|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Jan Vanderwall called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jan Vanderwall; and Members Jim DeBenedet; Joan Felice;
Steve Gjerdingen; and Dwayne Stenlund
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; City Engineer Debra
Bloom
Others
Present: Xcel Energy representatives: Ms. Colette Jurek, Community
Relations Manager and Mr. Ed Bieging, Manager of Outdoor Lighting
2. Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of September 25, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Member Felice moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded, approval of the September 25, 2012, meeting as presented.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz advised that updates were available on the City’s website, at www.cityofroseville.com/projects;
and further highlighted in the staff report dated October 23, 2012, along
with a verbal project update.
Mr. Schwartz announced and
invited all to attend a ribbon cutting as part of the recent Fairview Pathway
Project on Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 12:00 noon on the Campus of the U of
MN. Mr. Schwartz advised that this was a part of the recognition for a portion
of the project funding under a federal pilot project through funding from the
Transit for Livable Communities Program. At the request of the Commission,
Mr. Schwartz advised he would make sure the information was included on the
City’s website with applicable links.
Member Felice expressed her
appreciation for the pathway addition to that area of Roseville; opining that
it was already being used a lot.
Discussion of other projects
included the recent bid opening for sewer lining projects, with award still
pending until due diligence had been completed by staff, particularly the 3M
product, since the bid for use of that product had come in significantly
lower than other proven technology; update from staff on the lighter
participation in this year’s leaf collection program, with Mr. Schwartz
reporting that, to-date, only approximately half the residents had signed up
for the program compare to last year at this time.
Further discussion included the
upcoming walk through by staff with residents along County Road D for the
upcoming project, with City Engineer Bloom scheduled to provide additional
information later tonight on the recent open house held with residents
impacted by that project and concerns they had about sidewalk installation on
the Roseville side, as well as speed concerns; a general discussion on when
and how speeds are changed on roadways following a speed study being ordered
and subsequent petition to and approval by the State of MN Commissioner of
Transportation before any changes.
Additional discussion included an
update on the fire station construction on the City Hall campus, with the
foundation in and block work begun today; and trenching over the last few
days to extend geothermal piping to the skating center, but not proposed for
connection until spring; with hopes to have the building enclosed before
excessively cold weather sets in this fall.
Member Stenlund noted that more erosion control measures were needed around
the site than those presently in place; with Mr. Schwartz advising that he
would follow-up on that concern.
5.
Xcel Energy Presentation on LED Streetlight Study
Mr. Schwartz introduced Ms.
Colette Jurek, Community Relations Manager and Mr. Ed Bieging, Manager of
Outdoor Lighting for Xcel Energy to provide a discussion on where technology
is today as it relates to street lighting and to discuss their LED pilot
project in West St. Paul.
A bench handout from Xcel
entitled “LED Street Lighting Information and Frequently Asked Questions;”
was provided and is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Recess
Chair Vanderwall recessed the meeting at approximately
6:48 p.m. to resolve technical issues, and reconvened the meeting at
approximately 6:51 p.m.
Ms. Jurek reviewed the pilot
program being initiated by Xcel for LED street lights in West St. Paul.
While unable to access his online
presentation, Mr. Bieging highlighted various components for such a program,
using the information sheet provided as an outline.
Discussion included ongoing
research for LED colors, those being used for the pilot program; initial
installation costs and operational savings, with costs reduced as new
technology advances.
Mr. Bieging spoke to thermal
management failures found in initial applications in Brooklyn Park, MN and
later improved fixtures and light distribution; reduced size and cost for
fixtures, originally at $900 each, and now more in the $300 range for a 100
watt LED fixture and up to $500 for a 250 watt fixture; current life
expectancy of fixtures (HPS averaging 3.5 – 6.5 years versus LED averaging
14-25 years); average wattage comparables (HPS up to 130 watts and LED
averaging 60 watts) and white light of LED providing for greater visibility
and less shadowing.
Additional discussion included
costs for fixtures, as well as infrastructure, administration and general
expenditures for Xcel to change out from HPS to LED fixtures, ability to
change cobra head connections for LED using existing standards; current cost
per fixture for HPS averaging $9.50 now, and LED averaging approximately
$10.50, with further reductions in the cost for LED lighting once actual
overall costs are calculated and trends established, with another 10-15%
reduction anticipated at this time.
