|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 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; Steve
Gjerdingen; Dwayne Stenlund; and Joan Felice
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; and Recycling
Coordinator Tim Pratt
In the
audience: Dianna McKeown with the MPCA’s GreenStep Cities Program,
CERTS (Clean Energy Resource Team); and several representatives of
independent garbage haulers were present in the audience.
2. Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of December 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the December 20, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1 (Stowell)
Correct spelling of Member
Stenlund’s first name
·
Page 2, Item 4, 3rd paragraph
(Vanderwall/DeBenedet)
Correct Mr. Schwartz’ suffix
·
Page 6, 1st line (Vanderwall)
Correct “fee” to “free”
·
Page 6, 4th full paragraph (Vanderwall)
Correct “organization” to
“organized”
·
Page 8, 4th full paragraph, 2nd
sentence (Gjerdingen)
Correct to read: “While [acknowledging
the goal of reducing] wear and tear on Roseville streets…”
·
Page 9, Specific Goal #9 (DeBenedet)
Strike
·
Page 10, Staff Note (Vanderwall)
Strike
·
Page 11, 3rd full paragraph, 3rd
sentence (Vanderwall)
Correct to read: “Member
Vanderwall opined that a Roseville resident should pay the same rate no
matter their location in the community and [there should be] no
unexplained differential…”
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
January 24, 2012.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, due to
scheduling conflicts, he had been unable to arrange for the requested joint
meeting with the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission, and would attempt to
do so at the PWET Commission’s February meeting.
Mr. Schwartz reported on actions
at last night’s City Council meeting of interest to the Commission, including
adoption of a resolution to begin dissolution of the Grass Lakes Water
Management Organization (GLWMO) process in accordance with State Statute and
provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between member cities
Shoreview and Roseville. Mr. Schwartz advised that it was the intent that,
upon Shoreview’s similar action, the member cities would provide guidance to
the GLWMO Board that was acceptable to the Board of Water and Soil Resources
(BWSR).
Mr. Schwartz further noted that
the City of Arden Hills had chosen to go in a different direction for their
engineering services, and the current Engineer position provided by the City
of Roseville to the City of Arden Hills through a JPA would become funded
entirely by Roseville Utility Funds as of July 1, 2012, and would assist with
implementation of the Roseville CIP.
Discussion of specific projects
listed under Communication Items included: the 2012 mill and overlay project
of Lydia between Fairview and Snelling Avenues to fill in the northwest at
intersection where vehicles typically make wide turns, as well as curb
modifications to meet ADA requirements for pedestrian ramps, striping, and
replacement of a section of water main on the western end of the project.
Further discussion included current
status of the Saint Paul Regional Water. With Mr. Schwartz reporting that the
facility currently shut down for the winter following construction of the
roof, with remaining exterior and interior concrete work needed in the
spring, including baffle wall construction.
Member Stenlund recognized Pulte
Homes for their care in stabilizing their construction site for the winter at
County Road C-2 and Lexington Avenue; and expressed his appreciation for the
quality of their work in interim stabilization efforts as well as their
attempts in saving specimen trees.
Mr. Schwartz advised that an open
house had recently been held for the County Road C-2 connection ordered by
the City Council, with good feedback received from the residents on that
strip of roadway. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff intended to bring those
comments to the City Council’s attention prior to bidding, as well as
providing another opportunity for public comment. To-date, Mr. Schwartz
noted that feedback on the preliminary design had been favorable, with
creation of parking bays, turn lanes on the east/west portion of the project;
and advised that prior to returning to the City Council, staff anticipated
having an estimate available for the lowering the intersection at Merrill and
C-2 that would provide cost-savings by including it in the project scope at
this time and address safety issues with the curve currently not meeting safe
design standards. Mr. Schwartz also advised that through the economy of
scale in performing the work at the same time, there were indications that
the actual construction costs may be less than originally estimated.
Chair DeBenedet spoke in support
of the cost benefits of doing the work now. Chair DeBenedet voiced his
frustration with the lack of compliance with contractors using the parking
bays along West Owasso Boulevard during residential remodeling and
construction projects.
5.
GreenStep Cities Presentation
Mr. Schwartz introduced Ms.
Dianna McGeown, and clarified that Ms. McKeown was with the MPCA’s GreenStep
Cities Program, not with Eureka Recycling as indicated on the staff report.
