|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 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 Steve Gjerdingen; Joan
Felice; and Jim DeBenedet
Members
Excused: Member Dwayne Stenlund
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; City Engineer
Debra Bloom
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of January 22, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the February 26, 2013, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
Page 2, lines 54-57
(Gjerdingen)
·
Strike “… and its maintenance…”
Page 8, line 301 (DeBenedet)
·
Correct “that” to “than”
Page 9, lines 327 -331 (Ms.
Klink)
·
Correct spelling and address to: Kathy Klink, 535 Ryan Avenue
West
Page 10, lines 366-368
(Gjerdingen)
·
Correct to read: “Wayfinding issues follow-up discussion based
on Mr. Spack’s timing and crosswalk discussion.”
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
City Engineer Debra Bloom and
Public Works Director Schwartz 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 March 26, 2013.
Discussion included projected material
costs this year compared with past years, with staff remaining optimistic
that asphalt prices may actually be less based on lower oil costs than in
2012; status of the County Road D joint Roseville/Shoreview Reconstruction
Project, with the City Council approval at their meeting last night, and
anticipated schedule for a May 2, 2013 bid opening, and proposed construction
start after school ends on June 2 and hopefully completed before school start
in the fall, based on the critical water main installation and south side
sidewalk.
Mr. Bloom reported that engineers
had been able to adjust street grades on the south side of County Road D to
significantly reduce driveway slopes, with another walk-through with
residents scheduled in the very near future.
Member DeBenedet requested that,
in addition to Shoreview staff on site to monitor construction, someone from
Roseville Public Works/Engineer also carefully monitor the work, even beyond
the water main work having different specifications from those of the City of
Shoreview, but also for the street construction based on observations on some
Shoreview streets experiencing severe settlement in the neighborhood north of
County Road D.
While there had been a
disappointingly low turnout at the recent public informational meeting, Ms.
Bloom noted the excitement about the upcoming water main lining project and
application of new technologies and materials.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom advised that the recent County Road B-2 Pathway
Construction Project had been very well attended, as noted in the staff
report. Ms. Bloom noted that the majority of concerns and comments raised by
the public could be addressed; and some attending remained in opposition to
the need for a sidewalk at all. Ms. Bloom advised that another walk-through
would be scheduled to address other concerns, and followed by another open
house, with one of those items drainage concerns that engineers would address
through their design. Ms. Bloom advised that she still anticipated a July
bid opening, depending on the upcoming Public Hearing and subsequent City
Council approval.
Mr. Schwartz noted that all
written comments on the County Road B-2 Pathway Construction Project were
posted on the City’s Website under the Park Renewal portion.
5.
Metro Transit Service Discussion
Mr. Schwartz introduced Mr. Scott
Thompson, Service Development Manager for Metro Transit to discuss
development issues and recent transit changes in Roseville and the
surrounding area.
Mr. Thompson provided a summary
of Metro Transit’s final Sector Study and Plan and service map as a bench
handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Thompson advised that the
Sector Study Project started out about one (1) year ago and updated previous
planning studies for Roseville from 2001, which had typically followed a
public comment process and subsequent adjustments based on those items
identified. However, Mr. Thompson advised that this study had used a
different approach, categorizing district sectors near the Central Corridor,
and how transit needs could be met and what those needs were.
Mr. Thompson reported that a
common comment throughout their customer surveys and public hearing comments
focused on the need for more frequent service, more hours of serving,
including earlier morning and later at night, and operations seven (7) days
per week.
Therefore, Mr. Thompson advised
that the plans were developed based on those comments, and how to develop
service plans to connect north/south and east/west service closely parallel
to University Avenue to make connections along the Light Rail Transit
Corridor (green line). Mr. Thompson reviewed those proposed routes,
including Routes 16, 62, 83, 87, 94, 94B, and how those common concerns were being
addressed through more frequent and consistent service, adjusted route timing
and hours, and other ways to significantly improve that focus. During his
review, Mr. Thompson referenced the report (page 54) and appendix maps for
route-specific information.
