|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Vice Chair Dwayne Stenlund called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Vice
Chair Dwayne Stenlund; Members Jim DeBenedet;
and Steve
Gjerdingen
Members
Excused: Chair Jan Vanderwall; Member Joan Felice
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz
Others
Present: Kathy Klink (resident) and a representative of Eureka Recycling
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of April 23, 2013 Meeting Minutes
By consensus, the April 23, 2013
meeting minutes were TABLED until the June meeting, with preliminary
amendments as follows:
Corrections:
·
Page 4, Line 156 (Stenlund)
Typographical correction from
“PWEC” to “PWETC”
·
Page 9, Line 383 (Stenlund)
Typographical correction from
“MPDES” to “NPDES”
·
Page 10, Line 410 (Stenlund)
Correct to read: “Member
Stenlund expressed his preference for a tour of the full commission to get a sense…”
4.
Communication Items
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 detailed in the staff report dated May
28, 2013.
Discussion included explanation
of a delay in the watermain lining project with the new 3M product due to an
equipment problem in CO; delays in various maintenance projects due to
weather conditions; continued discussion of pathway build-out scheduled for
the June PWETC meeting; and best practices policy for hydrant flushing after
street sweeping.
5.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase
II Annual Public Meeting
Public Works employee, Pat Dolan,
presented the annual review of activities undertaken for the City of
Roseville’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Permit
Application for coverage under general permit MN-R-040000, “Authorization to
Discharge Storm Water Associated with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State
Disposal System Permit Program,” dated May 22, 2012, and included in its
entirety in tonight’s agenda materials.
As a bench handout,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, Mr. Dolan reviewed six (6)
points undertaken by the City in the NPDES Phase II program:
1) Public
education/outreach measures
2) Public
participation and involvement measures
3) Illicit
Discharge Detection and Elimination Measures
4) Construction Site
storm water runoff control measures
5) Post-construction
storm water management measures
6) Pollution
prevention and good housekeeping measures
Discussion among PWETC members
and staff included those items completed to-date as well as those continuing
on a “to-do” list; the recent state-wide ban on PAH’s for pollution
prevention, and the positive step this provided for communication efforts of
the City’s SWPPP; the MPCA’s recent ruling regarding stormwater management
for street construction, previously handled by our watershed districts, but
now involving municipalities even more (e.g. volume reduction, rate control,
and water quality during reconstruction projects), but the most impact for
larger communities outside the metropolitan area versus urban communities
such as Roseville, already significantly involved in the process and
requirements; and the positive impacts of merging of the former Grass Lakes
Water Management Organization (GLWMO) with the Metro-Washington Area
Metropolitan Watershed District, as they are currently in the process of a
Plan Amendment to enable them to spend resources on future projects; and
their apparent eagerness to partner with and devote resources to projects in
the immediate Roseville area (e.g. WRAP for the Grass Lakes area in 2015 that
will identify TMDL areas).
Further discussion included
various sections of the document itself, including:
Section 1.c.1 – Education
Program: Public Education and Outreach
Vice Chair Stenlund questioned
whether any student involvement from the Roseville Area High School or
education at the annual Roseville University was being undertaken.
Mr. Dolan advised that City staff
had spent considerably more time with Roseville youth over the last year, but
more geared to elementary/middle school students, including an April Open
House for Roseville youth with tours and talks about their yards (e.g.
washing cars on green space versus asphalt) and other areas of how they use
their yards and how much water a family uses; and an intense presentation by
Mr. Schwartz as part of the Roseville University courses. Mr. Dolan advised
that staff had not yet connected with High School students.
Vice Chair Stenlund expressed his
hope that discussions would be pursued with the High School, such as getting
science classes involved for a hands-on awareness of obvious illicit
discharge and areas of concern in the broader community.
Mr. Dolan advised that City
Engineer Debra Bloom had working on those efforts, and they would probably be
part of next year’s report.
Further discussion included storm
stenciling kits for scout groups to map for the City as group projects,
which were documented in this year’s report (change from ink to tab
stencils); other options to involve community groups and cycle people through
that educational process; suggestion to include the percentage of stenciling
completed to-date in this annual report; continued educational efforts to
residents on how to and how not to use water; and some additional volume of
curb and gutter debris when experiencing a longer snow year and late plowing
events creating more sod disruption. One item clarified through educational
efforts included differentiating temporary versus long-term parking on lawns.
