|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, November 27, 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 Dwayne Stenlund; Jim
DeBenedet; Joan Felice; and Steve Gjerdingen
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 October 23, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the October 23, 2012, meeting as presented.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Schwartz
and City Engineer Bloom noted that updates on various construction projects
were included in tonight’s meeting packet and available on-line at the City’s
website at www.cityofroseville.com/projects, and as detailed in the staff
report dated November 27, 2012.
Discussion included updated
intersection pedestrian lights, both those already installed and those still
needed at various locations throughout the City; clarification by staff on
“free rights” near Rosedale entrances with no crosswalks at those locations
in accordance with MnDOT practice; and how push buttons provide clearance for
pedestrians and/or bicycles on Ramsey County roads in particular (e.g. pre-emption
for signals).
Members concurred that they would
like to have additional discussion at a future meeting on
theory/priorities/best practices for design of pedestrian crossings, as well
as implications related to those designs, including legal, ADA, best
practices, and safety considerations. Chair Vanderwall opined that this
design information was important for the Commission, as well as the public,
to understand to have all perspectives outlined.
Further discussion included
status of the water lining project, with staff advising that the 3M product
appeared to be the solution, and the project was anticipated to begin in
April of 2013; County Road D reconstruction meetings and progress to-date,
with the Feasibility report in process and anticipated for consideration by
the City Council on December 10, 2012, with a Public Hearing scheduled in
January of 2013.
At the request of Member
DeBenedet, Ms. Bloom advised that Roseville residents had already submitted a
petition regarding a sidewalk on the south side of County Road D, and that
the petition would be included as part of the Feasibility Study presented to
the City Council. Member DeBenedet requested that members of the PWETC be
copied on the Public Hearing notice.
Additional discussion included
2013 mill and overlay projects and status of surveys and plans in progress;
upcoming meetings with property owners along County Road B-2; and engineering
projects in process by City staff for the City of Falcon Heights.
Mr. Schwartz reported on the City’s
application to the Metropolitan Council for funding through their Inflow and
Infiltration Grant Program, and based on their formula, he anticipated that
the City would receive a minimum of $408,000. Based on 2012 pricing, Mr.
Schwartz advised that this would cover a significant portion of the City of
Roseville’s needed work for 2013, approximately three (3) miles of water
lining of the anticipated six (6) miles planned. Ms. Bloom noted that bids
would be opened in December.
Mr. Schwartz summarized the
status of fall maintenance and leaf collection programs; minor ice control
efforts needed last weekend
Member Stenlund requested a
future field trip in the spring by the PWETC to observe the 3M water lining
product.
Member Stenlund also requested an
update on the fire station project status; and asked that staff make sure
their storm drainage issues were addressed prior to winter.
2013 Utility Rate Adjustment
Discussion
Mr. Schwartz reviewed a draft
memorandum included in communication items from Finance Director Miller to
the City Council for their upcoming meeting scheduled for Monday, December 3,
2012. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had preliminarily presented
recommendations to the City Council at their November 19, 2012 meeting, based
on recommendations of the PWETC’s analysis and that of the Council-appointed
CIP Task Force.
Mr. Schwartz noted the nuances
discovered by Finance Director Miller upon that further analysis regarding a
proposed three-tiered rate structure, and unintended consequences to a large
group of customers, specifically those currently receiving senior discounts.
Additional findings were detailed in Finance Director Miller’s memorandum.
Discussion included availability
of the discount based on retirement income, with no minimum age required;
review of the table of costs for water operations related to depreciation due
to implementation of the second phase of the base rate increase previously
approved and going into effect in 2013; and distinctions between sewer
depreciation versus water depreciation percentages.
Members noted a typographical
error on the water table (page 6 of 12) regarding contract pick-up; duly
noted by staff.
Further discussion included
increased costs for storm drainage operations to include costs for dredging
of storm water ponds, with further analysis and future CIP adjustments needed
as indicated and based on disposal costs for sludge; and rationale for
comparable cities with comparable tiers based on first-ring status and/or
their locations adjacent to Roseville.