Specific to Route 83 (Lexington
Avenue), Mr. Thompson addressed a portion that had been implemented in 2001,
but unfortunately became a casualty of budget reductions. However, Mr.
Thompson noted that with the new service to the green line, it was being
reinstated, and potential extension of the route further into Roseville was
still undergoing further study, possibly as far as the Target/Har Mar Mall
area, beyond Lexington and Larpenteur Avenues. While recognizing the
importance of this connection, Mr. Thompson advised that it remained a trial
test route, but could provide filling of service gaps between Dale Street and
Snelling Avenue. Mr. Thompson noted that reinstating a connection from Rosedale
to the intersection of Dale Street to Grand Avenue rather than just to Selby
Avenue was also a good move, even though it may require some riders to
transfer to the green line if heading to Downtown St Paul.
Discussion among Mr. Thompson,
staff and Commissioners included Route needs in Roseville on Hamline to
facilitate school bus connections; how routes need to be found efficient for
cycles, as illustrated by Mr. Thompson, and based on the number of vehicles
operating on a particular route, available resources and how they’re
invested; and the importance and heavy use of connections to Rosedale.
Overall, Members and Mr. Thompson
concurred that the proposed plan provided significant improvements for
Roseville
Further discussion included
“night owl” service (Route 16); Snelling Avenue identified as the #1 route
for the rapid bus (BRT) service out of the twelve (12) introductory routes
proposed by 2015; new technologies for tagging passes for riders and off-bus
fare collections at enhanced bus stops with vending machines to facilitate
speeding up the process; and how circulator routes could be coordinated to
get riders further into Roseville beyond the concentration on Rosedale.
While understanding how critical
the need was for additional circulator connections, Mr. Thompson advised that
given cycle times and routes, he didn’t think a circulator through Har Mar
Mall was realistic at this time, without the need to transfer.
Additional discussion included
the Cleveland Avenue and County Road C, and the Rice Street/Highway 36 Park
& Rides, along with impacts in closing the Rosedale Park & Ride by
transferring those vehicles to one of those new facilities; Routes 260 and
264 to facilitate those operations and connections; increased ridership when
service was expanded to accommodate rider times and needs; and tracking by
Metro Transit of vehicles through license plate surveys; remaining use of the
Grace Church parking lot as another Park & Ride option for up to 150
vehicles; and the smaller lot at City Hall.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Thompson addressed Route 83 specific to Lexington Avenue and
Como Park, and the various issues involving that route. Mr. Thompson
reported that a point of discussion had included extending service off
Lexington to the OVAL in Roseville as well. Mr. Thompson advised that
Lexington Avenue through Como Park was very curvy and didn’t provide safe
sight distances for bus stops beyond one (1) at the fountain approximately
half way through the park; and since no one lives at the park, but there were
a number of residents north of the park, consensus had been that it was more
prudent to run the line as proposed. While Mr. Thompson admitted that some
people may benefit, the typical reasons for people to use transit (e.g.
income, auto ownership, population density) were all considered, with the
conclusion that twice as many people would be within walking distance of the
chosen route for Lexington. While some people to the north and east of Como
Park may be further from the designated route proposed. Mr. Thompson stated
that overall more residents would benefit.
Chair Vanderwall thanked Mr.
Thompson for the interesting and informative presentation and written report
for additional review; and confirmed that it was available for the public on
line at metrotransit.org.
6.
Recycling Community Values Discussion Continued
Additional materials had been
provided since the agenda packet distribution, and were provided as a bench
handout attached hereto and made a part hereof. Member Felice
also provided, as a bench handout attached hereto and made a part
hereof, her Recycling Community Values rankings.
City of Roseville Recycling
Coordinator Tim Pratt, and two audience members were present for this
discussion, a representative of Eureka Recycling and Ms. Klink.