Regarding pond inspections, Mr.
Dolan confirmed that more wood debris/tree branches were found due to heavier
snow falls over the winter months.
Mr. Dolan advised that the
Roseville University was allowing opportunities for asking more questions,
allowing staff to get the word out to a broader spectrum of the community.
At the request of Vice Chair
Stenlund, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that this winter season’s salt use and
budget had been just above average, which he found remarkable given the
length of the season and number of events that occurred. However, Mr. Schwartz
observed that the additional snowfall events falling in February through
April, when pavement temperatures were higher, minimized use somewhat.
Section 4.a.1 – Ordinance or
Other Regulatory Mechanism
(BMP Description #10)
Noting that most current
construction permits for point of discharge were between 7 – 14 days, Vice
Chair Stenlund questioned how this was being monitored and enforced by staff.
Discussion included placement of
straw mats on grass; protection of rain gardens during construction to keep
soils from detaching in the first place, one of the most frequent and
difficult areas for contractor compliance due to it not being cost-effective
for them; and the need for more education and enforcement, and how to
strengthen that enforcement.
BMP Section 4
Vice Chair Stenlund opined that
it seemed the City’s management of brown water was weak even with best
management practices in place, with snow melt still leading to filthy water.
While there were State, City and Federal regulations in place, Vice Chair
Stenlund opined that the City needed to be aware of how water was moving off
those sites.
At the request of Vice Chair
Stenlund, Mr. Schwartz reviewed the current status of basement sump pumps and
how that water should be pumped onto grassy areas, as well as pool water.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff continually fielded calls from the public on
those types of questions; and Vice Chair Stenlund sought stronger controls
for construction projects.
Regarding the State’s upcoming
release of a new stormwater permit and requirements for all MS4
municipalities to resubmit for a new permit, Mr. Schwartz noted that there
were significant changes, including discharge from the entire system and how
to demonstrate that maintained or reduced volume through reduced loading.
Mr. Schwartz noted that, in the past, watershed districts had typically done
that and demonstrated through the City’s current permit. Mr. Schwartz
referenced a recent Minneapolis Star Tribune article (May 21, 2013)
outlining the new permit; and an additional news release soon to be released
that also covered some of those changes, including impaired waters,
preventing/reducing discharge and specific pollutants and water impairments,
mapping all stormwater pipes to track illicit discharge, erosion/sediment
control; with those local programs being forced to become as stringent as the
state, including developers/contractors mimic natural conditions so
post-construction stormwater volume is not greater than pre-construction
volumes.
Vice Chair Stenlund also noted
that it will ask for green space and a larger function for benefits (e.g.
tree canopy for future water quality for intercepting and/or mitigating storm
water) with a strong emphasis on nutrient loading to avoid blue/green algae in
water bodies. Vice Chair Stenlund strongly suggested that someone from City
staff be certified for MS4 and reviewed the components of that certification,
offering to provide additional literature for staff, and allowing the City to
be more adept through this national program.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the City
was in “group 3” as far as the schedule for existing permits, but 150 days
after the release of the permit, the City would be required to apply for the
new permit, anticipating that the new requirements would be related in August
of 2013.
Vice Chair Stenlund opined that
this would be an aggressive timeframe for many communities.
No one from the public appeared
with questions/comments related to the NPDES Program.
6.
Recycling Contract Draft RFP
Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt
present was present to continue discussions from previous meetings and review
the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new comprehensive recycling
service contract, as the current contract expires at year-end. The document
was included and detailed in the agenda packet materials (Attachment A),
along with Recycling Community Values developed by the PWETC and weighting
assigned and prioritized for those values (Attachment B).
Mr. Pratt highlighted components
of the RFP, intended as a Best Value Process with no identification of
vendors as they documented their performance, with a restricted amount of
supplemental data allowed. Mr. Pratt sought additional feedback and comment
from the PWETC on any areas needing further clarification. Mr. Pratt
reviewed how the community values were intended to work in the RFP process,
followed by the interview section.
Mr. Pratt pointed out several
items for the PWETC’s attention, including Section 4.07 that included vendor
pick-up of additional plastics as a standard; and Section 5.05 (page 18)
seeking organic collection options, as dictated by Ramsey County’s ruling
that all municipalities provide for planned collection of organics by the end
of 2016. At the request of Vice Chair Stenlund, Mr. Pratt noted that organic
materials included food waste, and other paper products (e.g. paper plates,
napkins, etc.) not currently included in allowable paper collections.
