|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, March 27, 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; Joan Felice;
and Steve Gjerdingen
Members Excused: Member
Dwayne Stenlund
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; City Engineer Debra
Bloom;
2. Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of February 28, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Van/Felice – 4/0
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the February 28, 2012, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 2, Line 46 (Gjerdingen)
Revise last sentence to read:
“Mr. Schwartz noted that the resolution remained in draft format and would
not proceed to the City Council or out of the PWET Commission pending their
review and direction.”
·
Page 3, Lines 96-97 (Gjerdingen; Vanderwall)
Revise to read: “…Village; and
as part of the application, a trail connection to the NE Diagonal had been
included.”
·
Page 3, Line 105 (Vanderwall)
Correct to read: “Member
Vanderwall opined that the proposed pathways, from his perspective,…”
·
Page 4, Line 136 (Gjerdingen)
Replace “developer” with
“develop”
·
Page 4, Line 159 (Vanderwall)
Include Cedarholm Golf Course in
the list of golf courses in the area.
·
Page 6, Line 230 (DeBenedet)
Correct to read: “Chair
DeBenedet questioned the connection between Valley Park and West Owasso…”
·
Page 11, Lines 451 - 456 (DeBenedet)
Change Chair DeBenedet’s
suggested policy to read: “The existing Assessment Policy applied to properties
zoned 1-2 family; with all others assessed at 25% of the equivalent of a 7
ton, 32’ wide street, with additional roadway costs (e.g. curb and gutter,
medians, turn lanes, drainage, all lighting, signals, and landscaping)
assessed at 90% of total construction costs.”
·
Page 12, Line 508 (Vanderwall)
Correct final sentence to read:
“Member Vanderwall noted that this would be of benefit to abutting properties
as well as those benefitting over the long-term.”
Ayes: 4
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
March 27, 2012.
Discussion included Minnesota
State Aid (MSA) standard requirements related to “No Parking” compliance for
reconstruction, with segments addressed in conjunction with parking bays
(e.g. County Road C-2); and ensuring that the proposed Wal-Mart development
in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area complies with the design standards
developed by the PWET Commission several years ago.
Chair DeBenedet expressed his interest in reviewing the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area design standards in the near future, specifically as
applicable to the Wal-Mart site plans to make sure their parking lots and
other design standards have been applied; as well as other developments
coming forward in the area.
Member Felice noted that there
may be additional considerations for incorporation since the PWET Commission
last reviewed the design standards, and that may be applicable to the
Wal-Mart development.
Member Vanderwall noted the
positive accessibility issues incorporated into the recent Walgreens
development in his neighborhood, specifically addressing pedestrian
accessibility and access without blocking view lines at the intersection.
Member Gjerdingen advised that he
had attended the Planning Commission meeting when the Wal-Mart development
was under discussion; and had specifically addressed the need for
pedestrian-friendly development. While disagreeing with the interpretation
of one individual Planning Commissioner regarding due diligence
responsibilities of their body, Member Gjerdingen recognized the overlap of
the PWET and Planning Commission roles; however, he noted the PWET
Commission’s concern that the community strive to be more pedestrian-friendly
as it redeveloped those areas not currently meeting that need.
Mr. Schwartz cautioned
Commissioners that, at this point the Wal-Mart application was defined as
Plat approval by the City; and that any review of the PWET Commission would
need to be broad, and not specific to the Wal-Mart Plan. Mr. Schwartz
assured Commissioners that the Wal-Mart development was required to meet all
existing design standards.
Ms. Bloom advised that the
development met the Twin Lakes Overlay Zoning District requirements; and
offered to provide those requirements to the PWET Commission electronically.
Member Vanderwall expressed that
he wasn’t personally looking to create any controversy, similar to that of
some citizen comments heard to-date; however, he expressed interest in
continuing to pursue and work constructively with the Planning Commission on
pedestrian-friendly and other transportation mode considerations as
applicable.
