|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, August 27, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Vanderwall called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jan Vanderwall; and Members Dwayne Stenlund; Jim
DeBenedet; and Steve Gjerdingen
Members
Excused: Joan Felice
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and City Engineer
Debra Bloom
2.
Public Comments
3.
Approval of July 23, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Corrections:
·
Page 2, Line 52 (DeBenedet)
Correct to read: “…advised that
this involve[d] a “20 inch” gas main/line
replacement…”
·
Page 6, Line 255 (Gjerdingen)
Correct to read: “…their lack of
support for either a [flashing] crosswalk at Dionne or [removal
of the] dedicated turn lane,…”
·
Page 8, Lines 314 - 319 (Gjerdingen)
Correct to read: (Line 315)
references should be to “County Roads C or B-2”; (Line 317) strike “,…even if
protecting the shoreline,” and change “the” to “that”; (Line 317-319) changed
to read: “”…existing pathway [nearer the shoreline] had a
significantly steep grade [to the nearby residential street],
and the dirt trail was in bad shape, dissipating into nothing.”
·
Page 8, Line 329 (Gjerdingen)
Change to read: “…County Road
C-2 sidewalk [between Hamline and Lexington Avenues] was
seeing…”
·
Page 9, Line 369 (Gjerdingen)
Change to reference County Road
B rather than County Road B-2
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, approval of the July 23, 2013, meeting as amended.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Schwartz
and Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Bloom noted that updates on
various construction projects were included in tonight’s meeting packet as
detailed in the staff report dated August 27, 2013; and available on-line at
the City’s website at www.cityofroseville.com/projects.
Discussion included the B-2 and
Hamline storm sewer project and replacement of the trail with an asphalt
surface versus the current mix of concrete or bituminous segments; additional
work at the crosswalk near the former School District Center and connections
to the Hamline Trail; project schedules over the next few weeks to facilitate
the State Fair, Labor Day holiday and start of school/bus routes; and status
of the County Road D project with paving and sidewalk/driveway installations
scheduled for completion this week, coordination with City of Shoreview
engineers for final work, with crews scheduled for watermain replacement on
both the north and south sides of the street (2 crews), with the entire
project anticipated for completion in mid-October of this year.
Further discussion included the
status of the watermain lining project on Rice Street anticipated to begin
yet this week, but delayed due equipment problems and scheduled over the next
few weeks for actual spraying of the liner; status of the Xcel gas main
replacement project and concerns about the temporary sidewalk put in place on
the Maplewood side not meeting ADA access guidelines for wheelchairs and
other disabilities. The new permanent sidewalk will be completed within a few
weeks. The contractor will replace or correct segments installed incorrectly.
Member DeBenedet opined that when
doing major projects, such as the Rice Street corridor, it seemed that
significant attention was paid to vehicular traffic control, but keeping
access open for those in wheelchairs was often overlooked or insufficient for
them to remain mobile. Member DeBenedet cited several recent examples on the
Hamline Avenue project when construction warning signs were actually placed
blocking sidewalks/handicapped access; as well as limited access concerns for
handicapped people accessing the Ramsey County Library – Roseville branch,
from north of Highway 36, since that is their only access point.
Staff assured the PWETC that they
would be on the lookout and remedy those situations when encountered.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz advised that the temporary sidewalk and replacement
of the handicapped ramps on the segment on the east side of Rice Street was a
City of Maplewood and Ramsey County discussion; and offered to follow-up and
report back to the PWETC on their decision with Ramsey County and the
contractor once a decision had been made if the temporary pathway will become
permanent. Member DeBenedet noted that once the west side segment was
reinstalled, it should provide good access.
Regarding the Rice Street gas
main project by Xcel, Mr. Schwartz reported that the project should wrap up
soon, with all pipe installed and pressure tested from Roseville to Arlington
Avenue in St. Paul; with the only remaining item connection of the two pieces
of pipe after passing the pressure tests.
Mr. Schwartz referenced the
message sent from City Engineer Bloom regarding an upcoming farewell
reception in recognition of her fifteen (15) years with the City of Roseville
as she moves onto the City of St. Louis Park.
