|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Vice Chair Stenlund called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Vice Chair Dwayne Stenlund; and Members Jim DeBenedet; Steve
Gjerdingen; and Joan Felice
Members
Excused: Chair Jan Vanderwall
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz
2.
Public Comments
3.
Approval of August 27, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, approval of the August 27, 2013, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 9, lines 368-372 (Gjerdingen)
Correct to read: “Member
Stenlund expressed a desire to rank projects to remove or avoid bottlenecks
of those that would require a large CIP expenditure to work. Member
Gjerdingen brought up Mr. Stenlund’s earlier comment about ranking projects
according to what year they should be done and suggested that 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.”
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
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 as detailed in the staff report dated
September 24, 2013.
Discussion included member
observation of the water pipe lining process and problems encountered with
this new technology, causing staff to recommend deletion of the Transit
Avenue segment due to continual delays in this first portion of the project
scope; Mr. Schwartz’ review of the problem areas and issues to be addressed
with this type of application as it evolves, and long-term warranty (15 years
for the entire pipe) for full replacement for the work done to-date that
exceeds the typical one-year contractor warranty; and potential for the
product in the future as these trial applications are evaluated.
Further discussion included
disappointment with the County Road D project and its contractor’s lack of
soil stabilization and need for better oversight of the contractor’s
performance by the MPCA; and the need for better communication between the
Cities of Shoreview and Roseville.
Mr. Schwartz briefly updated the
PWETC on the City Engineer/ Assistant Public Works Director position recently
advertised, with 19 applications received and interviews scheduled for the
short list taking place over the next week and follow-up for final
selection. Mr. Schwartz also noted that the job posting for the
Environmental Specialist position was being finalized, and he expected that
to be advertised in the next week.
Additional discussion was held
regarding maintenance by utility crews for annual sanitary sewer cleaning and
fall hydrant and valve maintenance; with GIS coverage close to being ready
for including valve maintenance smaller than 12” to be exercised as part of
work order systems with the asset management software program to accurately
map and better track that information, anticipated to be ready by next
spring.
5.
Pathway Master Plan Build-Out Rankings
A Bench handout was provided and
entitled, “Pathway Master Build-out Plan” rankings, that included the
rankings for two (2) additional PWETC members not previously included in
individual and composite rankings; attached hereto and made a part
hereof. These were supplemental to those attachments included in the
staff report dated September 24, 2013.
Member Felice called to the
PWETC’s attention a missing piece of the pathway plan previously identified:
Fairview Avenue from County Road B-2 to County Road C, with a bus stop in the
middle of that segment on the west side of Fairview Avenue, currently without
a sidewalk to it and no appropriate crosswalk. Member Felice noted that this
area provided access to a number of businesses, but was currently very
difficult to cross. Member Felice asked that this segment be included in the
ranking as a high priority, as she had observed that the Fairview trail was
used quite heavily.
Member Gjerdingen concurred, that
both sides were heavily used, and he had observed people often walking in the
street.
Member Felice noted that it
became increasingly difficult during winter months.
Mr. Schwartz noted that he was
unsure how it been omitted from the rankings, but would review that and add
it back in.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
rankings were provided, individually and the composite; with some columns
eliminated for easier reading at this stage of the process. Mr. Schwartz
sought input from the PWETC on how they thought packaging should be completed
by priority rankings, advising that staff could then develop final costs,
including inflationary markers consistent with current 20-year City of
Roseville overall CIP projections.
Discussion ensued regarding feasibility
in developing a 5 year and/or 10 year CIP for pathways, and projected annual
funding of approximately $1 million for a 10-year build-out and $500,000 for
a 20-year build-out; with Mr. Schwartz opining that even a 5 year CIP would
be very difficult to develop, as there were no dedicated tax monies for
pathways at this time.
While it was recognized that
funding resources had not yet been discussed at length, Mr. Schwartz noted
that staff provided the City Council with annual proposed sidewalk and
pathway improvement projects for maintenance, including funds set aside to
rehabilitate, repave and other maintenance issues, up to approximately $6,000
per mile per year in the Pathway Maintenance Budget.
Members concurred that it was a
good thing for the public to know those types of details and take them into
consideration as an ongoing cost.
Further discussion included
significant variables in individual rankings, and the impact on composite
rankings; with staff highlighting those individual rankings for which they
had questions or needed further clarification to understand a member’s
rationale. Members discussed how to establish the key to make this system
work for the entire community to address exercise and wellness, safety,
access to businesses, and all other issues as the core focus of this
exercise. Further consideration included how and where to cut off ranking
for priority projects with those less vital to the health, safety and welfare
of the community.