Mr. Bieging reviewed other
studies done or in process in communities in Texas, and Colorado (Denver) as
well as the West St. Paul, MN study underway, the three (3) different
climates of those sites; and findings of those various studies related to
technology issues, type of fixtures, current vendors (Phillips and General
Electric); and warranties those vendors were offering.
Mr. Bieging anticipated
completion of Xcel’s rate study within the next 12-18- months if not sooner,
once data had been compiled and evaluated; at which time Xcel would seek
approval of an implementation rate from the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC). Once that approval had been received, Mr. Bieging advised that Xcel
could provide the information to manufactures seeking specifications for the
system. At the request of Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Beiging explained that the PUC
would not let Xcel implement any rates without first providing substantial
data; and since LED lighting was inherently different in wattage levels,
rates charged were required to have significant data for substantiation for
the PUC.
Discussion among the Commission
and Xcel representatives included: how the rate was broken down for capital
versus maintenance costs for the fixtures, with maintenance representing the
highest cost for LED as well as HPS as well; cost of each cobra head fixture
at approximately $90, but the LED infrastructure cost currently about $300
until manufactures can reduce that cost based on economy of scale;
replacement of bulbs versus the entire board and which was found the most
efficient based on their life expectancy (23 years for a board); components
(e.g. starter, ballast, bulb, other components) and their inability to be
recycled at this time, but not identified as hazardous waste as they didn’t
contain mercury vapor, which is no longer usable in MN.
Additional discussion included
life expectancy of LED bulbs at approximately 15-25 years; and potential
reduction in operational and maintenance costs as LED lighting moves to the
forefront, estimated at approximately 50%.
Mr. Bieging noted that use of LED
lighting for decorative will not be as effective, nor save money, due to
their design and limited lighting capabilities and levels, since LED lights
are more direct than conventional HPS fixtures with lighting reflected and
refracted inside the fixtures and distribution patterns; as well as the
public perception of LED lighting as more measured with the whiter light and
allowing use of lower wattages as technologies improve.
Ms. Jurek advised that it was
Xcel’s intent to conserve energy and pass that savings on to its customer
base, as well as reducing overall emissions.
Further discussion included
off-peak power considerations and controls; directional lighting where needed
through use of LED lights directed on streets and sidewalks for safety versus
into customer’s yards (e.g. keyhole to keyhole lighting); relative ease in
retrofitting existing cobra head light standards with LED technology; and
reluctance of Xcel to consider dimming street lights when needed less due to
litigation issues, as well as other considerations.
In conclusion, Mr. Bieging
advised that new technologies were driving the future of outdoor lighting and
the entire industry over the next 10-15 years, with Xcel hoping to be in a
position of leadership with a strategic plan for replacing and updating
outdoor street lighting systems. Mr. Bieging noted that there was a
considerable amount of pressure to move this LED street light program forward
in the Midwest, advising that this may prompt an earlier resolution. Mr.
Bieging advised that studies for LED lighting in eastern and western states
were more advance, primarily due to higher rate structures than currently
realized in Midwestern states.
Chair Vanderwall and
Commissioners thanked Mr. Bieging and Ms. Jurek for their informative presentation.
6.
Uniform Commission Code Proposal
As previously requested by the
PWETC, Mr. Schwartz provided a DRAFT copy of the proposed ordinance
(Attachment A) being developed by staff to provide a more uniform policy for
City Council establishment and management of its various commissions, as well
as to address specific needs of those specific commissions.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff,
under the direction of City Manager Malinen, had researched other communities
and their use of more commonality for their commission structure; and advised
that this was the first attempt to bring the City of Roseville’s current
commissions, all established at different times and for different reasons,
into one overall ordinance. Mr. Schwartz advised that this preliminary draft
did not provide feedback from any commission chairs from their recent
meetings with City Manager Malinen, nor had it been presented to the City
Council yet for their initial review.
