|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, April 23, 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 Dwayne Stenlund;
Jim DeBenedet;
Steve Gjerdingen; and Joan Felice
Staff
Present: City Engineer Debra Bloom
Others
Present: City Attorney Mark Gaughan
2.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak.
3.
Approval of March 26, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the March 26, 2013, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
Page 2, Line 69 (Gjerdingen)
·
Typographical error (…walk-through…)
Page 3, Lines 118 – 121
(Gjerdingen)
·
Correct to read: “…Avenue. Mr. Thompson noted that reinstating
a connection from Rosedale to the intersection of Dale Street and Grand
Avenue was a good move rather than just to Selby Avenue even though it may
require some riders to transfer to the Green Line to Downtown St. Paul.”
Page 4, Line 135 (DeBenedet)
·
Typographical error (…bus fare…)
Page 8, Lines 324-327
(DeBenedet)
·
“…cardboard, Member DeBenedet provided an example where
building owners were encouraged to manage their tenants and comply with
rules.”
Page 9, Line 356 (DeBenedet)
·
Typographical error (…evaluation categories became the…”
Page 10, Lines 420-421
(DeBenedet)
·
Typographical correction (single-sort option; and decrease
versus increase frequency of service)
Page 14, Line 588 (DeBenedet)
·
Strike “…and/or City.”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
City Engineer Debra 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
April 23, 2013.
Discussion included 2012 Pavement
Management Plan (PMP) projects and anticipated start schedule; invitation to
the School District to the pre-construction conference; gas main replacement
on the Rice Street corridor; storm sewer lining project being underway; and
confirmation that the existing bituminous pathway will be restored with
bituminous materials by Xcel Energy along Rice Street.
5.
Open Meeting Law Discussion with City Attorney
City Attorney Mark Gaughan was
present to provide a review of Open Meeting Laws and Data Privacy Act issues
that could be pertinent to the PWETC business.
Open Meeting Law
Mr. Gaughan briefly reviewed the
Open Meeting Law advising that all meetings of a government body, including
citizen advisory commissions, were to be open to the public, with applicable
notice and public access needed (e.g. who, where, when and topics of
discussion). Mr. Gaughan detailed when a meeting actually occurred, and
defined it as anytime a quorum of the body was together and discussing PWETC
business.
Discussion included work of PWETC
members on other committees and/or subcommittees (e.g. Parks & Recreation
Natural Resources and Trails Master Plan) and potential quorums, with clarification
that those meetings were posted and therefore open to the public;
discussions at such subcommittee meetings and subsequent recommendations to
the PWETC for potential action, but still done at open meetings; with
subcommittees not usually subject to the Open Meeting Law since they were
typically work session meetings, with action items made by the full body in
open public meeting.
Electronic Communications
Mr. Gaughan spent time
specifically reviewing e-mail communications that should typically be considered
public data unless specifically addressed by State Statute as being private
data.
Mr. Gaughan cautioned the body on
electronic communications and avoiding any perception of serial meetings done
by e-mail that could be considered a violation of the Open Meeting Law. Mr.
Gaughan suggested that it was always good to err on the side of caution, and
rather than risking violations of the Open Meeting Law, it was just better to
default any discussions for the next public meeting of the body.
Discussion included how to avoid
violations of the Open Meeting Law specific to e-mail communications, with
each determined on a case by case basis, but recommended that the beset
practice would be to send e-mails to staff for dissemination to avoid any
perception of a violation, with that correspondence then discussed in open
meeting at a future date; authority for collective attendance by government
bodies/commissioners at educational conferences, with a caution to avoid any
public perception of any huddles of a government group that may indicate
decision-making; and a prevailing use of common sense in most situations.
Kathy Klink, 535 Ryan Avenue W
Ms. Klink sought additional
clarification from Mr. Gaughan on how to avoid serial communication from
person to person to determine their thoughts on a particular topic.
Recess
Chair Vanderwall recessed the meeting at approximately
7:04 p.m. for Member Stenlund and City Engineer Bloom to tour the fire
station construction site for a review of erosion issues; and reconvened the
meeting at approximately 7:20 p.m.
6.