Chair Vanderwall initiated
discussion of individual rankings of community values by PWETC members, first
weighting in the three main categories (Collection, Outreach, Environmental
Benefits) followed by subcategories (Attachment A).
During the following discussions,
Mr. Pratt updated individual and composite weighting values as compromises
were made, weighting revised, and a consensus of Members achieved, with
those conclusions attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Chair Vanderwall, commenting on
his rationale in weighting, advised that his most important goal was
facilitate recycling being done and picked up. Chair Vanderwall opined that
if things were picked up and it the program was well-run and convenient, it
would make everything simpler. Chair Vanderwall also noted his importance in
the educational and environmental components.
Member DeBenedet, commenting on
his rationale in weighting, advised that the environmental benefits were one
of the main reasons the recycling program was in place. While also placing
significant importance on the outreach category as well, while some of the
subcomponents should be made standard requirements of the request for
proposals (RFP), and not requiring weighted at all, since if you didn’t meet
the basic requirements of the RFP, you were not considered a responsible
bidder.
However, Chair Vanderwall
suggested some judgment may be required to determine how, when and if a
particular vendor was sincerely attempting to reduce their carbon footprint.
In the outreach section, Member
DeBenedet suggested that effective education of residents should remain a
measurement; however, the annual report an what happens to materials should
be submitted to Mr. Pratt and forwarded to the PWETC, at which time they
could determine if was sufficient or not. Member DeBenedet referenced the
reports being provided by the current vendor as a standard for future
reports/vendors.
Referencing collection, Member
DeBenedet concurred that collection should be clean and quiet.
Of the three (3) major values,
Member Felice suggested that the overall purpose and environmental benefits
of the program for the community and residents should continue to be
emphasized to encourage more participation. Member Felice also referenced
the importance of education/outreach to new immigrants and residents of Roseville.
Member Gjerdingen advised that
his initial ranking would be similar to that of Member Felice with 60% for
collection, 30% for outreach, and 10% for environmental benefits.
Members then began their
discussion and individual weighting for subcategories under each of the three
(3) main categories.
Collection
Member DeBenedet opined that
“clean and quiet” should be a requirement of the RFP requiring no specific
weighting.
Regarding “impact on streets,”
Member DeBenedet advised that he considered the use of the heavy trucks on
City streets to be of significant importance, since it ultimately cost
residents money. Member DeBenedet suggested Ms. Bloom provide her analysis
of the size and weight of trucks and their impact on streets, using the new software
program if possible.
Related to “frequency of
service,” Member DeBenedet opined that he liked the once/week service with
smaller bins taking up less garage space.
Member DeBenedet advised that
“ease of participation” was greatly improved compared to the past, such as
having to separate various types of paper, and advised that he didn’t find
the two-sort system personally onerous.
Chair Vanderwall concurred that
this was of vital importance, the easier to do, the more participation would
be found.
Members DeBenedet and Felice
concurred with Chair Vanderwall.
Member DeBenedet noted the value
of “more materials picked up (plastics), and how that would further reduce
trash generation, in addition to the addition of “organics,” with that latter
option of benefit as soon as available.
Regarding “materials being
efficiently recycling (local markets, highest and best use for material)”
Member DeBenedet strongly emphasized the need to ensure that materials
separated in the recycling bin were actually and appropriately recycled at
the point of recycling by the vendor, and not ultimately landing in a
landfill. Member DeBenedet summarized that subcategory by stating that
unless the materials were reused, you were not actually recycling anything.
Member DeBenedet opined that
“multi-family service” should also be a requirement of the RFP with not
assigned weighting.
Chair Vanderwall reiterated his
emphasis on “ease of participation,” “flexibility of co-mingling for
residents,” and “more materials picked up,” along with “frequency of
service.” Chair Vanderwall opined that a more frequent pick-up and smaller
bins would make it easier to get recycling to the curbside. Member
Vanderwall suggested a vendor should be able to provide proactive ways to
make it easy for recycling.