Member Felice observed that most
of the commissions called for a limit of seven (7) members, with the
exception of the Parks and Recreation Commission, with a maximum of nine (9)
members, and questioned the rationale for that discrepancy. Member Felice
suggested that, if the attempt was for standardization, it seemed to suggest
a maximum for members across the board.
Mr. Schwartz was unable to
respond; however, he advised that he was aware that the Parks and Recreation
Commission for some time had more members than other commissions.
Member Gjerdingen noted that commissions
could be reduced for future standardization by not filling vacancies as they
occurred.
Chair Vanderwall noted that all
commission chairpersons had been asked to consult with City Manager Malinen.
While recognizing the desire for standardization, Chair Vanderwall expressed
his concern in losing any of the current available expertise represented by
members of the PWETC, if they were only able to serve a maximum of two (2)
consecutive terms. Chair Vanderwall noted other commissions may not need the
same level of technical expertise as the PWETC given the nature of their
tasks.
Member Felice concurred.
Discussion ensued on how the City
Council might address those concerns through their appointment/reappointment
process; incumbents versus new applicants and the interview process prior to
appointment/reappointment; and how best to provide flexibility to keep
commissioners of value when the applicant pool may be weak or non-existent.
Chair Vanderwall, as well as
other Members, expressed their appreciation in serving on the PWETC and the
relatively interesting and timely issues and discussions coming before the
body for recommendation to the City Council.
Further discussion included use
and simplicity of Rosenberg’s Rules versus Robert’s Rules for parliamentary
processes; with Chair Vanderwall clarifying that the City Council had adopted
Rosenberg’s Rules as the official meeting protocol, but noted if and when the
PWETC held public hearings, consideration may need to be included to allow
them to do so and the process delegated to the body to proceed accordingly.
Chair Vanderwall advised that he
had also brought to City Manager Malinen’s attention the current constraints
in commissioners being unable to communicate amongst their members outside
that correspondence being made part of the formal public record; and when or
if exceptions were available for generic correspondence between members.
While recognizing these
constraints, Mr. Schwartz noted that those rules went beyond that of City
Code, since they originated with State Statute and Open Meeting Law
restrictions for communication outside a public meeting by a public body.
Chair Vanderwall recognized those
statutory restrictions, he opined that with ever-improving technology, those
restrictions needed to be updated as well.
Member Stenlund noted, in the
general comments at the beginning of the ordinance, he thought more should be
added on ethics, and the need for annual ethical training by commissioners or
an annual waiver by members.
Member Gjerdingen also noted the
need to stipulate annual financial disclosure information by commissioners.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that
ethics training was not mandatory, and readily available along with general
ethics operating procedures and processes available on the City’s website.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that,
in lines 109-112 of the draft ordinance, mention of a handbook or framework
of behavior may be appropriate.
Member Stenlund noted that, if
2-4 year terms were adopted, he would no longer be eligible to serve; and
while wanting more people to be involved in local government to obtain more
and better ideas, he would be disappointed if no longer serving on the PWETC.
Member DeBenedet noted that
Roseville had a strong history of willing volunteers; however, he also noted
that some commissions had been difficult to fill in the past.
Chair Vanderwall noted line 420
and following in the document under “Duties/Functions,” particularly the
“maintaining an interest” phrase and suggested a better definition of the
duties or charge of the PWETC was necessary. Chair Vanderwall suggested that
current language was too broad, and needed more specificity in some areas.
Member DeBenedet concurred,
suggesting an additional subheading or replacement for “C” or “D,” allowing
the PWETC to initiate studies pertaining to topics of current interest in the
field of public works, environment, and/or transportation (e.g. LED street
lighting).
Member Stenlund concurred, noting
the importance of other areas (e.g. MS4 annual monitoring and reporting,
recycling issues/studies); and other things that are high functions of the
PWETC; along with other useful functions intended to take some of the load
off the City Council.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, while
this draft ordinance is very preliminary, he would provide the PWETC’s
feedback to City Manager Malinen. Mr. Schwartz noted the typical intent to
keep ordinances more general in nature, and not have them to detailed,
allowing for changes in procedure more specific and as needed.