Member DeBenedet addressed
various options available for some segments (e.g. Victoria Street), and some
areas (e.g. north of County Road C) that appeared to be duplicated numerous
times. Member DeBenedet questioned what the PWEC really wanted to recommend
to the City Council.
Member Felice concurred, noting
she found the same with the options for the NE Diagonal Trail, and noted the
importance to determine which option is most beneficial and effective to
recommend.
Member Stenlund advised that he
would like to look at Map #20 (Dale Street) for the off-road option; but
noted the variables in individual rankings.
For the benefit of members, Mr.
Schwartz clarified that a ranking of “1” was considered the highest priority.
Member Stenlund advised that he
had ranked segments based on his personal perspective of connecting loops;
while Chair Vanderwall may have done his ranking based on bus routes and/or
safety of children.
Member Felice reiterated that she
still wanted the Fairview option included in the rankings, unless members had
a good reason to omit it.
Member Stenlund advised that when
he first reviewed the rankings, he considered that ranking based on whether
or not certain other infrastructure needed to be done; noting that at least
two projects needed something major completed to close the loop.
Member Gjerdingen noted that such
a consideration and logic worked for city work, but not when the city had to
work with other organizations (e.g. Ramsey County or MnDOT) as they liked to
see the rest of the grid build-out first.
Member Stenlund concurred; and
used Map #16 as a prime example (e.g. Oasis Pond) that would provide a low
cost component to make a safe north/south connection for Victoria Street.
Member Gjerdingen observed that
his individual ranking did not show up on that segment; but opined that his
understanding was that they were only focused on a certain segment.
Member Felice noted that her
ranking didn’t show either, but admitted that the segment with which she was
not very familiar.
Member Stenlund noted the areas
along Victoria Street with zero sight lines and numerous curves as well as
heavily-vegetated areas; with Member Felice noting that it also had
considerable traffic volumes.
Member DeBenedet pointed out his
experience in biking on Victoria Street north of County Road C-2, as well as
his observation of cross-country girl’s teams on that section, and concurred
with Member Stenlund as to the wickedly dangerous curves. Member DeBenedet
opined that striping would not help that segment.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that the
cost estimate of $5,700 was only for striping.
Member Gjerdingen, in reviewing
the overall rankings and segments, opined that he favored the off-road
option, from County Road C to County Road C-2.
Member Felice noted that the
rankings may change for the Victoria segment if the off-road option is ranked
higher with elimination of the striping option based on tonight’s discussion.
Member DeBenedet noted that the
cost of striping was minimal; but he had ranked that option higher to ensure
that something was done that would ultimately be better than nothing. Member
DeBenedet suggested taking another shot at ranking.
Member Stenlund concurred, but
noted the need to keep in mind the need to determine a realistic annual
allotment for accomplishing the Pathway Build-out Plan, impacted by the
number of years to recommend to the City Council. Member Stenlund noted that
someone needed to be realistic for this build-out, as in twenty (20) years,
it would need to be redone.
Discussion included which
itemized options to eliminate and which to re-rank. Discussion included the
Victoria stretch between County Roads C-2 and D; and County Road C, from Long
Lake Road to Walnut Street depending on Ramsey County’s reconstruction
programming, and how to incorporate off-road trails with County projects if
and when they are programmed; and how to define those items that would
require all city funding or those with cost-sharing options, and how that
impacted their ranking status.
Map #25 – Northeast Diagonal
Trail Connection
Member DeBenedet suggested that
the City Council and Ramsey County re-prioritize to ensure that segment
happened at the right time. Based on his review of the private rights-of-way
property ownership by the rail road and/or the tank farms, Member DeBenedet
opined that it was unrealistic option to consider their agreement for a trail
on their property. While not supporting crossing over County Road B-2,
Member DeBenedet opined that a County Road C right-of-way made sense to him.
Member DeBenedet supported the first two options as viable. With one of the
cost columns deleted from this iteration, Member DeBenedet asked that staff
reinsert that column on the next iteration.
Members concurred to delete the
railroad right-of-way as an option.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City was currently paying rent to the railroad for the trail from County Road
C to Cleveland, which was on their right-of-way.
Map #20 – Dale Street
Member DeBenedet opined that the
Roselawn portion needed to happen in some manner.
Member Gjerdingen noted the cost
estimates between $90,000 and $100,000 due to the significant elevation drop.