Pathway Master Plan and NRATS Committee Update
City Engineer Debra Bloom
summarized the current work of the Pathway Master Plan and Natural Resources
and Trails Subcommittee of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan process, as
detailed in the staff report dated April 23, 2013 and corresponding
attachments: (Pathway Master Plan Priority Table; Parks Renewal Pathway
Project Map; Consolidated Master Plan Table). Ms. Bloom noted that a 2013
City Council goal was to develop a Pathway master Plan Built-out Plan for
priority pathway segments previously included in the 2008 Plan, with current
funding as part of the Park Renewal Program including $2 million for pathway
construction.
General discussion included
internal pathway connections (e.g. Oasis Park connections within the park);
priorities set by the constellation concept for some areas; and approval by
the City Council at their April 22, 2013 meeting of a Natural Resources
consultant to assist with prioritizing these items and their logistics.
Attachment B
Ms. Bloom noted that staff had
been charged to complete a build-out plan as part of the Parks &
Recreation Renewal Plan and original Pathway Master Plan preliminary cost
estimates prepared by Public Works Department (Attachment A) for various
segments and sorted by scores based on funding sources, other work in the
area, and the extent of the work required.
Ms. Bloom reviewed connections
and pathway work completed over the last four (4) years toward those Master
Plan priorities; and those included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
details, as well as those not assigned a projected timeline at this date.
Ms. Bloom sought direction from
the PWEC in moving forward to determine the best build-out plan to follow and
how long to review the build-out plan; and any additional information needed
from staff in that decision-making for a recommendation to the City Council.
Discussion included rationale for
how the Parks & Recreation Plan Master Plan constellation concept worked
with the original Pathway Master Plan and community needs and actual use in
each neighborhood; providing examples for the public of things being
accomplished and not continuing to be deferred; and major projects underway
in specific areas and programmed and/or committed to over the next few years
(e.g. Villa Park) and how funding would be addressed by the City or other
sources as well.
Member Stenlund expressed his
favorable impression with the constellation process with the intent to connect
people to various parks and get residents into green spaces. Member Stenlund
noted that some would be at minimal expense (e.g. paint and signage) and
potentially tied to other city projects; and some serving to help celebrate
the City’s park systems (e.g. County Road B-2 pathway).
Ms. Bloom noted that the point of
the City Council seeking assistance and a recommendation from the PWETC was
for the purpose of determining how and when to develop a reasonable budget
for the build-out and incorporated into the 20-year CIP plan.
Chair Vanderwall suggested a
reasonable annual amount for build-out, including a discussion of funding
sources as a first step in driving that build-out plan. Chair Vanderwall
noted the challenges in doing so, while also wanting to get the biggest bang
for the buck as soon as feasibility possible, and not necessarily always
applying to smaller projects, but including the overall goal of connection
and safety to get more foot traffic and people away from the roadway. Chair
Vanderwall opined that the sooner those safety pieces were in place, the
better, especially in high traffic count areas (County Road B-2, and Victoria
Street)
Member DeBenedet concurred that
safety should be a strong criteria; along with taking into consideration those
roadways that would be reconstructed by Ramsey County (Rice Street and County
Road B-2) and incorporate sidewalk work with those projects when possible to
reduce costs.
Discussion included various high
traffic count and safety concern areas; how to prioritize and address
specific segments; gravel versus paved parkways; fill in items if funds
remained from one year to the next; need to respect the community as well as
Parks & Recreation community engagement process for any adjustments in
accomplishing the build-out whether or not it fit into a constellation plan
and allowing that flexibility; those areas that will need build-out after the
Parks Renewal Program is finished; and current 2013 projects that incorporate
sidewalks and can be eliminated from the priority list.
Further discussion included
prioritizing for 4-5 years; and inclusion of inflationary rates as a given to
include in the budgeting process.
Consensus was to have a budget
goal of $1 million annually for the pathway build-out plan, and those years
with the availability of other funding sources to use excess dollars for
additional build-out or setting them aside for upcoming years.
Ms. Bloom opined that inflation
was not as prevalent for a shorter term build-out plan (e.g. 10 years) as a
longer term plan (e.g. 20 years); would depend on the type of pathway (e.g.
concrete, bituminous, or gravel) and needed to include other components (e.g.
drainage, retaining wall, etc.). If the PWETC provided guidance, Ms. Bloom
offered staff’s review of those elements.
Chair Vanderwall requested that
staff provide maps of pathways already in place, while allowing visual
integrity on those maps to avoid them becoming too multi-layered; with
separate maps identifying projects; and another map showing potential
projects and linked back to the table in use tonight (Attachment A). Chair
Vanderwall suggested that this would allow individual members to personally
review areas and make recommendations for connections and new trails
throughout the overall system.