Chair DeBenedet advised that he
had personally reviewed the Wal-Mart Site Plan, and found that it appeared
workable, even with the significant changes in storm water management requirements
over the last few years. Chair DeBenedet expressed his confidence that
Wal-Mart was doing what needed to be done; being creative and making sure
their design is sustainable and offering more green space.
Member Felice opined that it was
important that new projects were well-aware that the community was interested
in environmentally-friendly development that met the interests of the
community.
Member Gjerdingen opined that
storm water management would be much more interesting in this area, with
mixed-use development and higher density.
Ms. Bloom noted that most major
retailers provided underground storm water management systems, similar to
that planned for Wal-Mart.
As part of the communication
items included in the packet, announcements were made regarding the upcoming
Roseville’s Clean-Up Day on Saturday, April 28, 2012 from 8:00 a.m. – 3:00
p.m.; as well as the upcoming compost bin and rain barrel truckload sale
scheduled at City Hall on Saturday, May 5, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Grass Lake Water Management
Organization (GLWMO) Dissolution
Mr. Schwartz provided a history
and background of the dissolution process and rationale in doing so; and
reported on the City Council ratification on March 26, 2012; and member
cities of Roseville and Shoreview, in accordance with the Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) provisions for that dissolution. Mr. Schwartz noted the
proposed dissolution date of June 21, 2012; and recommendation to the Board
of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to petition the State of MN to enlarge the
Ramsey-Washington Metro Area Watershed District (RWMWD) with the GLWMO
geographic. Mr. Schwartz advised that this would be on a tight timeframe for
the RWMWD to meet filing appropriate documents with the Secretary of State’s
Office to ensure taxing jurisdiction was in place for 2013 property tax
statements for GLWMO taxpayers.
Chair DeBenedet asked that staff
provide BWSR Public Hearings notices to PWET Commissioners when received.
At the request of Chair
DeBenedet, Ms. Bloom advised that staff was already working with the RWMWD
and also frequently held joint meetings with them and other WMD’s to ensure
the transition could be seamless; and advised that their rules were
comparable to that of the Capitol Region Watershed District.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
State was holding some funding originally set aside for the GLWMO for TMDL
studies, anticipating that the money would be targeted by the RWMWD in 2013
for those same studies. From past experience in working with the RWMWD, Mr.
Schwartz advised that staff was excited about partnering on water issues; and
anticipated the transition to be seamless.
5.
LED Street Lighting
Mr. Schwartz advised that
representatives from Xcel Energy were unable to attend tonight’s meeting, but
would be available for the April meeting at the discretion of the Commission.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
had been researching this LED option for some time as well, along with
parking lot lighting, for retrofits as existing lights were replaced. Mr.
Schwartz noted that the majority of street lights in the City were
Xcel-owned; but outside that, the City had two (2) LED fixtures on loan: one
on Civic Center Drive, and another retrofit in the lighting emphasizing flag
poles on the City campus. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had a quote to
replace thirty-five (35) fixtures – either wall packs or parking lot lights –
on the C city Hall campus estimated at approximately $10,000; with an
anticipated pay-back of 5-7 years, including an Xcel rebate of $100 per fixture.
Mr. Schwartz noted that technological advances were significantly reducing
costs with the ballast removal not as problematic. Mr. Schwartz noted that
estimates on energy savings on retrofits are at approximately 75% in
savings. Mr. Schwartz noted that it would be interested to determine the
life expectancy of those units in the long-term.
Member Vanderwall advised that
I.S.D. #623’s new school buses were fitted with LED lights; and offered to
research their longevity with bus mechanics to see if they were meeting their
expected life expectancies.
Mr. Schwartz noted that LED
lighting had been installed at the roundabouts in the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area, as well as the Rice Street Bridge reconstruction. Mr.
Schwartz advised that it would be interesting to determine the support of
Xcel Energy in changing-out fixtures.
Member Gjerdingen questioned the
cost of the City taking the initiative to install their own poles if Xcel
Energy was not cooperative or supportive of the retrofitting.