Member Gjerdingen expressed
concern with line 48 of the ordinance and the age requirements, suggesting
that it be changed to age 18.
Chair Vanderwall clarified that
this spoke to student representation versus regular members of commissions;
and their service during a school year due to the transitory nature of their
service as ex-officio members of a commission.
7.
County Road D Reconstruction Project Preliminary Design
City Engineer Bloom reviewed this
proposed 2013 joint project of the Cities of Shoreview and Roseville for
design and reconstruction of County Road D, as detailed in the staff report
dated October 23, 2012. Ms. Bloom advised that the City of Shoreview was
taking the lead (e.g. plans, specifications, and construction management);
and reviewed those overall plans with the PWETC, and reported on open house
discussions and site visits with residents to-date, as well as future
communication efforts. Ms. Bloom opined that the affected residents were
well-represented with the exception of the School District No. 623, the
Church, and the only commercial property at the southeast intersection of
County Road D and Lexington Avenue.
Ms. Bloom noted that this was a
County turnback road (evenly split between the cities) and therefore was a
Minnesota State Aid (MSA) street and the design would need to be based on a
ten (10) ton road, currently at 32’ width today, but widening out at the
Lexington intersection. Ms. Bloom advised that a formal right turn lane was
proposed. Ms. Bloom advised that the signal lights at the Lexington Avenue
intersection were in good shape, and Ramsey County had determined that they
would not be replaced.
Ms. Bloom addressed the
Commission’s earlier discussion regarding speeds along this section of
roadway, and possible consideration for speed range adjustments, if requested
due to the location of the school; and noted that if a speed study was
conducted, it didn’t necessarily mean the mph limit would be reduced, as it
was based on actual average speeds during a certain period.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that
staff of both cities see if consideration could be given, based on a strong
neighborhood preference, the location of the school, and additional
pedestrian facilities being planned.
Ms. Bloom reviewed proposed
design for both segments (Lexington Avenue to Chatsworth Street) and
Chatsworth to Victoria Streets, with the former segment showing 2,500 ADT
from the last count performed in 2009, and the latter segment showing 1,400
ADT. Ms. Bloom noted that the existing sidewalk on the Shoreview side
(north) was 5’ wide, with a 5’ boulevard on that side constructed in recent
years, with crosswalks at school entrances, and a road speed limit currently
at 35 mph, and school zone designated at 30 mph when children are present.
Ms. Bloom advised that there wasn’t a strong indication of speeding, beyond
perception, as it fell within the 85 percentile.
Ms. Bloom advised that the
proposed street width at reconstruction was 33’, with an on-street shoulder,
bike path and parking lane, with a one-lane drive lane in each direction, and
parking maintained on the north side, as preferred by the neighborhood.
Ms. Bloom noted plans suggested parking on both sides of County Road D where
the roadway was wider near the church; and would include a 6’ sidewalk
installed on the south side. With the exception of the Lutheran Church on
the east end, and the auto care business on the west end, Ms. Bloom noted
this area was entirely residential; and when the school was given
consideration, it called for a regional pathway, as indicated in the Pathway
Master Plan for facilitate pedestrian traffic and access.
Ms. Bloom noted that there were
only two (2) street openings on the south side (at Churchill and Chatsworth)
for only two (2) side streets; however, she noted the significant need for
pedestrian facilities, especially on the south side based on peak morning
traffic volumes. Ms. Bloom advised that this represented a long expanse, and
currently unsafe pedestrian roadway; and no connection for crosswalks on the
south side. Based on those considerations, Ms. Bloom advised that staff was
advocating for installation of the sidewalk on the south side.
However, Ms. Bloom advised that
property owners were not supportive of sidewalk on the south side, generally
in agreement that the north sidewalk was sufficient. Ms. Bloom noted that
she anticipated a petition from property owners asking that the sidewalk not
be installed on the south side, rationalizing safety concerns on their part
(e.g. snow removal and backing out from their driveways across a sidewalk and
striking pedestrians), in addition to loss of their yards. At this point,
Ms. Bloom advised that staff was moving forward as proposed, using the
Pathway Master Plan recommendations as a basis. If a pathway is ultimately
attached to the project, Ms. Bloom advised that approval from the Rice Creek
Watershed District would be required, as it would change the buffer strip
configuration for a 5’ boulevard.