Ms. Bloom, for benefit of the
PWETC and listening audience, stated that she had really loved working for
the City of Roseville; and expressed her appreciation of the residents with
whom she’d had the pleasure of working on various projects; and in working
with Public Works Director Schwartz and the Public Works/Engineering staff.
Ms. Bloom opined that staff was really a hard-working group, and that it had
been a difficult decision and she would miss working in Roseville. Ms. Bloom
noted, however, that she was also looking forward to working with the City of
St. Louis Park as their Engineering Director and noted several exciting
projects they had pending, one of which included the SW LRT project that
would play a large part in her work plan, as well as projects similar to
those she’d worked on in Roseville, with their City Council recently
approving a “Connect the Park” pathway master plan build-out for ten (10)
years, and upcoming implementation of their recently acquired asset
management software program. Ms. Bloom thanked Roseville residents, and
members of the PWETC, for their support during her tenure.
With Ms. Bloom’s departure, Mr. Schwartz
noted that it left a big hole in the Public Works/Engineering staff, with
difficult shoes to fill. Mr. Schwartz recognized Ms. Bloom’s expertise and
the institutional knowledge and history she’d developed over her fifteen (15)
years of employment that would also be leaving with her.
Chair Vanderwall recognized Ms.
Bloom for her work with the PWETC, his professional work with her on
transportation issues at School District No. 623, and personal work with her
and his neighbors at Westwood Village. Chair Vanderwall stated that “we all
will miss you;” however, he noted that since they knew where to find her,
they could use that option to contact her. Chair Vanderwall congratulated
Ms. Bloom on this next step in her career; and thanked her for her professional,
respectful and considerate demeanor in working with Roseville residents.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Council had authorized staff to move forward in developing/negotiating a
three (3) year contract with Eureka Recycling for single-sort recycling,
effective January 1, 2014. As a Member of the Review Committee, Mr. Schwartz
opined that Eureka’s proposal set them far above the other two (2) proposals
received.
As a member of the Recycling RFP
Review Committee, Member DeBenedet concurred with Mr. Schwartz on the three
(3) RFP’s received, opining that one was not presented in a very professional
manner; and the other, while quite good, did not persuade the full complement
of reviewers to recommend them, even before cost criteria came into the
evaluation. Member DeBenedet noted that moving from weekly dual sort to
bi-weekly single sort would save the City and residents a considerable amount
of money, with Eureka also making a commitment in their business model in
moving to automated trucks and offering various sizes of containers for
residents. Member DeBenedet noted that, before the end of the three (3) year
contract, the City would need to develop a plan for Ramsey County’s recycling
mandate county-wide compost recycling by 2016, which will not be an easy
prospect with bi-weekly collection of other curbside recyclables. In noting
that the mandate by Ramsey County did not require curbside composting, Member
DeBenedet suggested that the City Council direct staff to negotiate something
in the Eureka contract to allow those discussions to proceed.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that the
City Council had authorized more discussion between staff and the recycling
contractor, and anticipated that it may also involve the PWETC at some point
between now and 2016.
Regarding ongoing organized
collection discussions, Mr. Schwartz advised that the League of Women Voters
had scheduled a discussion on that topic for September 18, 2013; and advised
that he would be speaking at that meeting on behalf of the statutory process
and PWETC perspectives. Mr. Schwartz further advised that his discussion
with Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon earlier today indicated that the
organized collection issue would be coming up on a future City Council agenda
in the next month or so to determine the majority City Council’s direction.
Chair Vanderwall supported that
discussion by the City Council, opining that at this point it seemed like
there was no movement at all.
At the request of Member
Stenlund, Ms. Bloom provided an update on the McCarron’s Lake Subwatershed
Improvement project. Ms. Bloom advised that this joint project between the
City of Roseville and the Capitol Region Watershed District, had received
grant funding, through Clean Water Legacy funds, to determine how best to
re-treat waters going into Villa Park to avoid it silting up again after the
recent clean-out. One option under consideration is to consider a re-use
system at the B-Dale Club that would be done in conjunction with the 2015
Victoria Street Reconstruction Project, and draining east through that area.