Ms. Bloom advised that the average cost of a single street light was between
$3,500.00 and $5,000.00; with the City of Roseville having over 1,200 Xcel
–owned street lights; and the average cost of operating each street light
between $12.00 - $15.00 per month. Ms. Bloom advised that she found Mr.
Bieging, the Manager of outdoor lighting for Xcel Energy, and anticipated
speaker at tonight’s meeting, to be a great resource for the City and its
staff.
Mr. Schwartz noted that, if the
City owned the poles, they would also be required to provide a separate
facility and conduits to connect each at the City’s expense; however, he
noted that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulated and scrutinized
Xcel Energy in providing those services to a municipality.
Chair DeBenedet questioned Xcel
Energy’s attitude in replacing older fixtures as they burned out, or whether
they preferred to do it all at one time. Chair DeBenedet noted the City’s
interest in replacing high pressure sodium lights and ballasts with LED’s,
depending on the long-term payback.
Mr. Schwartz noted that, as a
private company, having discussions with bodies such as the PWET Commission
provided good input to them in making those types of decisions.
6.
Assessment Policy Discussion
Ms. Bloom referenced several attachments
included in tonight’s meeting packet: Attachment A entitled “Final Assessment
Survey – 09/15/2008;” and Attachment B entitled, “Zoning Districts Summary.”
Ms. Bloom advised that the 2008
Final Assessment Survey had been provided through research of the City
Engineer’s Association, and noted that she had arranged it by population, as
previously requested by Chair DeBenedet. Ms. Bloom highlighted several
cities included in the survey; noting that the City of Richfield doesn’t
assess at all, but levied the funds, similar to the City of Roseville’s
Pavement Management Plan (PMP) and current Assessment Policy. Ms. Bloom
noted that the City of St. Louis Park had switched almost entirely to basing
their assessments on appraisals and expected benefit of a project and
assessing accordingly, similar to the Cities of Maplewood and Inver Grove
Heights. Ms. Bloom advised that staff had held good discussions with those
communities on their rationale in making those transitions and subsequent
results of those methods. Depending on the properties identified that will
benefit from a project – with a commercial or residential appraisal completed
– to determine the maximum benefit, with a base assessment rate of less than
that, and consistent with State Statutes.
Regarding Zoning Districts, Ms.
Bloom identified several examples of businesses in commercial and mixed-use
districts.
At the request of Member Felice,
Ms. Bloom noted that assessments were based on Chapter 429 of Minnesota State
Statutes, allowing cities to assess for projects based on adding more value
to a home or business, rather than a city arbitrarily deciding on assessments,
allowing property owners protection, applicable to all zoning districts and a
consistent policy.
Discussion included types of
benefits (e.g. mill and overlay, total reconstruction); property owner rights
of appeal and potential renegotiation of assessments; lead time for
assessable projects, estimated to be one (1) year in accordance with Chapter
429 scheduling.
Over the last six (6) years, Ms.
Bloom advised that the City of Roseville process usually included four (4)
informational meetings with affected property owners, in addition to the
formal Public Hearing process. Since the City of Roseville did not currently
assess property owners for mill and overlay projects, Ms. Bloom advised that
projects were much better received by its constituents. Ms. Bloom reviewed
current project funding for those mill and overlay through interest earnings
from the PMP; however, she noted the challenges with current interest rates
and keeping the PMP sustainable. Ms. Bloom noted that other communities
didn’t necessarily have such program as the City of Roseville’s PMP, and
therefore were forced to consider other options, such as assessments, as a
funding source.
Discussion included the appraisal
process done by communities, such as the City of Maplewood, to determine the
percentage of increased benefit for properties averaging between 25-30%,
comparable to the City of Roseville’s total project cost breakdown per linear
foot. Ms. Bloom noted that the City of Maplewood’s before and after
appraisal property values averaged an increase of 30%; with the City of
Roseville’s current reconstruction projects averaging an assessment value of
25% in accordance with its existing Assessment Policy.