Member Felice expressed her
on-going confusion with what the PWETC had originally considered
“co-mingling,” questioning if co-mingling without separation that she took to
mean single-sort, would as much be recycled. Member Felice put a high value
on “materials are efficiently recycled…” as well as “impact on street…” and
“frequency of service.” Member Felice spoke in support of a once/week
pick-up as being ideal from her perspective. Member Felice also supported
“ease of participation.”
Regarding the “co-mingling”
aspect, Chair Vanderwall opined that it was addressing single sort; and
questioned whether or not there was a higher percentage of drop-out because
of co-mingling and people not using it; or vice versa; and the need to seek
proof from various vendors of the most effective method.
Member Gjerdingen spoke in
support of “multi-family service,” “more materials…” and specifically more
types of plastics from #1 - #7 similar to that currently available in the
City of Minneapolis. Regarding organics, Member Gjerdingen questioned how
that would work with smaller bins.
Member DeBenedet sought
additional information from Mr. Pratt on how organics would be managed and
stored by residents between pick-ups.
Mr. Pratt advised that when
organic collection had been initiated in the Linden Hills neighborhood in
Minneapolis, a separate bin was used for organics. In the City of Wayzata
they also used separate bins for organics, with Randy’s (a vendor) having a contract
with that city for organic collection, along with a subscription service in
other cities. However, Mr. Pratt advised that to-date, their 20% estimated
participation rate was not sufficient enough to make it work, so they had
switched to a co-collection system, and moved the subscription and City of
Wayzata over to that. Mr. Pratt noted that this was feasible since Randy’s
had both the garbage and recycling contracts. Mr. Pratt advised that they
had started the “blue bag” program providing the compostable bags for organic
materials to residents to put in their garbage carts. At the material
receiving facility (MRF), they ran two (2) shifts, with the first sorting
recyclables, and the second shift sorting/processing trash. Mr. Pratt
advised that everything came to the first platform on a conveyor belt, where
the blue organic bags were taken off, then other recyclables found in trash
and sorted out. In order to make it work financially, Mr. Pratt advised that
they had to go the co-collection route, the same proposal made by Eureka to
the City of St. Paul.
Discussion ensued regarding the
frequency of recyclable collection in various communities (Wayzata,
Shoreview) with consideration needed for summer and winter months, especially
for compostable materials to ensure participation remained viable; and the
compostable materials suitable for industrial versus home compost piles due
to larger piles creating higher temperatures to break those materials down
(compostable packaging).
Outreach
Member DeBenedet, regarding
“voluntary expansion to businesses,” noted Wisconsin required recycling for
businesses. As major generators of paper and cardboard, Member DeBenedet provided
an example where billing building owners to encourage them to manage their
tenants and comply with rules. While voluntary in Roseville, Member
DeBenedet suggested innovative ways to encourage their involvement. Member
DeBenedet also noted the importance of “effective education of residents
(with measurement),” and emphasized the measurement component. Regarding
“community involvement,” Member DeBenedet noted the need for outreach to
non-English speaking communities in Roseville, and any residents not familiar
with or prone to recycling; and what a vendor might do to entice them to participate.
Chair Vanderwall suggested
revising that language to “outreach to low participation communities,” versus
labeling it as “non-English speaking…” Members concurred. Chair Vanderwall
and Member DeBenedet expressed their interest in using “electronic
communications for outreach.” Chair Vanderwall concurred that “effective
education…” was important, but that could make everything else work better.
Chair Vanderwall advised that when he was making comparisons of vendors, he
was not looking for checkmarks, but wanted their specific ideas telling the
City what it thought could be realistically accomplished and allowing staff
to monitor that area to determine compliance.
While not sure how staff would
respond, Member DeBenedet opined that “outreach using electronic
communication,” may be a City responsibility, with the vendor providing
information to the City.
Mr. Pratt questioned what the
PWETC meant by “electronic communication” (e.g. website, Twitter, or Facebook).