Mr. Pratt advised that staff
anticipated that most bids would come in for single cart collection; and
noted that the City of Maplewood’s tonnage actually went down for some
unknown reason during their first year of moving to roll-out carts; and
cautioned that changing may take some time to implement. Conversely, Mr.
Schwartz noted that the City of Minneapolis had experienced a significant
increase in collections when moving to carts. However, Member DeBenedet
noted that the City of Minneapolis had started at a very low participation
number to begin with.
Based on those considerations,
Mr. Pratt brought up the question of cart ownership (Section 5.22) and an
included provision that remained open for ownership by the vendor and/or
City. With a vendor able to amortize the cost of the carts, Mr. Pratt opined
that this seemed to provide the vendor with a price advantage and reducing
future bids. However, Mr. Pratt noted that this had not been evidenced in
other communities, with incumbent vendors still proposing a price increase on
the next round. Mr. Pratt stated that it was staff’s interpretation that
this may not be completely accurate, and suggested if the City owned the
carts, the City should experience a decrease on the second round.
Mr. Schwartz noted that purchase
of bins over a three (3) year contract, with an alternate (5) year contract,
should help with amortizing cart costs. Mr. Schwartz also noted that the RFP
talks about requiring the vendor to collect the old bins/lids and reimburse
the City $1/each. However, Mr. Schwartz questioned if that was
cost-effective; noting that when the switch was made to single sort in some
areas, customers were told to keep their bins for storage in their garages or
for other uses; and again questioned if that was a better option than paying
$1/bin.
Mr. Pratt clarified that the City
had originally purchased the bins/lids; and the rationale in asking the
vendor to pay the City was that the City could then resell the bins for
recycling, allowing it to recoup some of those original costs. Mr. Pratt
noted that the City would be paid by the vendor and the vendor could set up a
collection day and anyone not wanting to keep their bin had the option to
drop it off on collection day. Since the City had already purchased the
bins, Mr. Pratt advised that the City would get the scrap value back from
those for some small return on their purchase. At the request of Mr.
Schwartz, Mr. Pratt confirmed that the carts would be brought to a central
location on one specific day, and not collected and hauled from curbsides.
In Section 5.21, Vice Chair Stenlund
noted that Fire Station #2, even though not in service, was still listed as a
municipal pick-up site. Mr. Pratt responded that it was intentional to leave
it on the list as its future use remained an unknown; and also noted the
inclusion of the new Fire Station when it comes on line. Mr. Pratt
recommended leaving all municipal buildings currently listed.
In Section 8.01, Mr. Pratt noted
the contract term of three (3) years and an alternate for a five (5) year
contract, based on past experience with the 2005 RFP process. While feeling
a five year contract would provide the City with lower prices for the term
and the ability to amortize costs better, Mr. Pratt advised that the City
Council’s current policy was for every Professional Services Contract to be
reviewed after three (3) years; and any deviation would require City Council
approval.
At the request of Vice Chair
Stenlund, Mr. Pratt advised that this Section would require City Council
approval of allowing the alternate proposal at five (5) years.
Member DeBenedet expressed his
hope that the City Council would consider a longer term contract.
Mr. Schwartz concurred,
expressing his personal opinion that this was not a Professional Services
Contract.
Member DeBenedet expressed his
continuing skepticism for the single sort collection, and smaller versus
larger carts; questioning the most viable option and frequency of collection.
Mr. Pratt clarified that, as
documented in Section 5.01 and meeting minutes of the April 2013 PWETC
meeting when Chair Vanderwall opined that every other week collection would
be a step backward for the City of Roseville, the weekly collection remained
a specified requirement. However, Mr. Pratt noted that most vendors with
single stream collection only did a bi-weekly collection; and therefore that
option was also included in the general requirements.
Mr. Schwartz noted that this then
became part of the overall scoring issue.
In terms of truck weight, Mr.
Schwartz advised that he had spoken to a truck vendor that specifically built
recycling vehicles, and in terms of weight (Section 5.02), that conversation
provided the rationale for the 40,000 pound maximum loaded weight
requirement. Mr. Pratt suggested that weight restriction may be based on
rear axle weights from past truck specifications. Mr. Schwartz advised that
for single-stream mechanical equipment with packer elements on the truck,
they were typically constructed on tandem axle trucks; and questioned if that
was a compliance issue with the State of the PWETC’s preference for weight.