Additional discussion included
difficulties in making comparisons with other communities depending on the
age and type of their systems; distinctions with Roseville’s water being
fully softened versus those private customers responsible for water softening
and specific costs for that softening; and the intent in implementing another
tier for water usage and how to address negative impacts to some customer
groups that would need to be vetted by the City Council.
Members concurred that additional
discussion in the future may be indicated depending on the results of the
City Council at their upcoming meeting.
5.
Ice Control Product Discussion
Street Supervisor Steve Zweber
and one of the City’s maintenance personnel, Josh Dix, were in attendance to
provide an overview of the City’s ice control program, as previously
requested by the PWETC. An outline and background information was provided
in written report dated November 27, 2012.
The presentation included
chloride versus non-chloride products; older trucks; previous use of
salt/sand mixtures; better rate control found with newer trucks and
equipment; replacement of older trucks with new units as the vehicle stock
was rotated; and current, better chemical use with evolving technology and computer-controlled
application, including anti-icing applications, with this season being the
City’s first experiment with those applications.
Mr. Schwartz noted the process
with brine in the new trucks flowing to the spinner, not salt, before
spinning onto the pavement.
Mr. Zweber noted that previous
equipment (four tanks) had been obtained from Otter Tail County and were
found more cumbersome and difficult to use that the current equipment. Mr.
Zweber provided a visual demonstration of anti-icing examples used during the
previous season and distinctions between pre-treating versus not
pre-treating; as well as effectiveness for bituminous versus concrete
surfaces.
A joint study of MnDOT and
Mankato State University was included in agenda packet materials for
additional information.
Mr. Dix, having done research on
alternative products for ice control, noted that the study had proven
inconclusive due to temperature variables; indicating that salt was still the
best value.
In addressing comparisons from 2006
to the previous season in 2011/2012, Mr. Zweber noted that ultimate goal was
to find a product that broke the bond on pavement prior to a storm, allowing
for less salt use once streets were plowed. Mr. Zweber provided the
reduction the City had achieved for specific anti-icing routes versus other
applications; additional efficiencies achieved for those routes based on
pumping capacity and speed of application; and purchasing brine cooperatively
with Ramsey County to further reduce costs; and cooperation between Ramsey
County and the City of Roseville for some events and in chronic problem areas
in Roseville.
Mr. Zweber and Mr. Dix provided a
detailed analysis of the brine mix for the most efficient and effective
application, as well as cost-effectiveness; considerations for temperature
and weather-related situations; use on sidewalks and pathways in addition to
roadways; and most effective ice control product was a de-sugared sugar beet
molasses product (Geo Melt).
Discussion included effects of
the products leaching into yards; difficulties in some sand/salt mixtures
running off pavement created environmental issues; benefits in achieving
safer driving conditions faster; re-use of sweepings and disposal based on
the product; and current recycling through the City’s leaf pick-up program
tested for safety by getting the sand out of the salt through rate controls
and application of products before driven down by too much traffic.
Mr. Schwartz advised that,
comparatively for a number of years, the City of Roseville saw, on a
comparable mile basis, that it was using significantly less ice control
products than most suburbs.
Mr. Zweber noted that Roseville’s
product use was a small amount in the overall picture; however, he noted that
other agencies contributed to the City’s system as well. Mr. Schwartz
advised that watershed studies were addressing this issue as well specific to
water quality.
Further discussion included the
advantages for de-icing agents that precluded chloride entering water bodies;
budget and storage considerations; willingness of management to make efforts
for rain garden areas and lake bodies; two (2) existing trucks having
pavement sensors; and trial and error experiments to test various products,
typically on City parking lots.
Mr. Zweber reported on staff’s
ability to consider weekend weather forecasts and pre-treat pavements to
reduce material use and achieve overall manpower, equipment and product
savings.