As workloads are reviewed for the next six (6) months, Ms. Bloom advised that
a realistic timeframe would be developed for such a project.
Mr. Schwartz noted that there
were a number of options upstream for installation of best management
practice (BMP) applications.
With Ms. Bloom leaving, Member
Stenlund asked her to provide a “wish list” of items she would recommend for
accomplishment from her engineering perspective and if there was an unlimited
budget.
Ms. Bloom opined that the current
Pathway Master Plan project was a huge accomplishment; serious and active
connection for the NE Diagonal into Minneapolis; and pathway construction on
County Road B-2. Ms. Bloom stated that she would have liked to be able to do
more with education on rain gardens for residents, but with limited staff
time available to do that outreach it was difficult, even though a great
partnership had been developed with area watershed districts and completion
of numerous BMP’s. Ms. Bloom stated that another huge issue would be the
City hopefully filling the new Environmental Special Engineer in the near
future. Ms. Bloom advised that also on her wish list would be a staff person
to serve as a resource for residents; noting that the City’s Engineering
Department received more calls than they could accommodate from residents,
and wished that the City had unlimited resources to address those various
opportunities rather than referring them to Ramsey Conservation District and
area watershed districts.
At the request of Member Stenlund
regarding any unfinished projects that would be left by Ms. Bloom, she
advised that she was trying to make sure there were no outstanding projects
or issues on her watch. Ms. Bloom advised that she anticipated three (3)
outstanding projects (contracts) would be closed before she left, with two
(2) federal jobs done, but final reimbursement pending (NE Suburban Phase I
and II); and as she exhumed her office, she was pleasantly surprised in
finding no major work left unaddressed.
In congratulating Ms. Bloom on
her new position, Member Stenlund noted the development by some cities as
“Sister Cities” and suggested that should perhaps be explored by the Cities
of Roseville and St. Louis Park under the circumstances. As an example,
Member Stenlund recognized the great success of St. Louis Park in stormwater
quality (MS4) and expressed his interest in cross-sharing similar ideas
between the two cities or from a broader perspective with other cities through
the League of Minnesota Cities.
Ms. Bloom advised that she had
already shared some of the brochures she’s picked up at the City of St. Louis
Park with City of Roseville Engineer Kris Giga. Ms. Bloom recognized the
various relationships and synergies available when cities shared their ideas;
and assured all that she was not going to be that far removed from Roseville.
Member Stenlund reported to the
PWETC that, as previously discussed with the body, he had submitted two (2)
Roseville projects as potential Capstone Projects for students: LED lighting
and Low Impact Development. Member Stenlund advised that one option he’d
suggested was development of a portable carwash system that Roseville could
purchase and students could design for community group rental and
fundraising, allowing the entire community to benefit from carwashes that
would address water quality and stormwater runoff issues. Member Stenlund
noted that this may initiate with students visiting the Roseville Fire
Department to see if such a system was usable.
5.
Pathway Master Plan Build-Out Rankings
Ms. Bloom briefly summarized
discussions to-date as detailed in the staff report dated August 27, 2013.
Ms. Bloom advised that she had received individual PWETC member rankings and
thanked members for submitting them; however, the ranking criteria and/or
methodologies were not consistent, creating too many variables and
discrepancies in the rankings. Ms. Bloom illustrated these issues through a
revised spreadsheet, provided as a bench handout to members, showing their
individual rankings. Identifying this as one of the items on her short list
before leaving the City of Roseville, Ms. Bloom sought further discussion and
next steps of the PWETC.
Discussion included how the
spreadsheet had become skewed with the individual rankings and disparate
methodologies used; how individual ranked high and low priority items; if and
how individuals had ranked all projects or only their highest priority
projects; and concluded with individual members recognizing that they needed
to refine and re-evaluate their individual rankings criteria.