Ms. Bloom then reviewed proposed
utility work as part of the reconstruction project, including water main,
noting that there was an interconnect between Shoreview and Roseville
systems, with water main facilities along both respective sides of the County
Road D. Ms. Bloom addressed proposed construction for the water mains,
seeking to facilitate school schedules, summer schools, bus routes, and how
and when to provide temporary water services to those affected. Ms. Bloom
advised that attempts were underway to plan a condensed construction period
with applicable deadlines for contractors to facilitate as little
interruption and disruption as possible.
Chair Vanderwall, as School
District 623 Transportation Manager, advised that summer school began on June
25, 2011; however, communication was needed between the school district and
city to ensure coordination between the end of this year’s regular session on
June 9, 2012, and summer school’s start, suggested that rescheduling may be
possible.
Ms. Bloom advised that she
intended to set up a personal meeting with school district representatives to
discuss schematics and other areas of concern.
Ms. Bloom noted that there was ½
mile of water main for each city, with one connection on the Shoreview side,
as well as two (2) properties on the Roseville side still having their own
wells. Ms. Bloom advised that it was staff’s intent to work with those
property owners to connect at this time, or install the service lines at this
time if they’re preference was to defer connection.
Ms. Bloom advised that there was
also a twenty-five (25) unit apartment building along County Road D,
requiring additional conversation related to temporary water service. Ms.
Bloom noted that, given these considerations, the water main project would
require a tight schedule; and she didn’t want a repeat of issues that had
arisen for both cities during the 2012 construction season with water main
work significantly delaying projects.
Regarding the storm sewer utility
work, Ms. Bloom and Mr. Schwartz advised that consideration was being given
to lining versus digging, but overall management of that replacement was
still in discussion stages. While two (2) property owners had expressed
interest in rain gardens, Ms. Bloom expressed hope in finding more interest,
with staff internally discussing infiltration requirements, since both
underground and above ground storage being required by the Rice Creek
Watershed District. Ms. Bloom advised that the City had installed swales in
several front yards as part of the 2012 construction project; however, she
noted that they were not well-received by affected residents.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff was
going to continue further research, noting that the Capitol Region Watershed
District had a good example of an under-the-road infiltration trench,
providing good design. Ms. Bloom advised that the preference was to work
with property owners for the benefit of all; however, she noted that
requirements were to get the water past the road and into rain gardens. Ms.
Bloom advised that she would continue refining the project with staff from
the City of Shoreview, as well as affected property owners.
Regarding the current location of
crosswalks benefitting only the school at this time, Ms. Bloom advised that
part of her discussion with school district representatives would be possible
relocation of those crosswalks to the intersections at street entrances
versus the school driveway to determine the best solution.
Ms. Bloom suggested that given
the school location and speed concerns, County Road D may be a good location
for permanent solar speed boards alerting drivers to the school zone and
showing their actual speed, especially during the school day. Ms. Bloom
advised that this was under discussion by Shoreview and Roseville staff at
this time.
Chair Vanderwall suggested
including a flashing light at crosswalks to assist school patrols as well.
Ms. Bloom noted that the road
tapered out at the intersection, and the church was interested in installing
more handicap stall that were vital to those less mobile; however, she was
not sure if a similar resolution wasn’t available by redoing entrances at the
church, and extending the sidewalk to Victoria. Ms. Bloom advised that
discussion was still underway if and how to change the off-set intersection
at Chatsworth to connect with new construction, and address winter
maintenance of the sidewalk adjacent to the church. However, at this point,
Ms. Bloom advised that no proposed changes beyond right turn lanes at the
intersections were being proposed, given review of the geometrics.
Chair Vanderwall noted that, at
least in the recent past, he was aware of a significant number of children
from the apartment building walking to and from school without the aid of a
sidewalk.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff had
alerted the apartment property owner of the meeting, and asked him to post it
at the building; however, she was not aware of any tenants or property
representatives attending recent meetings about the project.