Ms. McKeown noted that the
confusion was from their being housed at Eureka now, since they were
previously housed at the Green Institute before they closed, and Eureka
offered to host and support their efforts at their facility. Ms. McKeown
advised that GreenStep Cities was a state-wide cooperative partnership among
non-profit agencies, the U of MN, and various government agencies, and was an
energy program, not a recycling program.
Ms. McKeown presented a slide
presentation of this MPCA GreenStep Cities Program, whose effort was toward
implementing sustainability by encouraging cities and other government
entities to voluntarily bring together proven best practices throughout
cities in the State of MN to achieve sustainability goals, through
twenty-eight (28) best practices in five (5) different categories.
Ms. McKeown’s presentation
included a history of the program, subsequent to a 2009 report to the
legislature and efforts for cities to help the State meet goals to reduce
greenhouse gas and improve the economy, the environment and achieve social
sustainability. Ms. McKeown advised that the program was designed for all MN
cities and the best practices focused on cost savings and greenhouse gas
reductions that led cities beyond basic steps and encouraged a culture of
innovation.
Ms. McKeown reviewed how a city
could become a participant and be designated as an official GreenStep City,
and provided a list of those cities and partnering agencies the state already
participating. Steps to participate included:
·
Pass resolution of support
·
Document past actions
·
Implement minimum number of best practices based on your city
category
o
Some selected by city, some required
o
May choose from several implementation actions to achieve
credit for the best practice
·
Recognized for appropriate steps at annual LMC conference
The five categories for best
practices are:
·
Buildings and lighting
·
Transportation
·
Land use
·
Environmental management
·
Economic and community development
Additional information is
available from Ms. McKeown, Metro CERT Director at 612-455-9172 or e-mail at
DianeMcKeown@cleanenergy resourceteams.org
Ms. McKeown reviewed upcoming
workshops cooperatively with the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC).
Member Stenlund suggested PWET
Commissioners and members of the public check out the group’s website at http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/.
Member Stenlund questioned the
difference in city classifications, and where Roseville would fit in if they
had determined some of the best practices had been or were already being
done.
Ms. McKeown noted that, in the
metropolitan area, most cities have more best practices in play than
out-state or rural communities; and defined the programmatic requirements to
determine the classification of cities; and provided rationale for the city
to become involved to document and create a framework for their
sustainability work, for recognition, marketing, or to realize cost savings
in building costs, storm water management, transportation or other
categories.
Chair DeBenedet noted inclusion
in best practices of LED street light use that he’d previously brought up as
a future consideration and discussion for the City; and the relatively short
payback period indicated on this website versus his original estimates;
causing him to question what was delaying the City moving in that direction.
Ms. McKeown noted the promotion
of peer learning among cities rather than recreating the wheel in each city;
and advised that best practices had originally been pulled nationwide.
Member Vanderwall questioned if
subjective and/or quantitative evaluations were available through this
program for participating cities.
Ms. McKeown advised that at this
point, there were not sufficient results, but they were currently working on
such documentation through case studies on older best practices. Ms. McKeown
admitted that the program had taken off quicker than anticipated and was
proving somewhat overwhelming, with other agencies framing their work on the
GreenStep Cities model.
Given today’s budget climate,
Member Vanderwall questioned the viability and long-term existence of this
program.
Ms. McKeown assured Commissioners
that the program was intended to be long-term, since it was run by the MPCA,
and has had one staff person dedicated to the program who had been working on
similar programs for some time, but now it was more focused and made more
sense. Ms. McKeown advised that the Commissioner of the MPCA was strongly
supportive of the program and would continue to defend it, as well as the
partners around the table who are likewise committed. Through upcoming
workshops, one on retrofitting for cities and counties to be held at the U of
MN through Sen. Franken’s office, Ms. McKeown noted that the program would
become even more visible and gather further momentum.
Chair DeBenedet sought Member
input on whether to explore this program further at a future PWET Commission
meeting, opining that there were some aspects that were of strong interest to
him, and would ultimately save the City money.
At the request of Member Stenlund
on the cost of the program, Ms. McKeown advised that there was no cost to the
City.
Member Vanderwall noted that
there would be some cost in staff time to get documentation in place on best
practices already in place. Member Vanderwall questioned if most cities
performed a preview of best practices in place prior to passing the
resolution.
Ms. McKeown advised that an
upcoming March 1, 2012 workshop with the LMC would provide one-on-one
opportunities for City staff to work with U of MN interns on that
documentation. Ms. McKeown suggested that it made sense for a new
participant to perform a cursory view of best practices already in place,
suggesting that Mr. Pratt could probably compile that information without
expending too many resources.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
had already looked at their best practices from a department level, with many
items well on their way.