Member DeBenedet noted the
previous discussion tonight about keeping things together, and opined that if
this was rated as a high priority now, it may actually drop lower in the
overall picture. Member DeBenedet further opined that Option 2 (off-road)
Roselawn to Larpenteur Avenue and the Option 1 combination should remain tied
together.
Member Gjerdingen explained his
ranking rationale for lower priorities if an option was available for
directional signage or striping to accomplish a pathway or direct traffic to
a pathway versus a more expensive and comprehensive solution.
Discussion ensued on how to
adjust rankings, by averaging them, or re-ranking them overall; how
individual rationales may skew the overall ranking supporting the need to
re-evaluate individual rankings again to adjust the composite more
accurately; and concurrence on the considerable expense if an on-road pathway
was considered for Dale Street.
Specific to the Roselawn to
Pineview Court connection, Member Felice opined that, if that segment were
well signed, it would make a considerable difference and make it a much more
affordable option, which could provide funding to be used elsewhere. Member
Felice advised that she originally ranked that as a “2” similar to the Dale
Street Option 2 (off-road) option.
Member DeBenedet opined that bike
commuters currently using Dale Street could be directed to off-road pathways
off Dale Street if they were sufficiently signed and/or striped.
Members concurred that the Dale
Street Option 2 (off-road) from Roselawn to Larpenteur Avenues be removed
from the build-out plan entirely.
Member DeBenedet noted that this
would create the need to recalculate the Dale Street Option 1 combination;
with Member Gjerdingen still supporting it as a “3” as he felt the Roselawn
Avenue to Pineview Court remained a higher priority.
Member DeBenedet noted that, as
the City Council received the PWEC’s recommendations, the City’s engineering
staff will review all options to determine which option is the safest.
Member Stenlund offered to
provide services for a Capstone monitoring project to determine the usage and
prove people were using the painted strip versus the off-road pathway over a
period of time.
In his ranking rationale, Member
Gjerdingen noted that he had assumed that not all projects would be done in
tandem; and if options or segments were consolidated, he would still rank the
Alta Vista Drive (Map #34 – Alta Vista Drive) and the Pineview Court
segment on Dale Street similarly with a “3.”
Member Felice noted that she had
ranked Alta Vista as a “1” and she would also consider this as a “1” if a
connection all the way on Alta Vista was attained. Member Felice opined that
there needed to be a pathway to somehow completely traverse down Dale Street;
and she found this preferable to one on-road.
Member Stenlund opined that the
City Council may take the PWETC’s recommendations to fund the top ten from
this list with funds they have available; or they may choose to perform their
own ranking. Member Stenlund suggested that the PWETC recommend anything
over 2.18 for the highest priority to be considered the first year of the
pathway build-out plan.
Member DeBenedet opined that his
goal was to aim for a recommendation to the City Council of approximately $5
million over a period of 10-years for a realistic build-out plan.
In attempting to recalculate
composite rankings, Member DeBenedet reviewed those segments or options to
remove and/or adjust:
·
Map #20: Recalculate/increase ranking for Dale Street (Option 1
Combination) Roselawn to Pineview Court AND on-road (parallel to Dale Street
on Pineview Court and AltaVisa Drive)
·
Map #25: Eliminate NE Diagonal Trail Connection (Option 2 along
the railroad r-o-w south of County Road C from Cleveland to Walnut)
·
Map #16: Eliminate Victoria Street north of County Road C
(Option 1: combination) with further adjustments and re-combinations
indicated (e.g. County Roads C to C-2 ranked lower; County Road C-2 to
Millwood as Option, with a determination pending as to the best choice of an
on- or off-road option).
From his recollection and notes,
Member Gjerdingen advised that for a combination, he thought County Road C-2
to Millwood had always been considered for an on-road option; Victoria Street
to County Road C-2 talked about as off-road or a mixture of off- and
on-road. Member Gjerdingen also noted that the Millwood Avenue to County
Road D segment south would be off-road on the trail.
Member DeBenedet concurred with
that recollection, referencing the spreadsheet. Regarding the Millwood
Avenue to County Road D segment south, Member DeBenedet suggested recommending
something with two parallel routes (e.g. West Owasso Boulevard straight
north, or Millwood Avenue west to Chatsworth, then at D at Emmett D. Woods
School, since there wasn’t as much traffic on that stretch of Millwood or
Chatsworth.
Member Gjerdingen concurred with
that Option 1 as proposed.