Vice Chair Stenlund opined that
it was very important to him to reduce the truck weight as much as possible;
expressing his personal frustration with road wear from trucks skidding to
stops and/or overloading. Vice Chair Stenlund opined that he preferred light
loads relative to heavy loads.
Regarding the contractor
selection process and schedule outlined in Section 2 (page 5), Member
DeBenedet questioned if it was feasible to get the RFP out by June 19, 2013.
Mr. Pratt responded that it was a
preliminary timeframe provided at the request of Mr. Schwartz as an example;
however, he noted that nothing was scheduled at this point given the number
of unknowns and lack of approvals. Mr. Schwartz noted that the concern was,
if this goes to single sort with a new cart roll-out, etc., it would take
three (3) months from contract finalization to cart delivery, so the process
needed to continue moving forward without delay. While Member DeBenedet
suggested there may be a one-month allowance on the schedule example, Mr.
Schwartz noted that the current contract expires December 31, 2013. Vice
Chair Stenlund also noted that it may not be good to start a new program with
wheeled carts during the winter months.
In Section 2.03 (page 5), Member
DeBenedet noted an incorrect e-mail address; duly noted by Mr. Pratt for
correction.
Reverting to the weight issue
(Section 5.02), Member DeBenedet advised that his research through MnDOT
earlier today had not been successful in determining type of axle and
weight. However, Member DeBenedet opined that 40,000 pounds was a heavy axle
load, if intended for two (2) axle trucks, and such a load would create much
wear and tear on roads, especially in the spring; suggesting that 7 tons per
axle, with a maximum load of 9 tons/axle was typical.
Regarding Section 5.03 (page 14)
regarding hours of collection, at the request of Member DeBenedet, Mr. Pratt
advised that this was previous RFP language. Member DeBenedet suggested that
illegal use of controlled substances should be defined, and include synthetic
drugs as well, allowing that no one impaired should be operating the
vehicles.
Regarding the evaluation criteria
and weighting, Member DeBenedet questioned where in the document it said how
and when a vendor passed/failed and didn’t make the qualifications and
wouldn’t be given further consideration.
Mr. Pratt responded that Section
10.07 (page 47) addressed the proposal content and Section 10.08 the
evaluation criteria itself; noting that the word “must” should be eliminated
from language in Section 10.07. In an effort to avoid any potential legal
action, Member DeBenedet suggested that additional language be included as a
failsafe for those vendors submitting incomplete proposals and/or not meeting
base specifications, and that they would not be considered at all if not
doing so.
Discussion ensued regarding a
vendor that may go bankrupt or ceased serving the community for any amount of
time during the contract; and how that would be addressed. Mr. Pratt
responded that any vendors would be required to file a performance bond with
the City. However, Member DeBenedet opined that the language needed to be
very clear if the City found itself in a position dealing with a contractor
in default. Mr. Schwartz noted that there was an exception in the proposal
if a vendor failed to perform its duties on a regular basis. Mr. Pratt noted
that there are service standards and liquidated damage provisions, in
addition to the performance bond.
Member DeBenedet questioned if
the language was sufficient for the City to be able to terminate the contract
with that vendor and hire another vendor. Member DeBenedet suggested
language such as “the vendor had five (5) business days to resume their
service schedule or the City would terminate their contract. While
recognizing that any such action took time as it processes through the City
Council, Member DeBenedet opined that he didn’t want to set the City up for
not being able to enter into another contract with a different vendor due to
failure on the original vendor’s part to perform their duties on schedule.
Mr. Pratt noted the Termination
Clause (Section 9.08); with Member DeBenedet suggested that language in that
section also be clearer; as well as other sections dealing with the
contractor making promises that they’d be back in business, but continued
being delayed. Member DeBenedet cautioned that the City needed to be able to
cancel that contract; and suggested City Attorney review and strengthening
that language.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
could have additional conversations with the City Attorney related to
performance and termination; with Member DeBenedet encouraging those
discussions based on the City Attorney’s access to case law and other
expertise.
Member DeBenedet opined that he
still had a deep issue with single sort, and evaluation requirements for the
vendor to prove where the material is hauled to and how it was recycled,
opining that this was absolutely critical for him.
Mr. Pratt reviewed the end-market
verification requirements in the criteria, noting that in the past, vendors
had stated that the information was proprietary information. However, Mr.