Member Stenlund suggested use of
the school parking lot as a storm water pond, as a “green streets”
application; allowing the school to do more with what they had, while still
retaining the parking lot (e.g. high heat island, underground retention
vaults) and also using it as part of a water quality education model for
students and the community. Member Stenlund noted that this would get cars
off the road, but still provide parking options.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he and
Ms. Bloom had discussed such an option at the church.
Chair Vanderwall concurred with Member
Stenlund, noting that the School District was always interested in projects
that allowed them to be good stewards.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff was
focusing on green areas (e.g. rights-of-way, boulevards, and existing ponds)
for water management, noting that the church was very interested in retaining
their green space, but remained open to dual use for storm water management
as well.
Ms. Bloom estimated that,
to-date, City of Roseville staff had met with 60-70% of the property owners
on the Roseville portion of the roadway, whether at formal meetings or
one-on-one on-site. Based on past experience, Ms. Bloom noted that there was
usually considerable interest from residents when staff was on-site during
the walk through, scheduled for Saturday morning.
Regarding the proposed schedule,
Ms. Bloom advised that the feasibility report was scheduled for finalization
by respective staffs in late November, at which time an estimate would be
available of the projected cost per linear foot and how assessments would be
addressed; with a December 10, 2012 presentation to the Roseville City
Council; followed by a Public Hearing scheduled early in 2013.
Discussion ensued regarding
continuing with two (2) different water mains for each City and whether this
wouldn’t provide an opportunity for sharing; difference with the City of
Shoreview using well water, and the City of Roseville using surface water
through the City of St. Paul; availability of emergency connections shared
among a number of adjacent municipalities; and initial interest of residents
in undergrounding power lines until they became aware of the cost of doing
so.
Member DeBenedet expressed his
personal preference that the City Council stood firm on staff’s
recommendations for installation of the sidewalk on the Roseville side,
supported by the Pathway Master Plan. Member DeBenedet noted that this was a
city-wide need, addressed and frequently updated over the last thirty (30)
years, and needed to move beyond the dictates of the immediate property owners.
Chair Vanderwall concurred,
noting that benefits would be realized once installed.
Regarding safety concerns in
backing out of driveways across sidewalks, Member DeBenedet opined that the
solution was to look behind you before doing so, being alert to pedestrian,
bicyclers, and vehicles.
Member Stenlund opined that he
suspected the real issue was related to snow shoveling.
In all fairness, Ms. Bloom noted
that the Parks and Recreation Department’s maintenance crews attempted to
clear all city pathways within twenty-four (24) hours; but advised that there
may be some ridges experienced from the initial plowing. Ms. Bloom noted
that another challenge in this joint project was the two (2) different
assessment policies for the respective jurisdictions, with the Shoreview
policy assessing less than that of Roseville. Therefore, as the project is
refined further, Ms. Bloom advised that joint meetings of Shoreview/Roseville
residents had therefore been eliminated as far as public information was concerned
as policy discussion moved to diverging jurisdictions. As an example, Ms.
Bloom noted that standard sidewalk width in Shoreview is 6’ versus 6’ in
Roseville; and their snow removal policies were also different. Ms. Bloom
noted that property owners had requested the City of Roseville to reduce
sidewalk width to 4’, but had been informed by staff that this was not
feasible.
In response to Member Gjerdingen,
Chair Vanderwall noted that City of Roseville staff worked on a priority
basis for snow removal from streets and/or pathways, and particularly for
school access.
Ms. Bloom advised that the
residential petition was proposing that the south side sidewalk only serve
the area westward from Churchill to Lexington.
City of
8.
Utility Conservation Rate Discussion
As part of the City Council’s
strategic directives, Mr. Schwartz advised that they had requested the PWEC
review current conservation water rate structures. Mr. Schwartz noted that
this request was time-sensitive as the City’s Finance Director, Chris Miller,
was currently analyzing current rates, and would be advising the City Council
in November of any recommended fee changes as part of the 2013 budget,
including water rates. Background information and current water utility
base rates for residential and commercial customers, as well as quarterly
usage for those properties, and city-wide were detailed (Attachment A) in the
staff report dated October 23, 2012. Mr. Schwartz noted that legislative
changes had also been addressed.