Member Vanderwall suggested the
program be included on a future agenda, once staff had sufficient time within
their day-to-day workload to provide information on where the City was
currently at with best practices.
Ms. McKeown advised that she was
currently doing solar and renewable energy workshops in the area and would be
happy to do so for Roseville as well. At the request of Mr. Schwartz, Ms.
McKeown advised that paybacks for residential homes were variable on a case
by case basis and based on their specific design; however, she noted that
there were currently solar rewards available through Xcel Energy Rewards
program and MN Made panels, both providing good incentives.
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Vanderwall seconded, to look at this program more in depth for the City of
Roseville; directing staff to include it on a future agenda once they were
able to document current best practices in the City of Roseville, and prior
to June of 2012.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
6.
Consider Organized Collection Resolution
Mr. Schwartz advised
Commissioners that staff had prepared this draft resolution based on previous
discussions and objectives; and sought further direction and revisions.
Member Vanderwall noted the need
to include for discussion purposes, how the program was to be managed and by
which department. Member Vanderwall opined that the draft resolution covered
a broad level, and there were not apparent changes or additions that came to
his attention, other than minor formatting issues.
Chair DeBenedet, with Member
Gjerdingen providing input, suggested the value of anchoring the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan through an additional “WHEREAS,” statement in the
resolution:
“AND WHEREAS, organized
waste collection is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, including
Chapter 8, and Policy Statements 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4; and sustainability goals
of the Plan;”
Member Vanderwall suggested
another “WHEREAS” clause:
“AND WHEREAS, the present
waste collection system does not provide accurate information regarding
uniform cost, quantity, and/or disposal sites;”
Considerable discussion ensued on
the intent and description of Item 5, lines 49-50, and the need for the data
to be more planning oriented as suggested by Member Vanderwall; and Member
Gjerdingen suggesting it be consistent with previous goals to educate customers
on the amount of waste they produced; and Member Vanderwall’s preference that
the concept provide for the information being available to allow the
community to plan for and make better decisions. Member Felice opined that
better data collection would lead to better planning.
Further discussion on Item #5
included Member Stenlund’s concern that there was a venue for adequately
dealing with consumer complaints that had not been addressed yet, even though
that was one of the goals of moving toward organized collection, to provide
that customer complaints would be addressed in a forthright manner.
Member Vanderwall suggested a
second sentence be added to Item #5: “A better process is sought for
responding to service issues.”
While Item #3 addressed
“service,” Member Stenlund opined that it didn’t address individual or
community complaints.
Member Felice opined that better
data collection was better for the community, the City and haulers in that
the data would protect all parties from complaints, including the haulers.
Member Felice suggested that the 2nd sentence for Item #5 read as
follows: “Better data collection allowing for better management for the
city, individual customers and refuse haulers.”
Debate ensued on how best to
address customer service and complaint resolution, with Member Stenlund
suggesting it might work better as an entirely new item entitled, “Complaint
Resolution.” By consensus, Members decided to create a new item, to be placed
immediately after Item #3, as the new Item #4 and adjusting the others
accordingly: “A better process for data collection allowing better
management for the City, individuals, and haulers.”
Members concurred to strike the
words [… study and…] from the RESOLVED statement on page 1,
line 35. Chair DeBenedet noted that the Commission and trash haulers on more
than one occasion had heard and been cognizant that the process allowed for
negotiation and should be continued to be acknowledged in that statement.
Chair DeBenedet anticipated that
the City Council, after their first read, may send the resolution back to the
PWET Commission for further refinement based on their individual and
collective questions and issues.
Member Stenlund sought to ensure
that language continued to provide for as much transparency in the process as
possible. After further discussion, Member Vanderwall suggested the addition
of Item #7 as follows: “Quality of Service: A fair and open process
for customer satisfaction.”
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, recommended to the City Council approval of a resolution
entitled, “Resolution Recommending Consideration of Organized Trash
Collection;” amended during tonight’s discussion as follows:
·
Add: “AND WHEREAS, organized waste collection is
consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, including Chapter 8, and Policy
Statements 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4; and sustainability goals of the Plan;”
·
Add: “AND WHEREAS, the present waste collection system
does not provide accurate information regarding uniform cost, quantity,
and/or disposal sites;”
·
Add new Item #4 and adjust formatting accordingly:
“A better process for data collection allowing better management for
the City, individuals, and haulers.”
·
Strike the words “[… study and…]” from the RESOLVED
statement on page 1, line 35.