Discussion included how to
consistently score various components and priorities; allow for feedback from
individual property owners; recognizing the need of the overall community as
well as those individual property owners for decision-making for the good of
all; breaking out some of the more expensive segments to determine their
prioritization; and the PWETC returning with ideas for projects already
intended, not new segments.
Ms. Bloom noted that the first
portion of the build-out plan totaled approximately $15 million without any
new sections.
At the suggestion of Member
Stenlund for a field trip of the PWETC to see some of the issues; consensus
was that individual inspections would be easier to manage and allow
discussion time at meetings rather than taking time out for a fieldtrip to
review those areas.
Member Stenlund noted the pathway
need not just for exercise and recreation, but also to provide a safe passage
and connection for elderly to get where they needed to go as indicated by
livable community efforts and accessing commercial areas, as well as getting
children to and from school safely; but serving everyone for transportation
modes of bicycling and/or walking, not just vehicular traffic.
Further discussion included
various segments and constellations; loops; industrial areas; and current map
numbers corresponding with the NRAT tables;
Ms. Bloom advised that she would
not be available for the May meeting, but could prepare information for
further discussion by the PWETC at their May meeting with Public Works
Director Duane Schwartz, and additional follow-up with her at the June
meeting if needed.
Chair Vanderwall asked that Ms. Bloom provide maps to individual PWETC
members before the May meeting to allow more knowledge and personal review of
those segments, with those segments corresponding to project numbers; and
providing a break out of segments with better descriptions. Chair Vanderwall
also requested a map showing existing off-road pathways and identifying them
as such.
Member DeBenedet also requested
that the map indicate City of Roseville borders, but also include where
pathway connections adjoined neighboring communities; and parallel pathways
of those adjoining communities (e.g. Falcon Heights, Shoreview, Little
Canada).
Ms. Bloom suggested an atlas
provided by staff with better detail showing all existing and proposed
pathways; however, Chair Vanderwall opined that this wasn’t necessary at this
point as it was too busy.
Ms. Bloom offered to work with
the GIS staff to look beyond the Parks & Recreation constellations.
Member Stenlund requested a more
detailed map as suggested by Ms. Bloom; with Chair Vanderwall suggesting
staff prepare a PDF map for Member Stenlund and any other members requesting
that version; however, he expressed his preference for a paper map with less
detail as a working tool for his intent.
Chair Vanderwall requested
staff’s advice on the financial and funding component and how to address
timing and funding priorities and flexibilities when some projects are moved
ahead or deferred, such as the Ramsey County Rice Street corridor projects.
Ms. Bloom concurred that having a
column for the funding source(s) was important to identify federal funding,
Ramsey County’s current compensation policy for 50% payment for new
sidewalks, and other cost-share projects that reduce the City’s required
portion; but still allow the City to have available funds to get a project
moving forward. Ms. Bloom advised that the intent was to get a build-out
plan and reasonable budget put together for the City Council based on
priorities and PWETC input, then to move toward public input on the
proposals.
Chair Vanderwall requested that
Ms. Bloom and staff provide spreadsheets allowing individual PWETC members to
work through those drafts.
Member Felice requested the
constellations in detail for her research in getting people to parks, but
also connections within the parks themselves; with Chair Vanderwall noting
that the information was available on the Parks & Recreation website as
well.
Chair Vanderwall requested a
paper map with a complete listing of pathways that he could add onto in his
own priority order, along with considering funding sources and how it could
be divided into a workable plan.
Discussion included the PWETC’s
lack of interest in championing specific parks in their neighborhoods, even
though they would be more familiar with those areas, but not doing the
process justice being so close.
Ms. Bloom advised that she would
have the information available mid-May, and the June meeting would then allow
for a more informed discussion at which point the timing for public input in
the process could be determined.
Chair Vanderwall concurred,
opining that he would like the PWETC to be more competent with its decision-making
and information before inviting the public’s input.
At the request of Ms. Bloom,
Member DeBenedet responded that 3-4 meetings may be needed for this project.
Chair Vanderwall opined that this
would depend on how much of the good work done to-date was viable; and
suggested that fewer meetings may be required unless the PWETC got bogged
down in too many details.
Member Stenlund expressed
interest in getting work done as funds were available, whether or not a
priority or not.