Mr. Schwartz noted that Option 2
was off-road only, with a bituminous trail on one side.
Member DeBenedet noted that the
combination would have added a minimal cost for striping.
Members DeBenedet and Gjerdingen
concurred that the Victoria Street Option 1, now ranked higher, remained on
the Build-out Plan.
Member DeBenedet noted the need
to eliminate Victoria Street (Option 2: off-road), both sections north of
County Road C) from the spreadsheet.
Map #15: Lexington Avenue –
Park Connection (from Shryer to County Road B)
Member DeBenedet noted that the
point of the first Lexington Avenue Park connection was to get a pathway on
the east side of Lexington Avenue for pedestrians to safely walk to Lexington
Park.
Mr. Schwartz noted that staff
fielded frequent complaints from residents about that particular segment as
they attempted to get to the park. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that Ramsey
County had repeatedly stated that they had no intention of supporting a
mid-block crosswalk; so in order to get pedestrians to the nearest controlled
intersection to access the park, it would require them to go to the
intersection of Parker and Shryer Avenues.
Map #21: Rice Street (McCarron
Street to County Road B)
Member Stenlund opined that he
preferred to keep that segment off-road, but had no problem re-ranking it to
a higher priority. Member Stenlund noted that he generally didn’t like
on-road options for any bikers or pedestrians. In this particular instance,
Member Stenlund expressly felt any on-road options were wrong, as the roadway
was too narrow to support them, and he didn’t feel comfortable on any portion
of it in a vehicle or otherwise. Member Stenlund noted that this had been
his rationale for his individual low ranking as he preferred to make an
investment elsewhere in the City; and advised that he had therefore ranked
everything on Rice Street very low. Member Stenlund admitted that he
recognized the pathway need there, but preferred to make an investment elsewhere
in the community, and overall in his ranking rationale had placed a higher
value for loop connections.
Discussion ensued regarding
options available with existing street widths for the segment of Rice Street
project south from County Road B to Larpenteur Avenue, with Mr. Schwartz
clarifying that while it is considered a newly reconstruction path, that
segment of Rice Street would be out seven years for reconstruction.
While recognizing Member
Stenlund’s comments about safety along the Rice Street corridor, Member
DeBenedet opined that he had no conflicts with the current ranking.
Map #4 - County Road C on-
road (Lexington Avenue to Rice Street)
Discussion included the
considerable amount of maintenance to keep the pathway trimmed; erosion of
existing pavement, with Mr. Schwartz advising that the City had been
replacing that piece that had deteriorated with the fence sliding down the
hill, but now the sidewalk had been widened and the embankment area better
maintained.
Mr. Schwartz advised that Ramsey
County had committed to changing that section to a 3 lane design; and if so,
Member Stenlund noted that his ranking should then change accordingly, to
avoid a 4 lane design and make something work on-road.
Since on-road striping was a
minimal cost, Member DeBenedet suggested that it be designated in a different
category other than as a capital improvement; noting that they were also
often part of a reconstruction discussion with Ramsey County on road within
their jurisdiction.
Member Stenlund opined that some
striping was valuable and made people make the connections, and it would
become a habit after repeated use. At the request of Member Stenlund, Mr.
Schwartz advised that latex striping typically lasted two years depending on
traffic, and epoxy had a five-year life span. If the striping was recessed,
Mr. Schwartz advised that it lasted even longer as it avoided damage by
plows; however, he noted there was a considerable difference in costs.
Map #5 – Acorn Park Pedestrian
Crossing
Member DeBenedet noted that this
segment needed more discussion between City and Ramsey County staff.
Map #20 – Dale Street Option 2
off-road)
Member DeBenedet noted that this
segment had been eliminated previously.
Victoria Street
Member DeBenedet noted that these
segments were better identified as Millwood and Chatsworth rather than
Victoria Street; and given their low traffic counts and speeds, opined that
they didn’t even qualify for striping. However, it was the consensus to
leave them listed on the spreadsheet, as they wouldn’t serve to delay another
off-road pathway project.
Map #21 – Rice Street/County
Roads C-2 to D
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
composite rankings were reasonable close; with Member DeBenedet opining that
this result may be from his fine-tuning of his individual rankings based on
his perception of instructions at the last PWETC meeting.
Map #5 - County Road C
Sidewalk (Western Avenue to Rice Street)
Mr. Schwartz questioned if it was
appropriate to rank this higher than a segment that has no pathway or
sidewalk whatsoever.