Additional discussion included
the ability to track traffic incidents through the Police Department; human
nature in winter driving conditions; how and when spillage occurs; remaining
sensitive to MS4 issues internally to address water quality issues;
efficiencies in working during late night/early morning hours for application
before traffic creates additional issues and allows the ability to apply
bring on the center line to work itself across drive lanes out to roadway
edges; and challenges in low volume and/or hilly streets.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
department was very committed to its work; and Chair Vanderwall thanked Mr.
Dix and Mr. Zweber for the informative presentation.
6.
Preliminary/Updated 2013 Budget Information
Mr.
Schwartz provided an updated, as previously requested by the PWETC, on
preliminary/updated 2013 Budget information, as most recently provided in
City Council agenda packets for their discussion. Mr. Schwartz noted that
this was the first time a biennial budget was being used by the City, with
the 2013 Preliminary Budget originally adopted by the City Council in
December of 2011 as part of that two-year process. Mr. Schwartz advised
that, other than minor inflationary increases to operating budgets, the main
focus of that biennial budget had been to Capital Improvements, based on
recommendations of the City Manager and the CIP Tax Force to bring the City
back to a standard that could address its infrastructure needs.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that the Public Works budget for operations was basically
status quo, with essentially no significant new initiatives for 2012 and
2013. Mr. Schwartz noted that there would be some challenges in the
operating budget due to inflationary increases; however, he advised that some
anticipated cost-savings may be available from 2012 that could be applied to
2013, if and when approved by the City Council. Mr. Schwartz noted that this
reserve was basically created by the warm weather experienced during the
winter of 2011/2012.
Mr.
Schwartz called to the PWETC’s attention impacts of the CIP recommendations
specifically pursuant to the Street Condition Pavement program.
Member
Stenlund, on lines 284 and 298 (pathway/parking lots, street lighting),
questioned if the PWETC would have additional opportunity to explore LED
lighting as previously discussed.
Mr.
Schwartz noted that the recommended $25,000 annually was intended for that
purpose; and included studying alternatives for replacement with LED
fixtures, rebate programs, and other applications.
Member
DeBenedet, with consensus of the body, suggested future presentations by
vendors who could and would provide an optimistic analysis of operations and
maintenance savings, and payback, for retrofitting LED lighting when
replacing fixtures, from an engineering perspective, beyond the presentation
recently given by Xcel Energy.
Mr.
Schwartz clarified that the City owned a very small portion of the overall
street lights in the City; however, he expressed staff’s willingness to
contact other vendors to provide additional analysis and research for the
PWETC.
Member
Stenlund noted a previous reference by Ron Leaf (S.E.H. Engineers) to someone
from their firm available to provide additional information about street
lights, and suggested contacting that firm to provide additional education
for the PWETC; and from a feasibility study perspective, determine the best
way to replace street lights with more efficient fixtures while still
providing the utmost safety for citizens.
Further
budget-related discussion included declining gas tax revenue funds and
impacts on property tax levies; legislative initiatives to address funding
outside the property tax venue and impacts for long-term decision-making;
assumptions built into the City budget modeling street funding based on MSA
funds and City funds; and the ongoing need to find additional revenue
resources.
Mr.
Schwartz specifically reviewed the Pavement Management Program (PMP) on page
6 of 10 (lines 192, 204-213) and CIP Task Force recommendations for the
street fund as bonds are paid off in 2016 and beyond in order to address
predicted PCI levels needed to maintain the overall street system.
Chair
Vanderwall suggested a bar chart, similar to that provided for water/sewer
discussions, to allow the public and the PWETC an awareness of impacts if and
when infrastructure improvements are continually deferred, and only
negatively impacting and delaying problem areas.
Member Stenlund noted that the
City’s Information Technology (IT) Department did not fall under any of the
City’s Advisory Commissions; and opined that while they do fantastic work, it
may be advantageous to provide some additional oversight or public areas of
discussion regarding their work with the overall City and various
departments.
Chair Vanderwall, referencing the
Total Impact Table (page 9), expressed appreciation for the City Council’s
responsible action regarding overall CIP funding.
Member DeBenedet concurred,
noting that while more challenges would occur in the future, this was a good
and responsible plan in addressing the infrastructure situation for future
residents of the community.