Chair Vanderwall concurred;
however, he expressed his interest in maintaining Member Stenlund’s passion
while getting kids off the street and on safer routes.
Ms. Bloom suggested a program
similar to that of the Public Works CIP, with an adjustment every five (5)
years and annual review by the PWETC.
Chair Vanderwall opined that the
maintenance component was a huge issue, and the need to have the community
understand the required commitment in volunteers helping keep costs down, and
enhance the overall health and wellness of the community through their
participation in maintaining pathways.
Ms. Bloom suggested breaking
segments into annual chunks, with Chair Vanderwall suggesting options
including $250,000, $500,000, $750,000, and $1 million.
Further discussion included where
and when MSA-dedicated dollars are used; projects that move up in the
priority level based on coordination with unanticipated infrastructure
projects; competition for federal funding among jurisdictions and
requirements for projects receiving that type of funding; and additional
costs for any outside engineering needed versus in-house engineering.
Member Gjerdingen suggested a
short-term focus for pathways, such as five (5) years.
Chair Vanderwall, while liking a short focus, noted the realities of living
with available dollars; and noted the previous twenty-five (25) year pathway
master plan became too random; and suggested a workable, annual amount to
actually move things forward.
Member Stenlund concurred, even
if that process took fifteen (15) years to accomplish.
Chair Vanderwall thanked members
for tonight’s initial discussion; and asked staff to remain cognizant of
their existing work load as it prepared these additional items requested by
the PWETC.
7.
County Road B-2 / Victoria Street Sidewalk Project
Ms. Bloom summarized the
preliminary layouts for this sidewalk project, as proposed and detailed in
the staff report dated April 23, 2013; and as revised following comments
(Attachments A and B) from public information meetings held in February.
Ms. Bloom provided
recommendations, reviewed drainage and other challenges of the project;
addressed concerns of affected residents in relationship to what was in the
way, what was being connected, the cost and how to make decisions for a good
project; and how to fairly consider each of those elements.
Ms. Bloom provided staff’s
rationale for their recommendation of a pathway on the north side based on
fewer trees and bushes to manage or remove, fewer driveways, power poles
located on the south side, fewer fire hydrants, and the sun hitting the north
side for melting quicker; as well as location of Central Park Elementary
School on the north side. Ms. Bloom advised that staff continued to work
through the various drainage issues; and current development of cross plans
to address those issues on various segments of this rural section roadway;
and how to improve water quality/quantity. Ms. Bloom advised that staff
would be meeting again with individual neighbors to address those solutions
over the next few months, at which time the final recommendations would be
brought to the City Council for their input. Ms. Bloom advised that staff’s
major concern at this point was in addressing drainage issues.
Discussion included various
drainage options available for managing this area; attempts to mitigate
existing issues as well as avoiding designs that would exacerbate drainage
issues; installation of ADA ramps as part of the transition plan; using the
safest route possible for children using that segment; and ongoing construction
meeting information coming forward to the PWETC as it becomes available.
At the request of Member
DeBenedet, Ms. Bloom clarified that the comments provided tonight included
those received in writing from individual property owners, not verbal
comments from the meeting.
Chair Vanderwall noted that this
was not just a segment that addressed neighborhood issues, but was a vital
route across the community and major school route.
8.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – May 28, 2013
Member Felice advised that she
would not be available for the May meeting.
·
NPDES Phase II Annual Open Meeting
·
LED Lighting Retrofit Plan
·
Recycling Contract Draft RFP
·
Pathway Build-out? (Gjerdingen)
Ms. Bloom noted that it was up
to the PWETC as to the amount of time preferred at the May meeting, or if
they wanted to send comments back to staff for refinement and discussion at
their June meeting.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that,
with additional information provided by staff, a short discussion could ensue
at the May meeting in preparation for Ms. Bloom’s attendance at the June
meeting.
Member DeBenedet suggested that
the first three (3) items sounded like a full agenda.
Member Stenlund opined that the
pathway discussion should not exceed five (5) minutes.
Chair Vanderwall concurred, that
the discussion could be maintained at simply individual impressions and
focus, not a larger discussion, but ensuring that everyone was on the same
page to move forward.
Ms. Bloom asked that members
alert staff to their need for further clarity in information provided to
them.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that
once members reacted to staff’s information; individual members could tour
areas as applicable.
Member Stenlund expressed his
preference for a tour of the full commission to get a sense from other
members of the big vision.
9.
Adjourn
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:37 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|