Returning to the zoning
discussion, Ms. Bloom provided some examples of permitted uses in the various
zoning districts, including traffic considerations in relationship to those
uses. Ms. Bloom noted the challenge was with MSA streets, when higher than
7 ton, 32’ wide roadways were indicated, and assessable versus non-assessable
costs were considered. Ms. Bloom advised that the challenge and concerns on
the staff level were related to defining which costs were assessable (e.g.
medians, signals, pedestrian crossings, and turn lanes). In those
situations, Ms. Bloom advised that staff’s perspective was to make the
Assessment Policy easier versus more complicated and easier for staff to
implementation without as much structure.
Ms. Bloom opined that the basic
question was, “What are we trying to solve?” Ms. Bloom suggested that the
concern was to provide equity in higher traffic use areas that need more
traffic controls, specifically in commercial more than residential areas.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff was recommending that LDR-1 and LDR-2 zoned
districts be left as is based on the existing Assessment Policy and
demonstrating benefits; with all other districts reviewed and Policy
revisions recommended to the City Council after further PWET Commission
consideration.
Chair DeBenedet requested
individual Commissioner perspectives regarding staff’s recommendation to
leave the Assessment Policy in place for LDR-1 and LDR-2 zoning districts.
Ms. Bloom recommended language in
the LDR-1 and LDR-2 zoning districts for assessable costs “up to 50% of
project costs;” with 50% used as a placeholder, but moving toward
appraisals. On State and County road projects, Ms. Bloom recommended
assessing up to 50% of assessment costs as long as the City was not
attempting to collect more than the Roseville portion of the cost-share for
those projects, avoiding any “double-dipping,” while recognizing the
additional costs in constructing or reconstructing a commercial roadway.
Discussion included those streets
(e.g. Dale Street) that could be addressed using the City’s existing
Assessment Policy versus those projects indicating an appraisal would be more
appropriate; typically providing appraisals on every project excluding those
in LDR-1 and LDR-2 districts.
Member Vanderwall suggested, in
LDR-1 and LDR-2 districts, that a second tier or option for appraisal be
included beyond the 25% assessment rate; and expressed concern in property
value differentials based on the past five (5) years as well as future
significant variables.
Chair DeBenedet expressed concern
in allowing an option for a resident to request an appraisal.
Mr. Schwartz advised that
property owners were protected under Chapter 429 language, noting that
property owners already had the option to require an appraisal, with the City
having to prove the benefit to individual properties.
At the request of Member
Vanderwall regarding the cost of and process for appraisals, Ms. Bloom
advised that the average appraisal cost to determine the market rate for
residential properties was $3,500.00; with that appraisal providing
comparable sales and average increase in values for similar properties. Ms.
Bloom advised that commercial appraisals were variable, with a recent
Nicollet Mall appraisal costing $20,000.00.
In using the recent Rice Street –
Phase I project as an example, Mr. Schwartz advised that the majority of that
project was funded by federal and state bonding funds, with little in local
dollars. However, in noting that not all costs were yet in, Mr. Schwartz
opined that in all likelihood, when all funding sources had been identified,
the City of Roseville’s cost-share of the project would be confined to
utility replacement costs.
In using Phase I of the Rice
Street project, Ms. Bloom noted that, of the $28 million project, Roseville’s
cost share was approximately $200,000 for utility replacement.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
City’s Feasibility Study construction estimates incorporated potential
cost-share contingencies; but noted that utilities were funded differently
and not assessable costs. Mr. Schwartz noted that to spend $10,000 estimated
appraisal costs for a $300,000 project was not an efficient use of public
funds.
Ms. Bloom noted that an
appraisal, especially for commercial projects, could put the City in a better
position to justify the assessment if the assessment was appealed or
challenged, and would become a subset of feasibility reports.
Ms. Bloom noted that staff was
still reviewing right-of-way costs as part of a city-wide benefit; and
advised that they would present something in writing in the near future for
PWET Commission consideration, hopefully more simplistic, and addressing the
question: “What is assessable?”
Further discussion included
currently no difference for assessments for local, state or county roadways
with the current policy all-inclusive; recognizing that a 50% assessment for
project costs would seldom come into play.