Recess
Chair Vanderwall recessed the meeting at approximately
7:50 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:53 p.m.
7.
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Map Discussion
Mr. Schwartz provided an overview
of PCI policies and map of current street conditions. The presentation
included the following discussion points.
Pavement Policy Summary
·
Rate pavements every 5 years (20% annually)
·
Target an average condition index of 75-80
·
Minimize maintenance dollars spend on poor condition streets
·
Adequate street = 65 PCI or higher
·
Marginal street = 36-64 PCI
·
Poor street = 0-35 PCI
·
Strive to keep poor streets to <5% of system
Discussion included what a
typical “poor” rated condition street would look like (with patching,
potholes, significant cracking and connected alligator cracking indicating
structural issues of base materials and/or soils); and pavement distress
surveys segment by segment to measure distresses, and then entering that data
into a computer program developed by the Corp of Engineers in the mid 1980’s
that actually calculated the street index, taking into consideration local
experience levels for deterioration adjustments and conditions in this area
and the City’s own street network. Mr. Schwartz advised that all maintenance
information is included in that data and budget modeling done as a result of
that information.
Adequate Street
·
Receives sealcoat every 7-8 years and crack sealing as needed
·
Receive greatest return on maintenance dollars spent here
Marginal streets
·
Can receive crack sealing and sealcoat if in upper end of
range
·
Receive mill and overlay when deemed preventative maintenance
will not benefit pavement life
Poor condition
·
Minimize maintenance dollars
·
Reconstruction
Mr. Schwartz noted that
priorities are based on condition, as well as proximity to other construction
projects; provided examples of various street conditions; and addressed
installation of curb and gutter as part of projects, with the only street
without City jurisdiction at this time not having curb and gutter was
Victoria Street south of County Road B.
Mr.
Schwartz also provided a number of twenty (20)-year graphs, as a bench
handout, regarding current funding levels and budgets versus a backlog for
capital improvements, as used by staff in budget modeling for current
spending and current street conditions for recommendation to the City Manager
and City Council for future funding needs in the PMP. Mr. Schwartz noted the
current 80% overall condition network versus how it diminished at the end of
twenty (20) years for the overall PCI. Mr. Schwartz noted that a significant
part of this diminished fund availability was due to reduced interest rates
and return on investment for the PMP at approximately a 3% return versus
previous returns of between 5-7%. Mr. Schwartz noted that other impacts were
inflation related, as well as increased cost of materials while interest
rates continued to decline.
Mr. Schwartz noted the dramatic
difference shown by the graphs in maintaining street conditions in “perfect”
condition; assumptions of the program for bringing segments up to 100%
compared to the City’s standard practice to achieve an overall condition at
75-80%; and whether the City needed to reconsider desired standards for
future maintenance and construction. Mr. Schwartz noted that pavements as
now constructed throughout the City lasted about thirty (30) years versus
projected twenty (20) years, particularly lesser traffic volume streets.
Discussion included projected
traffic patterns in the future (e.g. fewer and lighter cars, more bicycles,
economics, and trends of multi-modal options) dependent on which part of the
metro area was addressed (e.g. inner-ring suburbs versus those further out).
Mr. Schwartz noted that there
were a number of variables affecting road conditions, including the type of
traffic, and impacts of freeze/thaw cycles.
Further discussion included
private streets inadvertently included on the condition map; current
projections by staff to the City Manager and City Council over the next 3-7
years to add an additional $1 million funding to the PMP to maintain current
PCI, and allowing time to make adjustments during that period based on how
the fund perform; with the CIP Task Force addressing that with their
recommendation of $800,000 annually in additional funding through 2018 for
those increases, in addition to potential changes in the MSA funding
formulas.
Chair Vanderwall noted the
challenges in this other infrastructure need and impacts to citizens.
However, he noted that the PWETC was the commission of “invisible things,”
and the status of infrastructure needs had not occurred overnight and had
built up over a long period of deferred maintenance and replacement, now
creating this current situation and the challenges before the City and its
citizens. Now that the situation had been taken seriously by the current
City Council, Chair Vanderwall opined that the challenge was now to find
funding other than property taxes to address the situation.
