|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, October 25, 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: Several Roseville residents; and various representatives
invited to speak during the organized trash collection discussion.
2.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of September 27, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the September 27, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 2, 3rd full paragraph (Gjerdingen)
Correct intersection reference
to Snelling and Lydia
·
Page 2, last partial paragraph (Felice)
Correct high priority as the
Pathway on County Road B-2 between Lexington Avenue and Rice Street
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
October 25, 2011.
Specific discussion included new
construction and/or reconstruction of pathways and applicable funding
sources, including through the annual maintenance budget; opportunities to
address neighborhood concerns during reconstruction projects, but not always
available during maintenance projects (e.g. mill and overlay); clarification
that the proposed mill and overlay project is for the Snelling Avenue west
frontage road as a maintenance project, and not on Snelling Avenue itself
that could address the barrier wall concerns expressed by residents in that
area, but discussions held by staff with MnDOT staff on the barrier wall and
other aesthetics, with no word from the MnDOT area manager to-date; and
rationale in determining proposed work project areas to reduce costs for
contractor mobilization.
Further discussion included
alerting the School District No. 623 transportation coordinator of seal
coating timing (planned for July) around Fairview Community Center due to
early childhood classes; lining and/or reconstruction of water and/or sewer
lines still in the planning stages and dependent upon City Council action on
proposed utility rate increased and ultimate funding available; and
notification by staff that survey crews had begun working on County Road C-2
as the design stage of that newly-authorized project is initiated for the
175’ connection and narrowed parking bays, in addition to a concrete sidewalk
along County Road C-2 in that area, as an extension of that being installed
by the developer at Josephine Woods, ordered for 2012..
Additional discussion included
completion of the Pulte Homes portion of County Road C-2 in the spring of
2012, depending on weather, and those streets (Dunlap Court and Dunlap
Street) showing up on maps in 2012; extensive concrete rehabilitation
construction plans of Ramsey County around County Road B-2 and Snelling
Avenue, in the Rosedale area, with no widening proposed other than for turn
lanes, and rotated entrances at Rosedale during the construction process; and
erosion control in place for the Josephine Woods project being authorized and
monitored by staff during the construction project.
Member Stenlund expressed
appreciation during the Fairview Pathway construction project of the use of
compost logs at Evergreen park rather than a silt fence, which he opined was
an appropriate use in that relatively flat work area, and served as the best
preservation of the park edge.
Ms. Bloom advised that both the
north and south segments of the Fairview Pathway should have pavement by
November, weather permitting.
Member Gjerdingen commented on
his experiences with the bicycle lanes on the newly-construction Rice Street
project area, and discussion included similar bicycle lane stenciling,
striping and other options that staff could address with Ramsey County for
the next phase of the Rice Street project.
5.
Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy
Ms. Bloom provided an updated
draft of the Roseville Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (TMP),
including changes that she’d incorporated from individual member comments,
other than those from Chair DeBenedet and Member Gjerdingen that had yet to
be incorporated, pending additional consideration and review by the full
Commission.
1.1 Purpose (page 1)
Discussion ensued regarding
comments related to violation of traffic laws and addressing aggressive drive
behavior; and whether identifying it may increase that aggressive road
behavior.
Ms. Bloom opined that staff felt
the purpose of the plan was well-defined as written at this time. Ms. Bloom
noted that there is already a standing Traffic Safety Committee, and when
that was the decision-making body and the threshold for something becoming a
TMP issue and traffic safety discussion.
Mr. Schwartz opined that the TMP
should be written around infrastructure design issues rather than enforcement
issues.
Member Vanderwall noted that both
suggestions identified driver behaviors, and the results of driver behavior,
and opined that this may be redundant; with the overlying issue being the
result of driver behavior making for unsafe neighborhoods, and suggested that
the intent of the TMP was to alleviate those conditions, without seeming to
be accusatory of drivers. In other words, Member Vanderwall suggested that
the TMP was based on how we manage traffic, not how we manage drivers.
