infrastructure. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that those CIP
costs are not currently fully funded at current utility rates, with deficit
spending from reserves, but not sustainable for the long-term. Mr. Schwartz
advised that the current 2011 funding level for CIP is $860,000; but funding
at a $3 million level was needed to accomplish CIP costs over that 20-30 year
cycle.
Chair DeBenedet opined that implementing an asset management system was the
smart way to select projects for this $3 million annual expenditure, with
that system including funding for the software itself, adequate staffing
allocations, and training.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
City’s paper record system had worked so far; including tracking repairs and
maintenance; however, he opined that it was becoming more difficult and that
it was imperative the funding level get to a level to ensure replacement of
critical assets over the next 20-30 years to provide more predictable
tracking tools and life cycle cost calculations than the current paper
system.
Member Vanderwall clarified that
the intent was for a comprehensive and standard asset management system and
cost-sharing of such a system across the board for all City assets, above and
below ground.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting
that with the Parks Master Plan Phase I Implementation being initiatives, the
timing was right to build a history for those assets and their replacement,
including their initial cost, maintenance and other items right from the
start; with many management programs having a very broad perspective that
included rolling stock (vehicles and equipment), facilities, infrastructure,
park assets, trees, signs, etc.; most of which were GIS-based and allowing
for easy and understandable presentations graphically from the data.
Further discussion included asset
management service providers who manage assets for a fee and in varying
degrees versus in-house management by City staff; pros and cons of having
information available in-house or off-site, including control of that
information based on local access policies outside the building versus
web-based; availability of the data by maintenance personnel in the field via
internet connectivity; and initial cost of the software programs at
approximately $60,000.00 for installation; with additional ongoing costs for
vendor support for the software.
Chair DeBenedet opined that the
initial cost seemed minimal when compared with the ability to manage $3
million in CIP expenditures per year over the next 20-30 years.
At the request of Chair
DeBenedet, Mr. Schwartz opined that it would be challenging, without
supplementing additional staffing, for the City’s existing in-house staff to
adequately handle additional responsibilities that would be required with the
asset management software, especially initial input of the data; and
recommending that more than one staff person be trained.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the
Public Works Department’s 2008 Strategic Plan had identified the need for an
additional engineer on staff; with this year identified as the year to
implement that additional staffing; however, he noted that that original
intent had been revised through the contract with the City of Maplewood for
sharing one of their engineers part-time.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, if the
City Council fully implemented and funded its CIP proposal, it would be
imperative to fill that position in order to implement and develop those
projects.
Chair DeBenedet advised that his
intent in exposing the PWET Commissioners to this issue was to encourage its
support and recommendation to the City Council to make sure the City took
seriously implementation of an asset management program and to provide
consistent in-house staffing to establish background and historical
information as a base line and for moving forward. Chair DeBenedet suggested
that the PWET Commission make a formal recommendation to the City Council
that this funding remain in the 2012 budget to ensure that the CIP program be
managed in the most cost-effective way for its taxpayers.
Additional discussion included
current procedures, dictated by available resources, for replacing and/or
repairing infrastructure, replacing vehicles, or other asset controls; and
recent changes in liability for the City based on information from its
insurance carrier, related to sewer backups and how and when such
infrastructure systems are put on a higher level of maintenance, clearly
indicating that the City was aware of a problem with one of its assets and
its inherent liability, indicating that it needed to get into the CIP
replacement cycle to limit the City’s liability.
Mr. Schwartz noted that it was
important to balance whether funds were best spent to pay damages to
homeowners in such situations or on getting its infrastructure up to an
appropriate level to avoid those unexpected and expensive situations. Mr.
Schwartz advised that it was important to get a rating system in place for
the remainder of the City’s infrastructure and assets, similar to that found
so effective with the PMP and management of roadways throughout the City at
certain conditions and standards. Mr. Schwartz advised that, currently if a
water main segment had experienced three (3) breaks within the last 10-15
years, it was added to the replacement list; and noted that storm sewers
became obvious through visible sink hold; and sanitary sewers based on
televising and evaluation those systems internally.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz clarified that approximately ½ of the $60,000.00
cost for the software was for its initial purchase, while the other ½ was for
implementation, which included training.
Further discussion included
backup staff versus one staff person for training purpose in case of staff
turnover; other cities who have purchased asset management software and their
experiences (e.g. Minnetonka, Eagan, Edina); and consultants who are willing
to make a presentation to the PWET Commission, usually for a fee.
Chair DeBenedet asked what the
PWET Commission could do to assist and support the Public Works Department in
getting this program funded in 2012.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, as
part of the upcoming utility rate and public hearing, staff anticipated
referencing meeting minutes of the PWET Commission regarding their
recommendations related to the rate structure, and the CIP; and would include
any discussion and/or recommendation of the Commission related to
implementation of an asset management plan to ensure those resources are
spent in the most cost-effective manner available.
Chair DeBenedet turned the gavel
over to Vice Chair Vanderwall.
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of a recommendation of support from the Public
Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission to the City Manager and
City Council of the Public Works Department’s efforts to implement an Asset
Management Program in 2012 with software training and allocation; and
including internal documentation of necessary staff support.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Vice Chair Vanderwall returned
the gavel to Chair DeBenedet.
7.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – October 25, 2011
·
Traffic Management Plan – continued discussion with revisions
·
Organized Trash Collection – continued study for another two
(2) months; then recommendation to the City Council, suggesting that the
December meeting, possibly rescheduled to December 20, 2011 to facilitate the
holiday schedules for staff and Commissioners, should be kept to a
single-topic meeting. Staff was directed to put this item on the October
meeting agenda for the Commission to make a decision on how to proceed.
8.
Adjourn
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:56 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|