Members noted the need to compare
Roseville streets to those of other communities, and while the City’s roads
are considered better, the question was whether that was necessary and could
the City continue to afford that distinction.
Discussion included other options
for further discussion including street conditions in relationship to
emergency vehicle access (e.g. cul-de-sacs and/or private streets); property
tax considerations and benefits versus vehicle loading and related impacts;
pros and cons for considering assessments for mill and overlay projects; size
and types of road for residential areas with little traffic; cost for
maintenance on less traveled street and proportionate use of other streets
for which they had equal access; and how the City of Roseville is viewed
based on its property values and aesthetics, including how its streets
looked, and impacts for the overall community.
Member DeBenedet questioned how
to demonstrate, based on MN law, benefits for a mill and overlay project to
adjacent properties.
Mr. Schwartz noted the need for
additional monitoring of pavement condition relative to funding for PMP in
the future; whether the City was shooting too high in its standards; and whether
we will see dramatic impacts on road conditions with decreased funding.
Member DeBenedet questioned the
impacts of allowing the PMP standards to drop in the short-term allowing
those cost savings and budget amounts to improve the long-term picture and
strengthen the PMP.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
2013 PMP had been reduced as the PCI didn’t indicate a need to continue at
the current level in the short term; however, he noted that in the near
future the PCI would need to be continued at that higher level. Mr. Schwartz
noted that this information had been portrayed to the CIP Task Force; with
the need for periodic review for adjustment every few years.
Member DeBenedet noted the need
to take into consideration future City Councils who may not be as supportive
as the current body.
Chair Vanderwall expressed hope
that future City Councils would make good decisions comparable to the current
body, for the long-term benefit of the overall community.
Mr. Schwartz noted that
implementation of the asset management program should provide good
information across all departments and services.
Member Stenlund opined that he
envisioned whole blocks in Roseville bought out for high density residential
and infill housing as costs continue to rise and people looking for
less-expensive housing options than single-family homes. Member Stenlund
further opined that this would be how future street improvements would be
paid for, through those HDR components, something he saw as a long-term
trend.
8.
Consider Canceling December 25, 2012 Meeting
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, cancelation of the December 25, 2012 Public Works,
Environment and Transportation Commission meeting due to the holiday.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – January 22, 2013
·
LED retrofit program (if funded in the final 2013 City budget)
– presenters with various perspectives
·
Traffic signal and crosswalk design and state law discussion
·
Mr. Schwartz noted that the City’s recycling contract was up
for bid in 2013; and advised that the PWETC would need to review community
values as discussed several years ago prior to and as part of that three (3)
year rebid process.
Member DeBenedet noted other
cities moving toward single sort; and past findings that the City of
Roseville achieved more material through its dual sort system, and avoidance
of damaged material in the single sort system and inability to be recycled
cost effectively. Member DeBenedet suggested that the PWETC needed to hear
more about the various options from other recyclers beyond the current
provider.
Chair Vanderwall suggested
another testing of the water with the new City Council in January on whether
to proceed with organized collection if there appeared to be a majority
interest in moving forward.
Member Stenlund expressed his
interest in finding out why other venues (e.g. Hennepin County) were able to
recycle more plastic materials, and why that wasn’t an option for Roseville,
and whether based on market available or for other reasons.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that
may need to be part of the specifications sought for the new contract.
·
Member DeBenedet suggested that, while still dark at a reasonable
time of the day, the PWETC tour the City of West St. Paul to view their LED
lighting (January or February preferably before time change and in case of a
possible weather-related delay for a tour)
·
Member DeBenedet requested an update in the spring of 2013 on
the Asset Management orientation, training and application process.
Mr. Schwartz advised that
training was scheduled for December 13 – 15, 2012.
·
Member Stenlund requested future discussion on the pathway
process, similar to that of the PMP in order to obtain a condition rating
modeled on that same type of program.
10.
Adjourn
Member Felice moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:37 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|