However, Ms. Bloom provided a
specific example of a challenging situation in the past and applying the 50%
assessment scenario. The project was for the signal at Hamline Avenue and
Commerce Streets, with Hamline Avenue a County road, although he west leg is
city-owned and the east leg is a private street; and there were no funding
mechanisms in place for the east leg, since it was a private driveway, with
the City of Roseville responsible for 50% of that project. Ms. Bloom noted
that those two (2) legs were not on the county system, and the City, under
the proposed policy, could have assessed up to 50% of the project, based on
appraisals to benefitting properties (e.g. Ramsey County Library-Roseville
branch, the Vault Company, Macy’s Home Store, and the Mortuary).
Chair DeBenedet suggested if the
City’s share is more than 50%, an appraisal was indicated, but if less than
50%, no appraisal would be done. However, Ms. Bloom suggested an appraisal
no matter what if it was up to the City to pay that portion of the project
cost.
Chair DeBenedet opined that he
would need to give that further consideration; with Member Vanderwall asking
staff to provide their suggestion in writing for the next discussion.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff
level discussions were currently considering impacts in eliminating the per
footage assessment provisions.
Member Vanderwall cautioned staff
that the front footage assessment method had been around for a long time, and
he would be interested in hearing public reaction to such a recommendation.
Ms. Bloom recognized that, due to
its history, keeping the front footage language may be advisable; and
suggested that she update the front-end of the Assessment Policy (Sections 2
and 3) for the next discussion.
Ms. Bloom sought Commissioner
input on whether they wanted to discuss what the City currently assessed,
beyond roads (e.g. new water and/or sewer mains. At the request of Member
Gjerdingen for how current rebuilding of those systems was done, Mr. Schwartz
advised that she would not recommend any change in the current funding
source, done through rates city-wide.
Chair DeBenedet opined that he
was not supportive of assessing for sidewalks in LDR-1 and LDR-2 District, as
they were typically not installed on both sides of the street, and it would
be difficult to determine a benefit for a property versus a property owner
losing some of their front footage for installation.
Ms. Bloom noted that logic would
currently extend to county projects (e.g. Rosedale area at County Road B-2)
with the current policy not assessing for any sidewalks in the City.
Chair DeBenedet recognized that
those areas and properties also benefited from pedestrian access.
Member Vanderwall opined that
politics have always ruled why the City didn’t assess for sidewalks, thus the
current policy or lack thereof; as well as the lack of pedestrian amenities.
Ms. Bloom suggested that, on road
reconstruction projects, a sidewalk installation could be a strict policy,
also assessable.
Member Vanderwall concurred that
this would be applicable when originally installed; however, he questioned
how to fund when repair, replacement, or upgrade of the sidewalk was
required. While there was no historical precedent for new installations,
Member Vanderwall noted that once installed, the value of the sidewalk was a
given and would be supportive of the need for it as part of reconstruction in
their neighborhood.
Mr. Schwartz noted that one
consideration for sidewalks was their high ranking in value by the community
as most recently confirmed through the Parks Master Plan process and
community surveys. Given that, Mr. Schwartz noted that one of the most
difficult projects was sighting a sidewalk or pathway project due to the
impacts on adjacent properties; and opined that assessing for pathways or
sidewalks would only further complicate that process.
Chair DeBenedet concurred with
Mr. Schwartz’s observation. However, for commercial properties, Chair
DeBenedet noted that this was a different situation, with pathways and
sidewalks providing access and benefit to those commercial properties; as
well as allowing their employees to have more walkability in that area.
Chair DeBenedet advised that he
was still unsure of the MDR and HDR zoning districts and how to apply
assessments for sidewalks and/or pathways in those districts, unless reliance
on the Parks Master Plan supported their installation. Chair DeBenedet spoke
in support of a policy for other commercial mixed-use and other districts for
sidewalk assessments; opining that he would be swayed either way for LDR and
HDR districts; however, he expressed his preference for assessments for HDR
where more pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be evident.