Chair DeBenedet opined that
traffic was managed through managing traffic behavior; however, he agreed to
not including “violation of traffic laws,” in this draft of the TMP.
However, Chair DeBenedet opined that wherever else it was addressed, it
should be broadly defined in the Purpose Statement.
Mr. Schwartz noted that in the
enforcement section of the TMP (page 7), this strategy was addressed.
Ms. Bloom sought direction from
the Commission on how to best encapsulate the enforcement item.
Discussion included providing
positive versus negative terminology to define it without judgment; whether
the intent of the TMP was to address the negatives, and the need to identify
conditions that prompt using this procedure; staff was directed to include a
separate sentence that addressed promoting safe walking, or to promote safe
neighborhoods with respect to traffic for all users of the roadway, and to
alleviate conflicts between real and/or perceived traffic using the same
corridor; defining the jurisdiction of roadways in the Definition Section to
clarify the type of streets and to be consistent with and reference the
Transportation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan (e.g. local streets, arterials,
or collectors).
4.0 Procedure Summary
Step 1
Ms. Bloom summarized the various
steps proposed, based on staff’s review of the City of Edina’s TMP and the
relationship to and definition of benefitted areas, project areas, and
benefitted neighborhoods, and the implementation based on 51% of the
neighborhood; effectiveness of an application from an individual versus a
petition of more than one individual; and how to define project areas.
Discussion included project areas
defined as a block between cross streets; recognizing the need to define
dead-end streets and/or cul-de-sacs differently as project areas; assessment
area(s) for affected neighborhoods determined by staff unless there was a
disagreement between staff and the neighbors on defining the project area, at
which time the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission would
serve as the third-party appeal group to provide an unbiased resolution or if
staff determines the affected area should be broadened; and preference to
keep the process as simple as possible in determining the project area;
clarifying the definition of the project neighborhood as the stretch of
street between intersections or the entire cul-de-sac; and identifying the
notice area for the entire affected area.
Section 2.0 Policies
Member Stenlund noted the need
for consistent language for “strategies” and/or “devices.”
Section 3.0 Definitions
Discussion included consistent
identification of collector and arterial streets, with staff suggesting
further internal review following staff’s changing the language to “local
streets,” and whether the context still remained; with consensus to remove
lines 5 – 16 in their entirety with the exception of the fifth sentence that
was to remain intact; and intent of the processes and strategies for local
streets to “improve neighborhood traffic conditions.”
Step 3 – Data Collection and
Traffic Study (page 5)
Discussion included steps to
determine if a request falls under the guidelines of the internal Traffic
Safety Committee or the Traffic Management Plan for initial review; the
process of an engineering study, as needed, in that process; and informing
the neighborhood before any application has staff time invested; affected
area versus benefitted or impacted area; establishment of project boundaries;
and the role of the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission
and how/when requests are considered: annually or as they’re received to be
reviewed by the Commission for recommendation to the City Council as
applicable with staff’s evaluation and assigning a timeline for those
projects given consideration.
General Commission consensus was
the, unless there was a dispute, professional staff work with neighborhoods
and not bring items to the Commission other than as information or if an
appeal was filed beyond staff.
Member Gjerdingen expressed his
preference that the policy mention something about the Commission being made
aware of requests to ensure the public didn’t have a perception that some
things were being fast-tracked.
Step 4 – Develop/Evaluate
Traffic Management Strategies (page 7)
Discussion included various
strategies, whether permanent or temporary and related costs (e.g. installing
signage versus construction) and rationale behind those items and their
effectiveness, whether perceived or actual, and what was attempting to be
accomplished with those strategies.
Further discussion included
signage paid for by individual homeowners or blocks versus signage installed
by the City, with staff advising that they would need to approve
installations and perform the work to ensure other City Code and legal
requirements were adhered to; how to raise awareness in neighborhoods of
various situations (e.g. pedestrian crossings; deaf children, etc.); and how
to break down the types of signage or traffic control devices recognizing that
neighborhoods change, and the types of strategies that were permanent or
those temporary.