Chair Vanderwall suggested more passive
communication electronically, with the goal to attract residents to that
site.
Member DeBenedet opined that the
more evaluation categories there were, the more muddled evaluation because,
making it necessary to determine the initial RFP submission and determining
compliance, and whether or not the goals were achieved or that the City got
the results they expected. Member DeBenedet asked if there were items that
could be included in the RFP as mandatory, or not in the selection process,
but simply a given.
Chair Vanderwall cautioned that
if things were not included, the City may not get what it wants, and that by
including them it emphasized their importance. Chair Vanderwall noted the
need to ensure that Roseville participation remained high or increased and
didn’t diminish as some communities experienced. Chair Vanderwall, regarding
“electronic communication,” noted that this could also include the PWETC’s
desire to encourage information delivered by a means other than paper.
Member Felice suggested
incorporating “electronic communications” with “effective education of
residents,” whether providing the City with information for the website or
other items.
Member Gjerdingen opined that
“electronic communications” was part of “residential education” from his
perspective.
Chair Vanderwall opined that he
was not yet ready to eliminate “electronic communications” as a separate
item, as he valued reduced paper coming into homes, and that it wasn’t simply
about education. Chair Vanderwall noted other options for communication to
educate residents on something negative that may be going on and how to alert
them to change something (e.g. snow day alert for school, or paper
recyclables blowing around the community).
Environmental Benefits
Member DeBenedet noted Mr.
Pratt’s previous comment that he could accomplish “zero waste events” without
assistance.
Mr. Pratt clarified that he would
add that he could only do so if there remained a convenient drop-off site for
those organic materials, since at this time he can take them to the Eureka
MRF in Minneapolis.
Member DeBenedet suggested that
be included in the RFP that they had to take any organic material from the
City from “zero waste events.” Regarding “reduced carbon footprint,” Member
DeBenedet spoke in continuing support, as it should remain based on the
City’s involvement in the Green Step program. Member DeBenedet stated that
he still questioned how to measure and the actual value of “Environmentally
preferred purchasing (EPP).” Compared to “local vendor-terminal location,”
Member DeBenedet noted his higher weighting on that item, with the goal for
reduced air pollution, traffic and fuel use.
Member Felice advised that she
thought the “reduced carbon footprint” remained of vital importance since that
was the overall reason for recycling. Member Felice suggested that the “EPP”
item would be a way for a vendor to show if they believed in it, what they
were doing to accomplish it, and if and how they made use of those end
product materials. Member Felice also supported the “local vendor…” as an
important component, since it spoke to a vendor’s green footprint. Regarding
“zero waste events,” Member Felice noted that she had put a fair amount of
emphasis on it, as it provided a great opportunity for the City to let people
know how they too could reduce waste.
Member Gjerdingen concurred with
other members.
At this time, averages were
totaled from all four (4) Members present for each major and subcategory.
Individual members negotiated with other members on the categories they
personally though of higher value in the weighting.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed some
questions posed by the City Council in January of 2013 as they charged the
PWETC with this review:
·
Whether to do additional research on the single-sort option;
·
Whether to decrease frequency of service;
·
Whether the current system is adequate and how to develop a
residential fee from that perspective;
·
Comparison costs/options of other communities in providing
recycling services;
·
And any other information desired in the PWETC recommendation
for an RFP.
Chair Vanderwall opined that it
would be a good idea at some point to have that comparison information before
the RFP was finalized; suggesting that Mr. Pratt provide that comparison
information when the actual pricing discussion was done.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that
“frequency of service” be included as a requirement in the RFP, rather than
selection criteria, opining that there was no rationale for reducing
frequency and going backward.
Member DeBenedet concurred with
Chair Vanderwall on that point. However, Member DeBenedet opined that some
things sorted themselves out during evaluation of a proposal, bringing him
back to his previous question as to whether there were too many criteria that
would muddle the process and provide an unintended outcome.