·
Add new Item #7: “Quality of Service: A fair and open
process for customer satisfaction.”
Public Comment
Michael Bay, Sales Manager,
ACE Solid Waste
At the request of Member
Vanderwall, Mr. Bay confirmed that he was not a resident of Roseville. Mr.
Bay read a prepared statement summarizing their firm’s opposition to any
government-managed trash collection.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Recess
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 7:50
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:00 p.m.
7.
Overview of Upcoming Ramsey County Projects
For the record, and for the
purpose of full disclosure, Member Stenlund noted that he had previously
reviewed these plans as part of his work at MnDOT.
Mr. Schultz provided an overview
of Ramsey County’s plans for several reconstruction projects, as detailed in
the staff report dated January 24, 2012. Preliminary roll-out plans were
displayed and reviewed at tonight’s meeting by the PWET Commission; and
anticipated for construction in 2013.
The County Road B-2 overview for
Fairview Avenue to Snelling Avenue included the project overview geometrics,
trails, rights-of-way and drainage; as well as funding and a proposed
scheduled. This included the Fairview Avenue and County Road B-2
Intersection; Wells Fargo/Rosedale West Entrance; Rosedale Commons Entrance
Intersection; American Street Intersection; and the Snelling Avenue
Intersection. Mr. Schwartz noted that the County Road B-2 project scope and
cost has grown due to design considerations and right-of-way impacts and
costs; with full funding for the project being a growing concern for County
staff.
Discussion included pedestrian
crossing safety and turning radii at the Wells Fargo/Rosedale West Entrance;
water main and other utility improvements being considered as part of the
project; anticipated timing for the project based on current federal funding
and ongoing right-of-way issues that remained pending; lack of proposed green
space, with the City requesting additional green space considerations at City
cost; the interest of Rosedale in improving their street appearance with
additional signage, retaining walls, and landscape mitigation; bike and
pedestrian access at Rosedale recently improved on-site and access to the
Mall.
The second project included Rice
Street from County Road B-2 to C-2, and included a history and purpose of the
project; existing status of Rice Street in this section; and proposed
construction of this segment; as well as existing and proposed County Road C
Intersection; the Little Canada Road Intersection; and cost participation
projections for the project. Other design considerations and project
schedule were also briefly highlighted. Mr. Schultz reviewed cooperative
agreements for cost-participation and maintenance for roadway projects and
private utility relocation. Mr. Schultz noted an Open House meeting held in
December of 2011 at Little Canada City Hall where a brief presentation was
provided and public input heard.
Discussion on the Rice Street
Project included a second version adding dedicated turn lanes for both sides
of Rice Street at County Road C; potential consolidation of access points on
Little Canada Road and Rice; and initial estimates recently received from
Xcel Energy for undergrounding utilities; and funding challenges for
landscaping amenities; as well as future meetings and cost-participation
opportunities for businesses along that corridor; and water quality features
with the Stockholm concept for trees used for drainage.
Chair DeBenedet suggested
landscaping features be included in future public meetings and determine
their interest in development of a landscape plan for future consideration.
Member Stenlund noted that the
next round of design developments could provide the County with credits for
some landscaping amenities
Member Vanderwall noted that,
while the displayed maps were difficult to read, the packet materials
provided more clarity.
8.
Discuss the City’s Current Assessment Policies for
Non-Residential Properties
Mr. Schwartz advised that
previous discussions led into the City’s current Assessment Policies for
non-residential properties, Sections #2 and 3.
Chair DeBenedet noted his
confusion with Item 1 of the Special Assessment Policy related to temporary
public roadway upgrades.
Mr. Schwartz noted that this
policy is dated; and some previous issues raised by the PWET Commission were
the basis for further discussion and potential revisions to the existing
policy.
Discussion included increasing
costs for signals at intersection; right-of-way acquisition costs; cost-share
of major projects with Ramsey County and MnDOT with or without federal
funding or the availability of State Aid funds; advantages in the retail and
business community participation in the City’s tax base versus additional
infrastructure costs; and examples of other metropolitan suburb assessment
policies (e.g. Maplewood Mall and White Bear Avenue reconstruction); and
participation of watershed districts.
By consensus, the Commission
determined that this item would be discussed further at a future meeting.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – February 28, 2012
·
Parks and Recreation Commission – previous Pathways Master Plan
and Parks Master Plan Discussion
·
Discuss the City’s Current Assessment Policies for
Non-Residential Properties
10.
Adjourn
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:47 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|