Member Gjerdingen opined that
this segment proves that, using the County Road D west of Cleveland segment
as an example, which had a pretty low ranking, but this segment was ranked
higher than that. Member Gjerdingen opined that he thought this segment from
Western to Rice was important.
Member Stenlund noted his ranking
rationale in not rank it higher if another option across the road was already
available for any particular segment.
Member DeBenedet noted that he
failed to follow his own rationale for this segment to remain consistent with
his similar comments on the Lexington Avenue pathway already existing on one
side.
Member Felice opined that the
distinction should be based on how busy the roadway was.
Member Stenlund observed that
there were four potential stops on that segment; including other issues, such
as not much of a refuge on the school side at all.
Member Gjerdingen stated that he
had observed considerable pedestrian use on that segment; and expressed hope
that it would be addressed as part of the Rice Street reconstruction, and
recommended that ranking remain as is, with consensus of the body.
Member DeBenedet opined that he
should have ranked that segment differently, but suggested staff return with
a revised spreadsheet and composite ranking at the next PWETC meeting based
on tonight’s discussion, including all columns.
Map #11 - Fairview Avenue
(North of County Road B2)
Member Felice noted that she
ranked the County Road C and County Road D segments as a “1;” and asked that
the PWETC discuss their rankings further.
Member Gjerdingen stated that he
would rank it higher than the County Road C-2 to D segment.
Member DeBenedet noted that this
is a two-lane road with shoulders and a lot of traffic; and on County Road D
from Fairview to Cleveland Avenues, it tied into existing sidewalks all the
way to Minneapolis and St. Anthony and beyond. Member DeBenedet noted that
this also provided a connection in that corner of the City of Roseville where
some residents felt they were not considered or included part of the City.
Member DeBenedet opined that the segment north of County Road C was fine as
currently ranked; however, he agreed with Member Felice that something had
been overlooked. Member DeBenedet opined that this may be one situation
where having just installed sidewalk on the east side of the street, it may
make more sense to add some along the west side than having it on the north
side of County Road C between Western and Rice due to the commercial nature
of the area.
Member Felice concurred; noting
that people were coming from the malls on the east side, and the current
access was very inconvenient to navigate, especially in the winter, and at
the bus stop at Oakcrest.
Mr. Schwartz noted that, one advantage
of having these segments identified, whether a high priority or not, when
commercial properties were rehabilitated, the City can make installation of a
sidewalk part of that development or redevelopment.
Member Stenlund suggested, given
the lack of consensus on this segment, that further consideration and
discussion was indicated at a later date.
Member Gjerdingen suggested
adding an additional line to the spreadsheet for that segment identified by
Member Felice or broken into revised segments based on tonight’s discussion.
Members concurred with adding a
segment on Fairview from County Road C to C-2, as suggested by Member
Gjerdingen.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Members Felice and DeBenedet opined that the south segment should
rank higher in priority.
Member DeBenedet advised that he
was adding a new entry: County Road B-2 to County Road C (west side sidewalk)
with no known cost at this time, and individual ranking offered by members as
follows:
·
Felice = 1
·
Gjerdingen = 2.5
·
DeBenedet = 2.5
·
Stenlund = 2.0
Member Felice noted that this
averages to a composite ranking of “2” moving it closer to the top of the
spreadsheet.
Map #15 – Lexington Avenue
(Dionne to Larpenteur connection and east side of Lexington)
Member Gjerdingen suggested removing
the Dionne to Larpenteur portion and retaining the Larpenteur Avenue to
Roselawn connection; with member consensus agreeing to combine them.
Mr. Schwartz noted that Ramsey
County had repeatedly denied the City’s request for a signalized crossing at
Dionne; and to get people to a controlled intersection, it would require a
sidewalk extension; even though there would be challenges in finding room to
do so, with limited rights-of-way and existing parking lots.
Following discussion on how best
to address this segment and its numerous challenges, Member DeBenedet
suggested deferring any split at this point, and concentrating on eliminating
conflicting entry points.
Member DeBenedet noted that the
concluding determination of total costs and how much could be accomplished in
a ten-year period was still far from known.
Consensus was to eliminate the
Dionne to Larpenteur segment as it was already included in the Larpenteur to
Roselawn segment from the Dairy Queen on Lexington Avenue south to Larpenteur
Avenue.
Map #27 - Heinel Drive
Connection (on road or off-road)
Member DeBenedet noted that the
area south of the railroad tracks was wetland and would require a bridge or
boardwalk to provide a connection.