Ms. Bloom advised that she had
taken the totals from Attachment B and sorted them by number; however, she
reiterated that individual methodology had impacted her rankings, but noted
that she had used 1 – 5 with 1 being the highest priority and 5 the lowest.
Member DeBenedet advised that his
ranking indicated that if it was something he thought shouldn’t be built or
that was not within the realm of possibility, he didn’t rank it. Member
DeBenedet clarified that his ranking was that #1 was a project he supported,
#2 the next obvious project; and noted that he had also provided a column for
comments, addressing projects that could or should only be completed in
conjunction with a Ramsey County or MnDOT project. Even though some of
those projects may rank high on his individual list, Member DeBenedet stated
that he also recognized that they could not be done unless coordinated with
other agencies; as well as considering that they needed to show some
synthesis with the City of Roseville’s long-term Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). Member DeBenedet reiterated that he ranked his spreadsheet from
highest to lowest.
Chair Vanderwall noted that,
given the disparity of ranking and various methodologies used, it caused some
projects that he considered a priority to receive a lower rating. Chair
Vanderwall advised that he did not consider some of those results a favorable
conclusion.
Member Stenlund advised that he
had looked at what would be his top five projects, based on numbers from the
master spreadsheet, and identified those pieces he felt could be
realistically accomplished with limited funds. While he admitted that there
may be other pieces that needed to be done, Member Stenlund opined that his
approach had been to look at the map to determine which projects would
accomplish the best city-wide flow as the first steps, again recognizing that
all of the projects could not be accomplished. Member Stenlund advised that
he had not understood that the goal was to identify each item with a ranking.
Ms. Bloom clarified her
understanding of the directive from the City Council to the PWETC to create a
master build-out plan, which she took to mean everything. Ms. Bloom advised
that, once that was developed, it was up to staff and the PWETC to then
develop real numbers and a realistic timeframe over a period of years to
accomplish that plan. Ms. Bloom recognized that some would not make sense
without a road project, as some members of the PWETC had identified, but
still were to be included in the plan with those caveats identified.
Chair Vanderwall admitted that
this had initially been a soft target, but provided better focus; and
suggested that individual members take another shot at it, with each using a
consistent methodology.
Member DeBenedet concurred that
the PWETC had not yet reached the point where it could make a recommendation
to the City Council; and opined that they needed to roll their sleeves up
again. With the PWETC having come up with so many ideas, it had made the
entire prospect more complicated.
Chair Vanderwall advised that he
had included a ranking (from 1 – 6) in each category a point to be able to
with #6 indicating it was a segment he didn’t have any interest in pursuing;
and clarified that he didn’t look at any segments only on the basis of
whether they could be accomplished realistically. Chair Vanderwall suggested
that the next look consider every single segment or option considered in
relationship with everything listed. Chair Vanderwall opined that tonight’s
discussion and hearing the perspective of other members had been beneficial
for him.
Member DeBenedet advised that he
had considered the list based on how he would address it if he was a
decision-maker with a certain length of time to build it out and varying
budgets, with some projects exceeding available funds, while others possible
if bundled with other projects or as a way to utilize available budget funds
in certain years. Member DeBenedet rationalized that this was his perception
in using rankings of #1 – 20; and that he went to any project with a score
higher than “90” on the original spreadsheet. After that, Member DeBenedet
advised that he was hesitant to provide further rationale in addressing those
lower ranked segments beyond that done by the original pathway committee to
determine their ranking.
Chair Vanderwall suggested
reacting in scale for each segment rather than providing an absolute ranking
in each case over too large of a dimension.
Member Stenlund advised that his
ranking provided for one (1) year and the five (5) projects that needed to be
done. If the intent was to then move onto year two and the next priorities,
Member Stenlund opined that he would be unable to complete that exercise, as
all of the segments needed to be done. Member Stenlund justified his first
individual approach as being more community-based across the spectrum.
Chair Vanderwall recognized the
logic behind Member Stenlund’s approach.