Additional discussion addressed
Table 3 (page 9) and the type of implementation and projected costs and
funding allocations; how to determine demonstrated or known benefits of each
particular strategy; with staff asked to review this section and the various
strategies again using other TMP models from other communities.
Further discussion included
neighborhood signage (e.g. plastic pedestrian crossing signage and/or paper
signs installed in private driveways) and how neighbors and the City could
work together on those types of strategies while remaining temporary; how to
change human nature and cultures to recognize crosswalks and pedestrian
areas; with staff asked to review this section to consider
outreach/educational issues for soft solutions.
Ms. Bloom suggested that such
strategies may be more of a discussion for the Traffic Safety Committee
rather than this body or including them in the TMP.
Member Stenlund opined that staff
should include information each spring in the City newsletter that the legal
default speed limit in MN, if not signed, is 30 mph.
Ms. Bloom advised that revisions
would be included in the next draft and formatted for easier reading.
Staff was asked to add
“maintenance” to the list of implementation strategies.
Cost Estimate and Funding
Ms. Bloom noted that cost
information, whether assessable or not, needed to include the installation
costs as well as the City’s maintenance costs; how to identify costs for
maintenance, noting that the City of St. Paul assessed for maintenance costs;
and current Assessment Policy of 25% for reconstruction of City streets, with
mill and overlay not assessed; and residential properties not required to
maintain their sidewalks, nor were they assessed for their installation,
while commercial properties were required to maintain their sidewalks and
were assessed for their construction.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that
annual average cost be included in the Table (page 9), with a footnote that
that it was included for informational purposes only.
Member Gjerdingen noted several
typographical errors on page 21 (traffic control devices).
Step 10 - Design, Final
Assessment Roll and Construction (page 11)
Ms. Bloom advised that she
include information related to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429, using the City
of Edina model to explain the process used; with further definition needed on
benefitted areas as previously discussed.
General Discussion
Ms. Bloom advised that staff
would now continue with the next steps in developing the TMP, using the
Blaine model, while attempting to make it more specific to Roseville and
incorporating Commission discussion and directives.
Discussion included the intent of
the TMP to address current problems or unique situations; and future traffic
problems addressed using standard operating procedures to design those
projects including public involvement.
Recess
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 7:50
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:58 p.m.
6.
Organized Trash Collection Discussion
Chair DeBenedet noted purpose of
tonight’s presentation and discussion time with various interested parties
invited to provide a presentation and discussion in the short time allotted
for this ongoing discussion. Chair DeBenedet noted that no decisions would
be made at tonight’s meeting, but it was simply to allow have a demonstration
from staff on a new software tool to determine road impacts of various
vehicles based on their weights; as well as to allow invited audience members
another chance to provide their input to the Commission. Chair DeBenedet
advised that staff would be compiling information previously provided to the
Commission over the last few years and now in one packet; allowing for future
Commission review and discussion and for their final recommendation to the
City Council.
Road Impact Tool Demonstration
Ms. Bloom provided background
information on this software tool developed as part of a research project on
which she serves as a technical liaison, with the research project funded by
the local road research board; and entitled “Heavy Vehicle Impact Tools” to
determine the impact of heavy traffic generators on streets, based on their
designs, conditions, and usage; and basing that on industry standards, with
the information then tailored to individual communities and linking the data
to real information to determine ESAL lives of a street.
Discussion among Commissioners
included determining a baseline for traffic on all Roseville street segments,
and then determining variables and incremental vehicle uses (e.g. empty,
half-full and/or loaded trucks to determine actual wear); how to determine
actual sample segments other than through staff observation; consulting with
individual refuse haulers or other heavy vehicle owners to determine typical
routes; and individual Commissioners providing information to staff for their
specific neighborhoods to provide additional sample streets while ensuring
accuracy of that information.