Chair Vanderwall and members all
concurred.
Further individual negotiations
and subsequent averaging of weighting percentages ensued.
RFP Process
At the request of Mr. Schwartz,
Mr. Pratt confirmed that City Manager Malinen preferred to offer this RFP using
a best value process.
Chair Vanderwall and Member
DeBenedet concurred, opining that quality was a goal, but it should be a cost
effective and efficient process.
Next Steps
At the request of Mr. Schwartz,
Mr. Pratt advised that development of a draft RFP would occur next, based on
City Council direction to bring a draft RFP back to the PWETC and then to the
City Council before ultimate issuance.
Mr. Schwartz questioned what
additional information staff should provide to the PWETC.
Member DeBenedet suggested that
information related to sorting, frequency, cost, options, and single or dual
sorting should come out during the RFP evaluation process. However, Member
DeBenedet noted that the PWETC had no information on costs/experience of
other communities.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that
comparison information be provided by staff, along with the draft RFP, along
with other examples of good RFP’s used by other communities to compare to the
City of Roseville’s draft RFP.
Mr. Pratt advised that he would
research and provide the requested information.
Recess
Chair Vanderwall recessed the meeting at approximately
8:11 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:15 p.m.
7.
Solar Energy Presentation
Mr. Schwartz introduced Mr. David
Streier, representing Newport Partners, LLC, noting that Mr. Streier had made
a similar presentation to the City Council at their meeting last night, and
he wanted the PWETC to also hear the presentation on this solar energy system
and financing opportunities available over the next few years for this type
of system.
Mr. Streier provided his
presentation as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part
hereof; and had a sample solar module on display.
Mr.
Streier reviewed his firm’s involvement with financing solar projects and
provided a background of the firm specifically for non-profits and public
entities. Mr. Streier noted the availability of an Xcel Solar Lease
Structure rebate program, specifically tailored for Xcel territory and the
two (2) rebate programs they currently offer.
Mr.
Streier anticipated total construction cost for application for the City of
Roseville as proposed at $660,000, of which the City would be responsible for
10%. Mr. Streier advised that the system would be turned back to city
ownership in six (6) years; and based on a historical energy average
inflation amount, the city should realize a savings of approximately $237,000
over the first 30 years.
Mr.
Streier reviewed other installations completed for the City of Lindstrom, and
one in process for the City of Champlin, as well as various applications in
the City of Red Wing; and displayed some samples of some of their
installations.
Discussion included clarification
of total project and actual upfront costs of the City; payback time and
annual projected savings; excess electricity offset not expected but could be
sold back to Xcel’s energy grid at a set contract rate; lease back of the
system per future negotiated agreements consisting of an inverted lease and
power agreement purchased from Newport, with the City keeping a portion of
the energy savings realized from the onset; and whether interest was factored
into the payback time and dollars.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that staff had consulted with the City’s roofing engineer
and contractor, and they were supportive of the installation; however, they
did ask to be included in the design and placement of the system. Mr.
Schwartz advised that staff continued to research State Statute requirements
and the Council had authorized a non-binding Letter of Intent at their
meeting last night.
Further discussion ensued
regarding the actual process; risks for the City; a review of the product
itself in detail and testing of the system for climate and weather-related
stability and longevity; and changing efficiencies in solar systems and
industry standards.
Chair Vanderwall, with consensus
of the PWETC, requested those efficiencies be made available to staff for
dissemination to the PWEC when available.
Additional discussion included
testing and warranty information; a 30-year warranty, with 90% efficiency for
up to year 20, then dropping to 80%; minimal maintenance involved other than
inverters as previously noted with their warranty expiring after 10-15 years;
snow and wind loads based on structural engineering specifications, with the
installation held down by cement blocks and spacing between rows to
facilitate roof maintenance, access to solar modules, and access to other
rooftop mechanicals.
Mr. Streier advised that
monitoring web based software was available and would allow staff to access
and track that data and the peak and overall efficiency of the system.