Pratt advised that the detailed would be spelled out better providing how and
who could access that information (e.g. City staff and/or the public) and
which data would remain proprietary between only the vendor and the City.
Mr. Pratt reviewed how the City would take possession of the data internally
once a contract was signed; and which information could become public, and
what information was used by staff and/or a review committee for monitoring
and verification that contract terms were being followed. Mr. Pratt noted
that the goal was to be able to verify end-market data.
Member DeBenedet, while
recognizing the need for proprietary information, also noted the City’s need
to inform and assure its residents that the materials they recycled would be
recycled. Member DeBenedet suggested language be taken a step further, and
that whether or not the vendor considered the information proprietary, the
City would not consider it as such, and could invalidate their proposal
accordingly.
Mr. Schwartz questioned if an
annual requirement for providing that information was actually even
proprietary in nature, Mr. Pratt suggested that it be made an annual
requirement in the RFP criteria. Mr. Pratt noted that, with City’s current
vendor, staff had been able to profile end-market information for its
residents in the City’s newsletter.
Member DeBenedet concurred that
things had been more transparent recently; and that he would not want to see
that change or digress in any way.
Vice Chair Stenlund, in the
evaluation criteria and weighting list (pages 47-48), suggested that the
“other” category value could include whether a Roseville resident could
purchase a product that had been produced from plastics collected from
Roseville and other communities (e.g. rain barrels, plastic chairs, etc.).
In Attachment B, related to
clean, quiet collection, Vice Chair Stenlund advised that it was important to
him to make sure trucks remained safe, and preferred that they retain back-up
alarms as a safety feature; and his idea of clean and quiet was that a truck
had good trucks and equipment, not lacking mufflers or noisy, but operational
safely. Mr. Schwartz advised that the back-up alarm was a requirement of DOT,
and could not be eliminated.
Vice Chair Stenlund opined that
he wanted the best possible service at the lowest possible price; and opined
that this RFP appeared to represent that desire. Vice Chair Stenlund
expressed his support of the value added area of additional benefits that the
City could not necessarily define or anticipate at this time.
Member DeBenedet concurred,
opining that he didn’t want any “pretend recycling.”
Further discussion included
standard or minimum requirements based on community value discussions; and
“frequency of service” left at “0” for values, but allowing flexibility for
proposals; and ensuring that if a vendor defaulted the City could void that
contract and enter into a contract with another vendor.
Public Comment
Kathy Klink, Resident at 535
Ryan Avenue W
In her review of the draft RFP,
Ms. Klink questioned if the intent was that the RFP required a vendor to
provide carts whether proposing single sort collections or not; and whether
there was rationale indicating that carts versus bins making any difference
in sorting requirements.
As a resident, Ms. Klink stated
that she wanted to know that her recycling materials were made into recycled
products versus road aggregate that she didn’t consider recycling; and
recommended requiring vendors to advise the PWETC where they were selling
collected materials. Ms. Klink opined that this was a critical element for
her as a resident and her trust in the PWETC and City representatives to keep
an eye on those markets; and providing assurance to her that they were being
recycled; and questioned if vendors would be hesitant to do that reporting in
realistic situations. Ms. Kling advocated that, material vendors submit
those reporting requirements as part of the RFP process, and specific to the
PWETC and City with as much confidentiality as necessary, while also allowing
the City to remain confident about their ability to have end markets for
materials collected.
At the request of Vice Chair
Stenlund, Mr. Pratt responded to Ms. Klink’s comments and concerns.
Mr. Pratt advised that while
single stream collection suggested carts, it did not require them, and bins
would be considered.
Regarding end market
verification, Mr. Pratt advised that a vendor would be required to provide
that information as part of this RFP process; and could require tonnages
being delivered to each end market vendor and examples of those end products
made by that specific end market manufacturer for verification.
Vice Chair Stenlund suggested
including market indicator/demand as part of Section 4.22 or 4.32; but Mr.
Pratt noted that those sections were definitions and wouldn’t be an
appropriate place for that added language. However, Mr. Pratt advised that
staff would find an appropriate place to add the language to guarantee that a
real product was available at the end market.
Vice Chair Stenlund opined that,
considering carts versus bins and if for single stream, bi-weekly collection,
carts would be better for stability and human safety, based on the potential
weight of materials being brought curbside.
Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Pratt
concurred, noting that there was a proven decrease in workers compensation
claims for vendors switching from bins to carts; with Vice Chair Stenlund
recognizing that as a significant cost savings for vendors and ultimate the
City in the cost of the program.
7.
Josephine Heights Subdivision Preliminary Plans
Mr. Schwartz briefly presented
this fairly new Preliminary Plan submittal for the Josephine Heights
Subdivision, west of Victoria and Millwood Avenues; and referenced the
attachments to the staff report for PWETC review and comment. Mr. Schwartz
advised that staff had requested the developer provide two (2) Outlots versus
easements for infrastructure, including stormwater management.
Discussion and review including
long-term maintenance of landscaping addressed through a maintenance contract
developed by the City Attorney with the developer/homeowner’s association
maintaining the landscaping and the City maintaining stormwater management
areas; and including assignment for any future landscaping reconstruction
costs as part of that agreement. Mr. Schwartz noted that the City needed to
be cognizant of that concern when approving a landscaping plan.
Further discussion included
reconstruction neighborhood concerns regarding screening of headlights from
the new development for existing homes and changes to the character of the
neighborhood with the change from this long-term wooded lot to new homes; and
maintenance of the cul-de-sac by the City as a public street; lot
configuration and size.
Vice Chair Stenlund stated, for
the record, that he felt it was important for Roseville staff to see a
written maintenance plan in place including where future
maintenance/construction vehicles could be staged relative to the location of
stormwater management areas, and providing initial performance minimums and
expectations in future years and a performance schedule. Vice Chair Stenlund
opined that the proposed ration of sand to compost was too much, and based on
his professional experience, preferred more sand than compost, since organics
could always be added later. Member Stenlund further addressed Sheet 4 of 7
regarding pretreatment best management practices, and expressed concern with
the grit chamber and who would clean that out, and if it required a lane
closure to do so, where would the equipment be parked for that maintenance.
Mr. Schwartz advised that those
concerns had already been provided to the developer by staff, asking that
they consider a rain garden.
Vice Chair Stenlund concurred
with the rain garden option with a 4-bay system, allowing for raking from the
surface on their cul-de-sac versus Millwood Avenue. Vice Chair Stenlund also
questioned snow storage proposals, opining that it should be part of the design.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
had also requested that those be set back from the street.
Vice Chair Stenlund referenced
the dual ditch design of two (2) berms installed at the Rice Street/Highway
36 park and ride facility; one for snow piles and one for snow melt, and
suggested a similar application for this development.
Vice Chair Stenlund further
opined that there was a missing best management practice (BMP) indicating a
lack of temporary root control; and asked that the City seek a rigorous
BMP as a concept statement, including the specific location for a temporary
sediment, noting the difficulties in doing so when the buildings were on top
of each other. Vice Chair Stenlund questioned why the developer was not
doing rain gardens in front of their own homes, designed as front yard
treatment systems as part of the direction the City of Roseville was moving,
and providing the developer to design something attractive and functional.
Vice Chair Stenlund noted, if the driveway was a 4-bay, there were landscaping
elements available (e.g. solid pavers) that wouldn’t make the design an
obvious or traditional rain garden in a typical sense. Vice Chair Stenlund
emphasized the word “rigorous” for the developer’s notice and expectations of
the City, encouraging them to provide it.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, since
this was less than a standard cul-de-sac, as requested by staff, the
driveways had little area between them for rain gardens, etc. other than
potentially at the throat. Mr. Schwartz advised that if homes exceeded
impervious requirements, the City required individual lot BMP’s, which the
developer had already been informed of; but assured the PWETC that staff
would include these comments to the developer.
Further discussion included
parking and street width based on City regulations and parking restrictions;
advantage to the City of less asphalt installed due to the more narrow street
width and smaller diameter cul-de-sac. Mr. Schwartz advised that the firs
preliminary design had included a 100’ cul-de-sac with island, and prompting
staff’s requested revision as indicated, based on the City’s difficulty in
maintaining those types of designs during the winter.
Member DeBenedet advised that his
only concern was how the developer intended to manage storm water.
Vice Chair Stenlund noted that
the goal was for a twenty (20) year service life and routine 48 hour rain
event; and suggested pervious pavement for the cul-de-sac as a perfect
opportunity for a grant from the area watershed district, since this is a
limited traffic road.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the soils
were not great in this area.
8.