Mr. Schwartz noted that
conservation was occurring, based on that data; however, he wasn’t sure if
some of that reduced use wasn’t related to mandated water savings
requirements for new fixtures being installed.
Mr. Schwartz sought PWETC
feedback on whether additional tiers should be added for residential
customers at the 20,000 gallon per quarter level as an alternative.
Chair Vanderwall noted that a
tier at that level between 20,000 and 30,000 gallons would address 12% of the
Roseville population.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he
didn’t have figures from 2009 when original tiers were initially initiated;
however, he thought the percentage of users at that time for over 30,000
gallons was between 6-7%.; and that it had dropped slightly since then. Mr.
Schwartz admitted that the tier system wasn’t appearing to have a tremendous
impact on incenting lower usage in Roseville; however, in order to affect
enough customers to make an impact, it would take at least a 20,000 gallon
tier.
Chair Vanderwall questioned the
goal of the impact: whether to raise additional revenue to address the cost
of delivery, to decrease consumption, or a combination.
Mr. Schwartz advised that any
changes through this action would be essentially revenue-neutral, and it was
being reviewed purely for conservation purposes.
Member Stenlund opined that
simply going from 15,000 to 20,000 would not create a sufficient bump to
accomplish the goal.
Member DeBenedet opined that it
may make more sense to look at 16,000 to 24,000 as an additional tier; and
then anything above 24,000 to look at more. Member DeBenedet noted that he
had recommended moving higher in previous discussions about tiers.
Chair Vanderwall noted the need
to use care in how and where rates were raised, given previous raises to
water and sewer rates and other fees.
Member DeBenedet noted that most
residents were concerned about increased rates and taxes out of our control. However,
he noted that most who would benefit by this additional tier would be those
living alone or seniors typically using fewer gallons anyway, especially
since the cost would be revenue-neutral.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
would need the PWEC’s recommendation tonight, as the City Council’s meeting
on the budget was scheduled for November 19, 2012; after which Finance
Director Miller would put together a rate structure.
After further discussion, members
were of a consensus for a tier level from zero to 16,000 gallons; then a tier
at 16,000 to 24,000 gallons, and then a tier for 24,000 gallons and over.
Member DeBenedet advised that,
knowing that recommendation, Finance Director Miller would then formulate how
to make it revenue-neutral.
Mr. Schwartz noted that base
rates are at a fixed rate for a quarter, and as now set up essentially
represented operating costs for the water utility (e.g. fixed cost and
depreciation). Mr. Schwartz advised that the consumption rate was simply a
pass-through based on the amount charged Roseville by the St. Paul Water
Utility.
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, the PWETC’s recommendation to the City Council the
following three (3) tier adjustment to water rate structures for 2013:
0 = 16,000 gallons per quarter
16,000 – 24,000 gallons per
quarter
24,000 gallons and above per
quarter
Member DeBenedet noted that the
concept was that the rate for use under 16,000 gallons would be reduced, but
the higher tiered rates higher; all with the intended impact to obtain a
revenue-neutral fee for Roseville residential customers; with no recommended
changes for commercial customers. Member DeBenedet opined that commercial
users only used the water they required; but had little discretionary use
beyond irrigation.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
9.
2013 Construction Work Plan
Mr. Schwartz displayed and
briefly reviewed locations of the proposed 2013 work plan for reconstruction
and/or mill/overlay projects. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would present
the proposal to the City Council at their November 19, 2012 meeting seeking
their direction, for projects ranging from pathways, water main replacement
(on Transit Avenue from Western to Rice) and water main replacement (from
Transit Avenue to County Road C). Mr. Schwartz advised that staff continued
to refine the numbers; however, the scope of proposed 2013 projects would be
slightly reduced from that of 2012, with only about a half mile of
reconstruction and 2 miles of mill/overlay.
Mr. Schwartz noted the City essentially
completely reconstructed the City street system in the last 25 to 30 years;
and the current pavement condition index ratings in the upper 70’s to low 80’s.