Mr.
Schwartz and Mr. Streier discussed the number of units specifically
recommended for the City of Roseville’s facilities (Maintenance Building and
Police Department portion of City Hall); and how tax credits would be applied
for this installation of panels manufactured in Mountain Iron, MN. Mr.
Streier briefly reviewed that MN State Statute requirement (Chapter 471.345)
and how energy savings needed to be guaranteed, with the application designed
to take advantage of federal solar tax incentives for such projects. Mr.
Streier addressed funding, with a 10% down payment required of the City, and
anticipated return on investment or a payback period of approximately 12.5
years; and based on his firm’s review of the City’s actual Xcel energy bills
and based on the size of the system needed. Mr. Streier advised that his
firm handled all engineering, design, installation, equipment and financing
components after the City’s initial 10% down payment. Mr. Streier advised
that the lease structure allowed Newport to monetize federal tax credits and
beneficial depreciation.
Mr. Streier advised that any risk
was on Newport Partners as a guarantor, and if they didn’t match up with
actual performance over the twenty (20) years required by MN State Statutes,
Newport would be required to pay the City for that amount of energy. Mr.
Streier opined that there was very little risk to the City from that
standpoint.
Mr.
Schwartz noted that there was one other MN manufacturer who had done
installations for the City of Maplewood, and since only operational for about
six (6) months, staff was researching further information from them on that
installation and that manufacturer.
Mr. Schwartz asked Mr. Streier
if, beyond this Xcel rebate program, there were tax credits available for
private citizens for home installations.
Mr. Streier responded
affirmatively, advising that residential customers were their main customers;
however, they do not finance residential customers.
Chair Vanderwall thanked Mr.
Streier for his attendance and informative presentation.
8.
LED Retrofit Plan
Due to the latest of the hour,
Chair Vanderwall requested that this item be deferred for a future meeting.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – April 23, 2013
Mr. Schwartz advised that he
would be out-of-town for Emergency Management Training for the April meeting,
but noted that City Engineer Bloom would be available to serve as staff
liaison.
·
LED Retrofit Plan
·
Open Meeting Law Discussion with City Attorney
·
Discuss County Road B-2 Sidewalk Plan
·
Pathway Master Plan and Natural Resources and Trails
Subcommittee (NRATS) Update.
Member DeBenedet advised that he
and Member Gjerdingen served on the committee, along with Chair Vanderwall on
behalf of the School District No. 623. Member DeBenedet asked that this item
be a priority for the next meeting to provide direction to the subcommittee
on their authority to speak on behalf of the PWETC.
On an additional note, Member
DeBenedet asked that a discussion on how to proceed with Pathway Build-out
also be included, based on bonding funding available through Parks and
Recreation Master Plan’s Renewal Program and Implementation Program. While a
significant amount of those funds would be used for the County Road B-2
sidewalk, Member DeBenedet noted that City Engineer Bloom had encouraged more
review of the Victoria Street segment due to safety concerns, as well as
connectivity issues between Millwood Avenue and Chatsworth to County Road C-2
through the park. Member DeBenedet noted that there was currently a soft
trail and that the City owned the right-of-way allowing a connection straight
south. Member DeBenedet suggested that the City follow that soft trail and
coordinate with Ramsey County Parks, who already had benches overlooking
Little Josephine where the trail came out; with the potential for some
funding assistance from the County.
Chair Vanderwall noted that it
may remain a soft versus asphalt trail.
Member DeBenedet noted that
crushed rock material would suffice, and allow for better culvert drainage.
Based on the limited funds remaining for this project, Member DeBenedet
opined that there would be serious constraints on other projects such as this
one.
·
Recycling specifications
Chair Vanderwall asked that, if
possible, staff provide the draft RFP and comparison information to the PWETC
as soon as they are available to allow sufficient time for their review by
the PWETC prior to the next meeting.
10.
Adjourn
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:53 p.m.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|