Member Stenlund noted the need
for the tool to analyze braking or high-speed turnarounds on cul-de-sacs
creating tremendous sheers on those streets.
Ms. Bloom noted that had been
part of the discussion at the last technical meeting; with a lot of vehicles and/or
equipment now being designed to have less pushing. Ms. Bloom clarified that
this tool would be restricted to looking at pavement and life expectancy of
that pavement, but that it could obviously not address human factors for
various vehicles and their impacts.
Public Comment
Ann Berry, Representing the
League of Women Voters (LWV) Position
Ms. Berry advised that she had
consulted one of the LWV original committee members and their previous,
1970’s era discussion on garbage hauling, and their concerns with the number
of garbage trucks on City streets every day or the week on every street. Ms.
Berry advised that the LWV study occurred in the late 1970’s and early
1980’s, with an actual position statement completed in 1982. Ms. Berry
advised that the statement supported individual composting and government
support for community composting; with that study further refined in 1985
with more through study and individual LWV member assignments for review of
Roseville citizens; and subsequent vote of LWV members at that time
supporting organized refuse collection and curbside collection of
recyclables.
Ms. Berry noted that the 1982
position statement resulted in removing recyclables from landfills; and
government support of composting, with community government and individual
sites for composting materials. Ms. Berry noted that the LWV 1984 study
supported establishment and supervision by the municipality of curbside
recycling and source separation, with the City contracting for recycling haulers
and variable haulers for individual homeowners for refuse haulers.
Ms. Berry noted that this
continued to be the position of the LWV through the years anytime discussions
were held regarding eliminating composting and in lobbying the City for
separate garbage days for each neighborhood rather than five (5) separate
collection days. Ms. Berry noted the overwhelming response in 1990 when the
first hazardous waste collection in Roseville was held.
Ms. Berry noted that she
experienced at least eight (8) garbage trucks in her neighborhood on
Woodhill, but that she had seen some improvement with a one day/week
collection. While the Roseville LWV Chapter has merged with those of other
communities (Falcon Heights, Arden Hills, Maplewood and Little Canada), Ms.
Berry noted that the LWV had been way ahead of the curve in reviewing this
issue; and the Chapter continued to vote annually (majority rule) – unless
the issues had been successfully legislated – on whether to keep, drop or
update their positions statements, and were willing to lobby on any level to
support the organized collection issue.
Chair DeBenedet summarized that
the LWV had taken and continued to hold in favor of organized trash
collection, with Ms. Berry responding affirmatively.
Douglas Root, 2468 Hamline
Avenue, Roseville Citizens League (RCL) Position
Chair DeBenedet noted that he and
Member Stenlund had attended the forum on organized trash collection that the
RCL had hosted; and welcomed Mr. Root to update the Commission on the RCL’s
findings from that forum.
Mr. Root advised that he had led
a working group of the RCL over an approximate 1.5 year period to look at
trash collection and a potential forum for citizen input and information to
and from those citizens. Mr. Root noted that this process had been
deliberate and slow and resulted in a trash collection forum held on
September 15, 2011 with approximately eight-five (85) people in attendance.
Mr. Root advised that the forum
was mediated by a volunteer moderator with invited speakers from a large
number of groups, including a representative of the League of Minnesota
Cities (LMC) to address the legal process for municipalities in considering
organized trash collections. Mr. Root noted representatives of other
communities (North St. Paul, Little Canada, and Maplewood) were also present
to provide their individual community experiences with organized trash
collection, providing both the pros and cons.
Mr. Root noted that individual
trash haulers and the National Solid Waste Organization served as part of the
panel to provide their point of view; with Roseville citizen Richard Lambert
also speaking specifically regarding how organized trash collection could be
implemented with an opt-out position. Mr. Root noted that written questions
were taken from the audience and addressed by the panelists with various
options were presented. In polling citizens as they left the forum, most
advised that they felt they had been informed through the forum and that
their general questions had been answered.
Subsequent to that forum, Mr.