Mr. Schwartz advised that pavement throughout the street network appeared to
be performing well; however due to other department-wide proposed work, staff
had still outlined a significant work load for 2013 in the range of $3 – 4
million of projects. Mr. Schwartz advised that one of those projects would
include a grant application submitted to the Metropolitan Council for inflow
and infiltration work (I & I) for lining 6-7 miles of sanitary sewer in
2013, representing a significant amount of work.
In response to Member DeBenedet,
Mr. Schwartz advised that grant funds were through the State bonding bill
with metropolitan cities included as a group for I & I bonding money.
Out of the requested $8 million, Mr. Schwartz advised that the Metropolitan
Council was scheduled to receive $4 million; and noted that unfortunately the
City of Roseville’s system was listed among the “Dirty Forty” list identified
by the Metropolitan Council for needed I & I work. Mr. Schwartz advised
that the City had previously received $150,000 for similar work, and this
year was seeking $400,000 to help fund a portion of 2013 work.
With Member DeBenedet noting that
the City’s 2013 work plan had been reduced from past years, Mr. Schwartz
concurred, noting that from a reconstruction perspective, we only have Victoria
St. south of County Road B left to reconstruct, since the remaining streets
city-wide were essentially 100% reconstructed, with only mill and overlay
needed based on their PCI. Mr. Schwartz noted that this also could be
attributed to a more “pavement friendly” winter last year. Mr. Schwartz
noted that those streets identified in the 2013 Work Plan represented those
requiring significant maintenance needs.
Mr. Schwartz further noted that
the City’s 20-year CIP had originally called for annual revenue specific to
those needs over the next five (5) years; however, after re-evaluation, staff
thought it was prudent to reduce to the level indicated in the ratings.
Member DeBenedet expressed
concern that infrastructure needs continue to be addressed and not deferred.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting
that any street spending identified for this year and not spent would be
pooled for future years, based on how distressed the system appeared.
Member DeBenedet suggested a
future PWETC discussion include a review of the PCI city-wide compared with
average pavement life cycles and how things were currently trending.
Chair Vanderwall noted that the
City’s asset management software would assist; with Member DeBenedet noting that
the City also had a separate software system specific to PCI.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Council had asked the PWETC for a review in the near future, and as time
allowed, to determine if the City’s PCI target ratings were appropriate.
Member Gjerdingen noted his
observations with sidewalks lacking ADA compliance (Commerce Avenue along the
MN Department of Education building; one at the intersection of Commerce and
Albert; and another along the Target property); and asked that those be
analyzed for future resolution.
Member Felice noted the need to
review ADA cuts for sidewalks into the Har Mar Mall facility, opining that
there were not many cuts in that sidewalk to facilitate ADA compliance.
Mr. Schwartz duly noted that
request; clarifying that each project provided for consideration as to
whether it can be brought up to ADA standards.
10.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – November 27, 2012
·
Ice control product discussion
·
Preliminary/updated 2013 budget information
·
Rescheduling/canceling the December 2012 meeting due to the
holidays (DeBenedet)
Mr. Schwartz advised that he was
not he was aware of any time-sensitive issues if the body chose to cancel the
December meeting and not meet until January of 2013.
·
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) map discussion (DeBenedet
·
City-owned parking lot lights related to LED retrofits
(DeBenedet)
Mr. Schwartz noted that the City
Council’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Task Force had made
recommendation that the City Council provide capital funding annually for
street lights beginning in 2013 ($25,000 annually) for city-owned lights in
parking lots, etc.
Member DeBenedet noted that this
would provide a good opportunity to phase in new LED lights as HPS lights
reached the end of their life cycles or needed significant maintenance.
Mr. Schwartz offered to find out
from Xcel if they had any rebate programs available for parking lot retrofit
lighting.
Member DeBenedet suggested this
issue return for additional discussion in January or February of 2013.
·
Member Stenlund suggested a speaker at a future PWEC meeting
about “green streets,” similar to a recent U of MN Water Resource Conference;
and suggested Cliff Aichinger of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed
District would be a good candidate.
Chair Vanderwall advised that
School District No. 623 has submitted grant applications through the Safe
Routes to School Program in the past; and suggested the City and the School
District consider an application on this next solicitation process.
11.
Adjourn
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:48 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|