Member Vanderwall noted examples
of several HDR communities with residents of those communities having fewer
assets but a stronger reliance in using other transit options to access the
community; as well as some of the City’s roads being too narrow to
accommodate pedestrian and/or bicycle use in a safe manner.
At the suggestion of Member
Gjerdingen to research pathway assessments of other communities, Member
Vanderwall suggested that Member Gjerdingen volunteer to research that and
alert staff to what he found.
Ms. Bloom asked that PWET
Commissioners think about street light assessments for the next discussion.
Recess
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 8:02
p.m. and reconvened at 8:09 p.m.
7.
Overhead Electric / Underground Policy
Mr. Schwartz noted that the City
Council had requested staff to develop an Overhead Electric Power Line
Undergrounding Policy with the assistance of the PWET Commission; and
provided a rough draft from staff for discussion purpose only at tonight’s
meeting. Mr. Schwartz noted that the PWET Commission had previously
discussed such a policy in early 2011; and he had encapsulated some of that
criterion from those initial discussions in the draft policy presented
tonight; specifically how corridors could be ranked and rated for such
undergrounding.
During those initial discussions,
Mr. Schwartz noted funding constrictions, with no identified funding source
other than through the Community Requested Facilities Surcharge (CRFS) option
that Xcel was entitled to under PUC rules. Mr. Schwartz noted that, if the
City chose to fund the undergrounding through this option, it would also be
constricted to the maximum of $4.50 per month per utility customer stacked;
with room for additional surcharges becoming available as older projects were
paid off.
Mr. Schwartz referenced the
criteria drafted by staff on page two (2), specifically the fifth criteria
addressing corridors with over 5,000 ADT traffic volumes, especially
significant with the number of county roads in Roseville and few of those
corridors that are under city jurisdiction (e.g. Lexington Avenue, the Ramsey
County portions of Dale, County Road B-2, and Rice Street).
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
had attempted to tie the criteria to the current Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP); and advised that he was waiting to confirm with Xcel Energy’s
Community Relations representative whether the CRFS was limited to those
areas proposed for or underway for construction; or if the City could request
undergrounding as a stand-alone project for those areas.
Chair DeBenedet opined that
attempting undergrounding with no concurrent project would require
pre-project planning process; and questioned if pre-planning could include
long-range application of surcharges as long as they remained under the $4.50
maximum, but delaying them until a series of projects could be done at one
time.
Mr. Schwartz noted that there
were many variables, with undergrounding needing to be undertaken
approximately one (1) year before the actual construction project to avoid
potential conflicts with utility and road contractors; and challenges in
having a defined right-of-way planned if expansion is part of the project, as
well as whether there was the need for the county or city to purchase
additional rights-of-way and cost prohibitions and unknowns in pre-planning
under those circumstances.
Chair DeBenedet questioned if a
right-of-way plan was in place, if that would allow the undergrounding
project to be initiated; or through joint projects with other jurisdictions.
Mr. Schwartz advised that it
would require the project funding in place to purchase rights-of-way before
the final project scope and timing was known.
Background
Chair DeBenedet suggested the
need to include language encouraging undergrounding for aesthetics,
especially at entries to the community.
Member Vanderwall concurred;
suggesting discussion and consideration of neighborhood-initiated projects,
whether as a criteria as part of the process, not necessarily through CRFS
funding. As an example, Member Vanderwall suggested initiation by the
neighborhood where the city was considering a road reconstruction with them
sparking participation to incorporate undergrounding as part of that project.
Member Gjerdingen suggested
explicit language for new projects (e.g. Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area,
Josephine Woods development); with Mr. Schwartz responding that City Code
already requires all new development underground utilities.
Member Felice questioned those
streets having overhead lines.
Mr. Schwartz advised that it
wouldn’t be cost-effective for just that piece.
Member Vanderwall, in terms of
calculating savings, noted the advantages in undergrounding (e.g. cost of
moving poles for projects; tree trimming; storms); and opined that there must
be less frequency in underground problems, creating lower maintenance costs.
However, Mr. Schwartz referenced
national studies performed by the power industry, asserting that
undergrounding is purely for aesthetics, and provided no cost-savings.