Root advised that the RCL voted unanimously to recommend to the City of
Roseville government that organized trash collection be considered, or that a
process be initiated to move toward that type of collection. While not being
totally clear on the result of such a process, Mr. Root advised that the RCL
recommended that Roseville begin the process for that consideration.
Member Gjerdingen noted that a
volunteer had recorded the forum; however, due to technical difficulties, the
sound was relatively poor and asked if a refined copy was now available to
provide to City staff for public dissemination.
Discussion included paper
handouts available at the meeting from various sources; and information
available on the trash hauler’s association webpage.
Doug Carnival, Attorney
representing that National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA), Waste
Hauler Position
Mr. Carnival stated that the
NSWMA was not in favor or organized trash collection; but instead supported
continuing the free enterprise system. Mr. Carnival noted that there was a
reason why twenty (20) different communities had reviewed the option and had
found their citizens adamantly opposed to organized trash collection and had
subsequently not adopted it. Mr. Carnival stated that citizens indicated to
City Councils in those communities that they preferred to make those
decisions themselves; and cited examples from some of those communities,
opining that citizen opposition was overwhelmingly opposed, with citizens
preferring to make those decisions themselves and continue their
relationships with haulers, many of them long-term relationships; and many
representing small, locally-owned haulers. Mr. Carnival opined that citizens
liked competition and their ability to negotiate with haulers; with their
preference based on price, service and individual relationships.
Mr. Carnival opined that if the
City chose to go to organized trash collection, it would create a monopoly;
and would have a severe and negative impact on small community haulers, who
compete fiercely to develop and retain their business; while attempting to do
so at the most reasonable cost possible for their customers. Mr. Carnival
further opined that if the City chose to go to a one-hauler system it would
force some of the smaller businesses to leave the community and give up
hundreds of customers; resulting from nothing they had done wrong other than
the City claiming that they can make the decision better than their own
citizens.
Mr. Carnival stated that current
haulers didn’t have any monopoly issues in Roseville; and based on criteria
of respective families, the NSWMA compared this to a municipality attempting
to negotiate for cell phones, cable, gas or groceries. Mr. Carnival noted
that individual small haulers used discounts or other incentives to remain
innovate and grow their markets and this ultimately benefited all consumers.
Mr. Carnival noted that with a
government-managed, one-hauler system, the customer was the city not
individual homeowners; and the haulers would no longer be accountable or
responsive to customers on the block, but only to the City. Therefore, Mr.
Carnival noted that City staff would be taking on the additional
responsibility of fielding those calls, adding further expense to the City.
Regarding road wear, Mr. Carnival
noted that a study was currently being undertaken by MnDOT to determine road
wear; and that to-date, there was no scientific evidence in twenty (20)
communities that were evaluated that organized collection saved any money
all. Mr. Carnival advised that wear was determined more on the number of
axels, distribution or weight, number of trucks and how they were loaded.
Mr. Carnival recognized a City Engineer from the City of Arden Hills who
stated that weather was the biggest factor on road wear, not truck traffic.
Mr. Carnival questioned if the City was prepared to regulate wear and tear
from other trucks and buses in a community using those same streets and
having significant impact.
Given the current economy, as
well as the other reasons previously stated, Mr. Carnival opined that this
was not the time for government to become involved in the garbage business,
but that citizens should be allowed to make that decision themselves based on
their own circumstances and in a competitive marketplace resulting in no
injury to small haulers attempting to compete in that open market place.
Mr. Carnival advised that haulers
were more than willing to sit down with City staff and/or Commissions to
determine problem areas and specifically address them; and that they were
more than willing to do so in Roseville as well.
At the request of Member
Vanderwall, Mr. Carnival provided a list of the small haulers who were a
member of the NSWMA and those who were not members.