Map #11 - Fairview Avenue
North of County Road C (on-road only connection)
Member Gjerdingen questioned how
to revamp the on-road segment better than the existing situation without
shortening up lanes; with Mr. Schwartz advising that such a solution would
require changing traffic patterns.
Member DeBenedet proposed that
the on-road alternative remain on the list at the lower priority it currently
received.
Map #2 - County Road C-2 west
of Snelling Avenue up to Cleveland Avenue
Member DeBenedet opined that,
without a bridge installed over I-35W and off-road trip generation west of
Cleveland justifying it, he saw no point in considering this segment.
Mr. Schwartz noted the current
Wal-Mart development, and future development remaining an unknown, it may be
prudent to keep it on list.
While making some sense to do so,
Member DeBenedet opined that for now from the western city limits back into
the car dealerships there was nothing suggesting the need for a pathway,
unless future development included the addition of a residential neighborhood
north at County Road D.
Member Gjerdingen opined that the
challenge was with Highway 88 and I-35W, with only one apartment building in
Roseville in that area, with the rest industrial uses.
Map #14 – Hamline Avenue
Member DeBenedet suggested the
need to include on the next iteration of the spreadsheet rankings done by
earlier commissions and members of the Pathway Master Plan group out of
respect for their work and as a reference point. Member DeBenedet noted that
this would also provide a check to determine if there were any areas not yet
discussed with this most recent draft build-out plan that ranked at a “90” or
higher on that original Master Plan.
Discussion ensued on rankings for
various segments of Hamline Avenue and connections; lack of a continuous
sidewalk along Long Lake Road other than north of County Road C-2; and the
additional process for new developments or redevelopments and agreements
defined with those developers to install pathway segments as part of their
plans versus those priorities identified in this Master Plan process.
Additional
Comments/Considerations
Specific to her residence on
Roselawn Avenue between Fairview and Snelling Avenues, Member Felice opined
that it would be helpful to have “No Parking” on the west side of the street,
as vehicles currently parked right up to Mid Oaks Road, and that parking
creating visibility and safety issues for bikers.
Discussion ensued on other areas
not yet covered: Map #2 - County Road C-2 West of Snelling (Lincoln Drive to
Wheeler around the south side of Oasis Pond); Map #7 - Highway 280 to
Cleveland Avenue; and Map #8 - Roselawn Avenue Snelling to Fairview Avenues
and County Road C-2 into the U of MN campus having lots of traffic and
parking, but not highly ranked due to an existing pathway on one side.
Other discussion points included
Map #2 – Centre Point Drive to Long Lake Road, deemed to be a duplicate with
the previous item identified with a bridge and missing an asterisk to
designate it as such; with final consensus of the PWETC to lump them all of the
C-2 options together with a composite ranking of 4.20. Similar to
discussions held regarding Lexington Avenue and whether or not a sidewalk was
needed on both sides of the road; the consensus was that the determining
factor was how much a road was used and its traffic volumes.
Member Gjerdingen noted the
advantage of breaking those roadways into segments for ranking (e.g.
Lexington Avenue from County Road C to C-2 ranked lower due to the
considerable amount of Ramsey County Open Space) that allowed for some cases
where only a small segment could be done and others where several segments
could be completed in one larger project.
Map #1 - County Road D
Member DeBenedet noted that he
had ranked this segment high, while other Members ranked it low.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz reported on current backups at signal lights at
County Road D and Fairview and Lydia and Fairview, with Ramsey County
including those areas in its five-year update plan for reconstruction.
Member Felice spoke in support of
completing that connection.
Member Gjerdingen noted
overgrowth conditions on some segments of the old sidewalk at County Road D
and Cleveland Avenue.
With a potential for road
reconstruction, Member Felice noted that rankings could change and they could
and should be revisited occasionally.
Member DeBenedet suggested
including that as a footnote to the final plan.
In reviewing the dollar amounts,
Member Gjerdingen noted the difference when cost-sharing was available for
some segments. Member Gjerdingen suggested including another footnote to
identify any segments that were in Ramsey County’s 5-year reconstruction
plan.
Map #2 - C-2 west of Snelling
Avenue
Member Gjerdingen noted off- and
on-road options listed; and from the perspective of Councilmembers, he wasn’t
sure what was to be made of the list as it was currently so spread out and
broken up, making it hard to distinguish according to the original Pathway
Master Plan, which included on- and off-road options for the entire stretch of
County Road C-2.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
options were dependent on traffic volumes, and if they were at a certain
number, off-road options were preferred for high traffic areas; on-road
options for medium traffic; and on-road with sidewalk for lower traffic
volume areas.