LED Lighting Retrofit Plan
Mr. Schwartz displayed a map of
the areas outlined in Attachment A for a proposed LED Retrofit Four Year Plan
from 2013 – 2016. Mr. Schwartz advised that the City Council appropriated
$25,000/year, beginning in 2013,to replace or retrofit existing lighting
systems. Mr. Schwartz noted that these were for street lights owned by the
City, with the remainder of those currently unaffected owned by Xcel Energy.
As part of this plan, Mr.
Schwartz advised that a light meter study was indicated for Larpenteur
Avenue, felt to be over-lit at this time, and advised that anticipated
spillover lighting from parking lots may allow elimination of some overhead
lights.
At the request of commissioners,
Mr. Schwartz confirmed that it would require the hiring of a consultant or
testing company for that study.
Discussion included how the
various areas were selected based on lighting age and how it fit the annual
budget allotment; identification of the lights by I-35W as the oldest in the
community, but the hardest to replace based on design issues, as well as
original light installations on both sides of County Road B-2, with
anticipated replacement only on the pedestrian side for safety issues;
installation of lights on County Road C in about 2006; and ownership of
lights by the City on the west side of Snelling Avenue, and the east side
owned by Xcel.
Member DeBenedet suggested that
light replacements at the City Hall campus seemed to cut electrical power
requirements by 2/3, but on County Road C, they were only reduced by a small
fraction; and questioned why more significant reductions were not available
as part of the replacement.
Mr. Schwartz noted the findings
with the City of West St. Paul study by Xcel Energy that the LED’s were not
reducing wattage as much as he anticipated, and advised that it was meeting
the measured lights trying to be achieved; and as noted by Member DeBenedet,
the perception that they were brighter or providing more light.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed various
types of lighting and their uses (e.g. building wall packs of which there are
a significant number around the maintenance building) versus lighting for
pedestrian areas and what the goal was, whether for safety for walking or
appearing lit for security purposes.
Vice Chair Stenlund opined that,
while the LED lighting may not be brighter and create the same visual
appearance, a reduction from 150 to 90 watts was still significant.
Mr. Schwartz concurred that it
was a measurement versus perception concept.
While agreeing with the proposed
plan in 2013 and 2014, Member DeBenedet suggested that the 2015 plan be
re-evaluated to see it made sense based on the learning curve of those first
two (2) years.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting
that each year required additional review before construction to make sure
the right fixtures were being retrofitted.
Vice Chair Stenlund asked if he
could submit the project to student engineers as a Capstone Project; with Mr.
Schwartz agreeing that it would be a great idea.
Vice Chair Stenlund expressed his
excitement about the project; and reminded members that, when replacing
current bulbs on the City Hall campus, to keep in mind that there was a
longer life expectancy for LED fixtures as well; and that it should also be taken
into consideration that in the future, smaller gauge wiring to supply larger
wattages may be needed.
9.
Discussion Points for Annual Joint Meeting with City Council
Regarding the upcoming annual
joint meeting of the City Council and PWETC, Vice Chair Stenlund encouraged
all members to attend if possible, with Members Gjerdingen and DeBenedet
committing to attend and looking forward to the opportunity.
Members reviewed possible
discussion points to consider, including:
Activities and accomplishments
·
Comprehensive Storm water Management Plan
·
Drafting of Complete Streets Policy
·
Recycling Contract and Community Values Process and draft RFP
·
Revised Assessment Policy
·
Metro Transit service discussion
·
Committee work with Parks & Recreation NRATS on Pathway Master
Plan
Work plan items for upcoming
year
·
Ms4 permit merging into new permit requirements
·
Asset Management update on an annual basis
Questions/concerns for City
council
·
Pavement Condition Index and whether to reconsider the cost
benefits of the current standard
·
Metro Transit – rapid transit process and Central Corridor
re-routing of bus routes
10.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – June 25, 2013
·
Pathway Master Plan – continued discussion
·
Review of the joint meeting with the City Council
·
Other unfinished business previous deferred as time allows
·
Member Gjerdingen requested a discussion of intersections and
interim signage at specific pathway connections to constellations (e.g. way
finding signage)
·
The natural resources aspect of the NRATS committee, and the role
of the PWETC for that natural resources plan; and promote songbirds for
walkers
Vice Chair Stenlund advised that
he would be unavailable for the June 2013 meeting due to an out-of-town work
commitment.
11.
Adjourn
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:43 p.m.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|