Roger Toogood, 601 Terrace
Court
As an attendee at the RCL forum,
Mr. Toogood noted hearing the amazement expressed by citizens on their way
out of the forum at what they didn’t know and opportunities existing to
decrease their costs and improve the quality of service. Mr. Toogood opined
that this was an important fact; and in reference to the twenty (20)
communities choosing to say “no” to organized collection, their rationale may
have been based on the 1991 legislation, lobbied for by waste hauler
associations, passed and the many complex steps in moving toward organized
collection, making it difficult for many communities to work through. Mr.
Toogood noted that current legislators had expressed their willingness to
look at the 1991 legislation and make it less complex and/or costly for
cities to implement.
Mr. Toogood opined that in the
current economy, if cities and their citizens could cut their costs as well
as reduce maintenance of roadways, it was worthwhile to look at organized
collection.
Mark Stolt, Resident of
Shoreview and General Manager of Randy’s Environmental Services (based in
Delano, MN)
Mr. Stolt advised that Randy’s
had no market share in Roseville at this time; however, he was a member of
the Technical Advisory Committee referenced previously by Ms. Bloom. Mr.
Stolt advised that he was speaking on behalf of independent and small
business people and haulers, and while not being present in the early 1990’s
when organized hauling statutes were adopted, it was his understanding that
they were put forth to protect independent business people and allow them
receive due consideration. Mr. Stolt opined that it should be difficult for
government to take away market share from independent businesses, especially
when all businesses were cash hungry and competing with national companies;
with many small haulers continuing to come up with innovative ways to service
their customers; and many having to mortgage their homes or put personal
guarantees on their homes to purchase trucks and carts. Mr. Stolt noted that
losing customers would only force small haulers to lay off people until they
were able to find additional customers to replenish those lost to government
management.
Recognizing that it was not an
easy decision, Mr. Stolt noted that independent haulers in Roseville had
worked long and hard to provide specialized service to Roseville customers;
and invited the City to take a hard look at whether or not to remove this
revenue stream from independent businesses, exclusive of safety and road
issues. Mr. Stolt suggested working with those small haulers to address
specific concerns and come to a mutual resolution; opining that those haulers
would be committed to work with the City to find remedies to those major
concerns.
Mr. Stolt noted that, when the
City of Coon Rapids was considering organized collection, they talked to the
Peter Built truck builder, and the number of truck firms who purchased
chassis similar to those of garbage trucks, with Peter Built estimating over
200 firms. Mr. Stolt opined that there were ways to remedy haulers through
license fees; addressing better loading of the vehicles; and using ESAL tools
to address how each hauler ran their routes and attempting to achieve
efficiencies through those methods. Mr. Stolt noted that how the equipment
was operated affected the equipment and ultimate costs for the haulers as
well as impacts to community roads.
Mr. Stolt suggested that
consideration be given, beyond the calculator, to define roles of the
municipality and haulers to work together, including starting and stopping
resistance.
Member Stenlund questioned if Mr.
Stolt’s firm was awarded the contract for organized collection as an
independent contractor, would he benefit from having that entire contract
rather than the current competitive method.
Mr. Stolt responded negatively;
noting that his firm was a larger independent hauler with 50,000 customers,
and he would not want to lose that business since his firm couldn’t compete
with the deep pockets of a national firm. Mr. Stolt advised that his
business model was based on better customer service and specialized service.
Mr. Stolt noted that independent haulers had been receptive to-date to
municipal issues and concerns; and continued to be involved in innovative
programs, such as MPCA organic collection programs, originally initiated by
haulers, not through state mandates. Mr. Stolt opined that independent
haulers were more than willing to help cities achieve their goals.
Commission Discussion
Chair DeBenedet thanked speakers
for their input; noting that the Commission would receive background
materials and information to-date once compiled and received from staff; and
invited audience members and members of the listening public to attend or
listen to the November meeting for further Commission discussion and possible
recommendation to the City Council.
7.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – November 22, 2011
·
Utility Undergrounding Draft Policy
·
Ramsey County Solid Waste Policy
·
Review and potential update of the City’s Solid Waste Policies
as mandated by year-end
8.
Adjourn
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:06 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|