Member Gjerdingen opined that it
made sense to eliminate any on-road options from the spreadsheet if they fell
below that threshold; with Mr. Schwartz responding that the higher thresholds
should be evident for those roads listed. As an example, Member Gjerdingen
pointed out the Long Lake Road segment to Long Lake Road segment at more than
2,000 traffic volume, with Mr. Schwartz responding that it was already at a
much higher volume (over 3,000 vehicles per day). Member Gjerdingen
concluded that it could be left at the current ranking and included on the
spreadsheet, but expressed his preference if segments could be better
aligned.
Member Stenlund noted that, as
the only outlier in his ranking, he had probably ranked it as he did, even
though recognizing that it was critical to connect from the east to the west,
but also recognizing how unrealistic a bridge over I-35W was.
Member Gjerdingen opined that
everything west of I-35W would make very little sense unless a bridge was
going to happen without major redevelopment in that area. Members Felice and
DeBenedet concurred, with indications that those redevelopment projects would
then pay for those pathways. It was undetermined if those segments should be
included on the Pathway Master Plan even if redevelopment would pay for their
installation; while also providing connections into the City of Minneapolis
pathway system.
In conclusion, Member DeBenedet
suggested the following determinations from tonight’s discussion:
·
Everything identified as on-road striping should be performed
when the City or Ramsey County repaves a street;
·
Anything as identified as restriping should be done at the same
time and parallel with construction of off-road pathways;
·
Everything currently listed and identified as striping should
come off the spreadsheet, as their insignificant costs are not applicable on
the CIP, and are considered part of any mill and overlay project;
·
Add “Fairview Avenue – West Side Sidewalk” to the spreadsheet;
·
Re-rank the score for Map #20 County Road B-2 to County Road C
segment from a score of 2.0 and the Dale Street Option 1 combination with a
new score of 1.98;
·
Delete Map #13 TH 51 Pathway connection to Old Snelling Avenue
in Arden Hills (Lydia Avenue to City boundary)
·
Delete Map #15 Lexington Avenue Dionne Connection to Larpenteur
as its included in another section of Map #15;
·
Retain the Wheeler to Fairview and Fairview to Langton Lake
Park segments;
·
Reconsider ranking for Centre Point Drive to Long Lake Road,
either on- or off-road options and whether or not the ranking is dependent on
a future I-35W bridge construction;
·
Eliminate any duplicates as identified during tonight’s
discussion, and keep the higher ranking as applicable.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
would add the columns back in providing original Pathway Master Plan scoring
and cost columns; and at the request of Member DeBenedet, staff would strike
a line to determine cost to build it up to a certain point.
Members concurred that more
finalization needed to be done before making a recommendation to the City
Council.
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, preliminary approval of this ranking system, with
adjustments as outlined; including removal of on-road striping from the list
and clearly identified as an information point for the City Council with
final recommendations when presented to ensure that striping and/or
re-striping is always done as part of any reconstruction and/or repaving
project, including adding that component to any future Ramsey County and/or
MnDOT projects when done as stand-alone projects within the City’s
jurisdiction.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
With several audience members in attendance to participate
in the Organized Collection Resolution discussion (Item 8) and given the
current time, Vice Chair Stenlund suggested deferring Agenda Items 7 and 8
(respectively entitled, “Natural Resources and Trails Subcommittee –NRATS-
Discussion;” and Wayfinding Signage” to the next meeting. By consensus of
PWETC members, tonight’s agenda was amended.
6.
Natural Resources and Trails Subcommittee (NRATS) Discussion
Deferred. A bench handout
entitled, Proposal for Invasives Management and Natural Areas Restoration
Program – 2012 – 2016 Roseville Parks and Recreation Renewal Program, drafted
July 30, 2013;” was attached hereto and made a part hereof.
7.
Wayfinding Signage
Deferred.
8.
Review Organized Collection Resolution
Mr. Schwartz noted inclusion of
the previously resolution passed by the PWEC, and recommended changes to
forward to the City Council based on changes in the process by State of MN
legislative action as detailed in the staff report and attachments.
Member DeBenedet requested
revised wording for Item 1 (bottom of page 1 and top of page 2) of the draft
resolution to be consistent with its intent; and based on his personal review
of previous meeting minutes when this issue was discussed (December of 2011;
January of 2012; and June of 2012).
Member Felice concurred that the
proposed language was in line with her recollection of the original intent.