Member Vanderwall questioned if
any independent studies had been done and if so, if that data had been
considered and/or supported those studies performed by the power industry.
Mr. Schwartz opined that the
power industry was under considerable pressure to underground lines.
Chair DeBenedet requested that
staff provide the PWET Commission with an overlay of Roseville arterial,
collector and sub-collector streets with Xcel Energy feeder lines. Chair
DeBenedet provided his rationale in this request to consider safety concerns
in getting first responders activated and able to access the community on
those collector and sub-collector streets in case of a significant emergency
situation. Chair DeBenedet suggested that this safety aspect for Roseville
citizens and the ability of first responders to access residents be
considered when the Commission reviewed prioritizing streets for
undergrounding.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
would request that information from Xcel Energy and gauge their cooperation
accordingly.
Chair DeBenedet opined that, with
equipment undergrounded, it seemed that there would be less maintenance of
those facilities.
Discussion included major feeder
lines underground and above-ground on County Road C.
Member Felice suggested this may
be an additional criterion; with Chair DeBenedet opining that it was already
included in the 5th criteria, and just needed the detailed
refined.
Further discussion included
co-location of fiber in undergrounding and its compatibility; difficulties
and considerations of each utility and their specific trench needs and
challenges; differences for communities with significant new development
opportunities versus a fully-developed and aging community such as Roseville;
and existing underground utilities that may already be in place and unavailable
for additional utilities.
Member Vanderwall noted the
cooperative ventures of the school district and city on shared fiber network
opportunities.
Member Gjerdingen opined that he
could see the advantages of undergrounding corridors with over 5000 ADT traffic
volumes after tonight’s discussion when safety and aesthetics for arterials
were taken into consideration, as he had originally only been considering
aesthetic issues for gateway streets.
Chair DeBenedet asked that staff
provide further discussion and revisions, based on tonight’s discussion, at
the April meeting.
Eureka Recycling Report
Mr. Schwartz referenced the most
recent report, provided for informational purposes, seeking any input or
significant questions of the PWET Commission for Eureka.
For the benefit of the listening
audience, Chair DeBenedet noted the low residual rate (items put into
recycling that should not be) in Roseville as a positive; highlighted that
96% of the material collected in Roseville went into the new product stream as
opposed to some other recycling companies hauling those items to a landfill,
and congratulated Eureka Recycling staff on a job well-done.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the
report was lengthy, and was available for public information on the PWET
Commission website as part of tonight’s meeting materials; with Member
Vanderwall suggesting that staff post it independently on the City’s website
as well, with Chair DeBenedet concurring.
Mr. Schwartz noted that, by 2016,
the Ramsey County Solid Waste Policy required everyone in the county to do
food waste collection; and advised that in the near future, Eureka Recycling
would be increasing plastic collection from those items marked “1” and “2,”
to all marked “1” through “5.”
Chair DeBenedet noted that pizza
boxes had also recently been added.
Member Gjerdingen noted that milk
cartons were also included now; however, he noted that Eureka Recycling
needed to update their bin signage to indicate that, using his personal
apartment residence as an example of poorly updated bin signage.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that
staff alert Eureka Recycling to the need to improve their
education/advertising efforts.
Member Gjerdingen encouraged
competition among multi-family complexes to increase their recycling efforts.
Member Felice expressed her
appreciation to the educational efforts of Eureka Recycling, evidenced by the
collection rates; and also expressed appreciation of Eureka delaying
additional plastic recycling until a proven market was found.
Chair DeBenedet noted that
revenue sharing had dramatically increased, saving the City considerable
money, proving that the Eureka contract had been advantageous for residents.
8.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – April 24, 2012
·
Storm water management plan
·
Election of Chair for 2012/2013
·
Review of design standards for the Twin Lakes area
·
LED Lighting
·
Assessment policy
·
Undergrounding
Member Vanderwall noted his
anticipated of the list of proposed projects from staff.
9.
Adjourn
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:38 p.m.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|