Mr. Schwartz expressed interest
in Chair Vanderwall’s suggested approach, and recognized the need to reduce
the volume of numbers to simplify the exercise. Mr. Schwartz suggested using
ranking of 1 – 5 or 1 – 10, or multiples thereof, with the best then rising
to the surface. Mr. Schwartz noted that there may be reasons for one ranking
lower than another to be done first, based on whether or not a nearby road,
CIP, or park project indicated taking it on first.
Member Stenlund clarified that
the exercise was to consider ranking by years of construction.
Ms. Bloom noted that, as often
discussed by the PWETC, the budget will be the driver for any given year; and
further noted that the original rationale in breaking the areas into smaller
segments was in recognition of the limited amount of funding realistically
available in a given year.
On behalf of Member Stenlund,
Chair Vanderwall opined that if individual ranking priorities were
considered, it could then be determined collectively which was best and which
worst, with none required to be equal and allowing for some subtlety.
Discussion ensued regarding
various examples for specific segments; recognizing those items that will
achieve consensus and those requiring additional compromise or discussion;
how individual members had formed their criteria (e.g. safety, traffic
avoidance, walkability, connectivity, drainage issues in that area, existing
detriments, striping considered as an option, less expensive segments for
completion first rather than larger segments, etc.); with Ms. Bloom
recognizing the extensive thought process and system used for ranking by
Member Gjerdingen, using four categories.
Chair Vanderwall suggested using
rankings between #1 – 5, with any fractions between, with staff then adding
numbers on a consistent scale for more accuracy.
As a way to allow easier ranking
for individual members, Ms. Bloom suggested that her next spreadsheet
iteration only provide columns for ranking, removing previous numbers.
Members were of the consensus
that this was a good idea, as they were no longer relevant to this
discussion.
In response to Member Stenlund’s expressed
a desire to rank projects that remove or avoid bottlenecks or those that
would require a large CIP expenditure to work. Member Gjerdingen brought up
Member Stenlund’s comment earlier about ranking projects according to what
year they should be done and suggested such ranking would not be relevant,
and since some of the streets were already scheduled on the CIP and some not,
it would be simpler to base prioritization from #1 – 5 simply on the merits
of each segment.
Members concurred.
Member DeBenedet noted that some
of the low-hanging fruit may happen due to other situations unknown at this
time.
Ms. Bloom advised that Member
Felice had also provided her initial rankings; and advised that she would
alert her to tonight’s discussion and next step in the exercise. Ms. Bloom
advised that she would edit the spreadsheet and provide it electronically to
each member to allow them to refine or redo their rankings for each
individual segment, including either/or situations. Ms. Bloom advised that
she would attempt to make it as uncomplicated as possible to provide ranking
for each area from #1 – 5 or fractions in between; and advised that she would
share Member Gjerdingen’s point system with them. Ms. Bloom noted that the
weather still allowed the PWETC to visit sites at their preference, before
winter, to continue this project and allow for further discussion at their next
meeting; with Ms. Bloom committing to the PWETC to keep it updated through
her time at Roseville.
Chair Vanderwall recognized that
when combined with other individual rankings, his individual rankings had
become topsy-turvy; and admitted that he wanted to refine them using the new
spreadsheet, but also wanted to do so sooner rather than later.
Ms. Bloom advised that she would
provide the next iteration of the spreadsheet electronically tomorrow
morning; including clearer direction.
After a brief discussion, the
PWETC was of the consensus that they would return their individual rankings
to staff as soon as possible for consideration at the September PWETC
meeting.
Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bloom
advised that the Public Works Department Assistant could pull everything
together if Ms. Bloom was unavailable.
6.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – September 24, 2013
·
Pavement Management Program (PMP) goals.
Mr. Schwartz noted that
tonight’s tour may serve as a precursor for some of those pavement discussions.
·
Natural Resources and Trails Subcommittee (NRATS) discussion
·
Wayfinding Signage
·
Pathway Master Plan continued discussion/ranking
7.
Recess/Adjourn for Tour of City Projects, Etc.
Member Gjerdingen moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 7:37for a
city-wide tour of various interest areas by the PWETC.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|