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of a resolution as presented OR as amended,
and entitled, “Resolution Recommending Consideration of Organized Trash
Collection;” for forwarding to the City Council for their consideration; with
language amended as follows:
·
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED… 1. Economic: Ensure the
lowest possible uniform rate structure for residents, transparency in rate
structures, assurance that city costs will be revenue neutral, less wear and
tear on residential infrastructure, thereby reducing city maintenance
requirements.”
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Public Comment
Christopher
DeLaForest, CEO of DeLaForest Consulting, LLC
(15806
Linnet Street NW; Andover, MN 55304; www.delaforestconsulting.com)
Mr.
DeLaForest advised that he represented Ace Solid Waste and Walters, both companies
currently licensed to operate in the City of Roseville, as well as other
companies not currently licensed in the City. Recognizing that this issue
will elevate to an upcoming City Council meeting, and based on remarks made
at the recent forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters, Mr. DeLaForest
expressed his interest in including his remarks in the official record of
tonight’s meeting and thanked the PWETC for allowing him the opportunity to
do so. On behalf of Ace and Walters, Mr. DeLaForest stated that they
believed in the current system in place in Roseville, allowing for a
consumer-driven, private market operation. While understanding both sides of
the issue and respecting the comments of other people and their perspectives,
Mr. DeLaForest opined that everyone needed to operate on only the facts, and
for the benefit of the PWETC, he wanted to make their beliefs known. Mr.
DeLaForest also recognized, on behalf of his clients, that the State Statute
had been amended in an effort to address concerns of his clients, they
remained supportive of the current system. Mr. DeLaForest expressed his
interest in also addressing this at the City Council level for the record as
well.
Recognizing
those statute and process changes, Member DeBenedet asked if Mr. DeLaForest’s
clients would be interested in participating in a consortium or proposal.
Mr.
DeLaForest responded that his clients had worked with Senator Marty in a
linear fashion on the bill as introduced at the beginning of the legislative
session, as well as working with the bill’s co-author Rep. Slocum from
Richfield, the Chief Author of the House File; at which point some of their
concerns were mitigated and amendments made accordingly. Mr. DeLaForest
opined that those amendments make a consortium system more likely versus a
single-hauler system; and affirmed that their participation would provide an
opportunity as small, independent haulers to retain their market share. However,
compared to the current open, more consumer-directed model, which is their
preference, Mr. DeLaForest further opined that there remained some confusion
with this very serious matter; with their perspective that the consortium
model was the difference in getting punched once or twice. Mr. DeLaForest
reiterated the preference of his clients for the open market system.
However, if the City Council chose to adopt some form of organized
collection, Mr. DeLaForest advised that his clients would prefer the consortium
model for the reasons he previously stated.
Kathy
Klink, 535 Ryan Avenue
As
a Roseville resident, Ms. Klink expressed her ongoing interest in organized
trash collection and her curiosity in the process if it moved forward. Ms.
Klink expressed her appreciation for a best value process similar to that
used for recycling, and her interest in the values of residents for a clean
environment being reflected in whatever option the City chose. Ms. Kline
advised that she felt very strongly about environmental issues; and from her
personal perspective the ability to support small, locally-owned businesses.
Recognizing that the consortium model had been operating for trash collection
in the City of Minneapolis for some time, Ms. Klink stated that she had her
own personal concerns with the City moving to a single hauler, which by
necessity would squeeze out local, family-owned businesses competing in the
market.
At
the request of Vice Chair Stenlund for clarification, Ms. Klink expressed
appreciation for the community values included in the Imagine Roseville 2025
and other resident values guiding any deliberations.
In
agreement with Vice Chair Stenlund, Ms. Klink noted those reasonable values
involving cost, environment, re-use, where produced ended up, safety, and
quality of life; all brought up repeatedly by residents.
For
disclosure purposes, Ms. Klink advised that she was a former member on the
Board of Directors at Eureka Recycling, having recently resigned; and
currently worked with Hennepin County as a Master Recycling Composter; and a
faculty member and science researcher at the University of MN.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – October 22, 2013
·
Pathway Master Plan Build-Out Rankings
New spreadsheet as previously
discussed.
·
Natural Resources and Trails Subcommittee (NRATS) Discussion
A representative will provide a
status update.
·
Wayfinding Signage
·
Proposed 2014 Utility rates as part of the City’s budget
considerations
·
Pavement Policy Goals Discussion
10.
Adjourn
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:03 p.m.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|