|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, October 22, 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: Chair Vanderwall and Members Dwayne Stenlund; Steve
Gjerdingen; and Jim DeBenedet
Members
Excused: Member Joan Felice
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and Finance
Director Chris Miller
2.
Public Comments
3.
Approval of September 24, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, approval of the September 24, 2013, meeting as amended.
Chair Vanderwall commended
Members on their comprehensive discussion at the previous meeting, and at his
absence, in moving toward recommendations for the very important Pathway
Master Plan update.
Corrections:
Page 5, lines 192 – 197
(Gjerdingen)
·
Correct to read: “… Discussion included deleting [two
segments] of the Victoria stretch between County Roads C and D, [and
the east/west segments from] Long Lake Road to Walnut Street…”
Page 10, line 435 (Gjerdingen)
·
Correct from County Road C reference to B-2
Page 11, line 467 (Gjerdingen)
·
Delete title reference to Map 11 to continue discussion with
previous text
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 1 (Vanderwall)
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
October 22, 2013.
Discussion included Member
DeBenedet’s concerns with lower temperatures in the fall to place
restrictions for completion of concrete and/or asphalt work unless sufficient
precautions are taken (e.g. County Road D project) with Mr. Schwartz assuring
Commissioners that contractors and subcontractors were well aware of those
cautions. Member DeBenedet opined that it would cost residents the same
whether a good or bad job was done, and it behooved the City to ensure a good
job was done.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall, Mr. Schwartz addressed the future programming status for the Rice
Street Corridor with the Transit Avenue to Little Canada Road segment
currently programmed with Ramsey County for 2016; and the County Road B to
Larpenteur Avenue segment in approximately 2020 or 2012; with mill and overlay
paving performed as short-term maintenance.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
was currently in the process of filling the City Engineer Position, having
received a relatively small candidate pool, while trying to find the best fit
for Roseville. Mr. Schwartz advised that applications had just closed for
the Environmental Specialist position, having received 98 applicants; and
review of those applications currently underway. Given the broad range of
qualifications for this position, Mr. Schwartz noted that they had expected
more candidates versus the City Engineer position scope.
For the benefit of the listening
audience, Chair Vanderwall requested that Mr. Schwartz provide a brief
synopsis of the annual Fall Leaf Collection program in Roseville. Mr. Schwartz
advised that there was a $50 sign up fee, available online or via information
provided on the mailed post card for each residence. Mr. Schwartz advised
that the program was scheduled to begin on November 4; and hopefully be
completed within two weeks; depending on weather and actual leaf drop.
5.
Discuss 2014 Utility Rates
Chair Vanderwall recognized City
of Roseville Finance Director Chris Miller to present a preliminary analysis
for proposed 2014 utility rates before City Council final approval in November
for the 2014 budget year.
Mr. Miller led the Commission
through those various utility rates and rate structures, current and
proposed, as detailed in the staff report dated October 22, 2013, and Mr.
Miller’s supporting memoranda specific to each utility fund, as attached.
Mr. Miller advised that the rates were structured and reviewed annually to
address day-to-day operating costs, budgetary needs for 2014, and the
twenty-year capital improvement program (CIP).
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall and for the benefit of the public, Mr. Miller provided
clarification on the purpose for the CIP to address infrastructure needs on a
sustainable schedule.
The staff report detail included
impacts of the proposed rates for individual customers and average single-family
homeowners, from a monthly and annual view.
Water Fund (Attachment A, page
2)
Specific to water rates, Mr.
Miller commended Mr. Schwartz for his work with the City of St. Paul,
supplier of wholesale water for the City of Roseville, in recalculating cost
allocations for the area and Roseville. Due to the efforts of Mr. Schwartz,
Mr. Miller noted that St. Paul Regional Water Utility had frozen 2013 water
rates at 2012 levels; which made a huge difference in 2014 rates, with the
usage rate remaining fixed for those two years, but increasing minimally in
2014 at 2.3%, and represented a direct pass-through from St. Paul to
Roseville.
In reviewing CIP costs, Mr.
Miller noted that long-term costs were paid separately by a base fee charged
to all customers; and while not an exact science, with annual variables
addressed, there was $24 million programmed into the CIP budget over the next
twenty (20) years. Based on updated information, refined infrastructure
conditions, additional costs coming on line, and some inflationary
adjustments, Mr. Miller advised that a 10% increase in those base rates was
being requested for 2014 from 2013 rates. While this was a larger increase
than desired, Mr. Miller advised that savings would be realized in some other
utility areas that would soften the blow.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall whether those differentials were due to changes in the bid
environment due to economics, or more difficult repairs of infrastructure,
Mr. Schwartz advised that the most significant reason for the rate increase
was due to the extensive and expensive reconditioning of the water tower
programmed in 2014.
At the request of Member
Stenlund, Mr. Miller provided a status report on the poor condition of the
Water Fund to-date relative to other utility funds. Mr. Miller advised that,
over the last 15 years, the Water Fund had never realized sufficient funds to
facility cash flow and operations on a day-to-day basis; and therefore, at
this time was going to require some sustained rate increases to build up cash
to meet those needs. At the moment, Mr. Miller advised that the funds in
this fund, compared to others, was poor to meet those day-to-day operations;
and had been and still relied on an internal loan from the Sanitary Sewer
Fund for some time, which served as a negative drain on overall City
finances, and needed to be addressed systematically.
Unlike other taxing
jurisdictions, Chair Vanderwall suggested that it was preferable to collect
funds sustainably versus bonding. Mr. Miller concurred that it was
preferable so have a healthy sustainable fund rather than bonding or
transferring funds from one utility fund to another.
Sanitary Sewer Fund
(Attachment A, page 3)
Mr. Miller noted that this fund
was healthier, with the largest operating cost payments directly to the
Metropolitan Council’s Environmental Services Division (MCES) for wastewater
treatment costs, with this year’s increase from them, based on projected
flows and increased MCES costs, increasing by 2%. Mr. Miller noted that
there would be increased capital costs due to planned CIP replacements in
accordance with the twenty-year CIP. Mr. Miller advised that the intent was
to increase usage fees by $2.25, but freeze base rate charges for 2014, as it
appeared that fixed costs were sustainable in the fund at this time.
Mr. Miller corrected the
statement that included the hiring of the Environmental Specialist position
in this category, advising that it should be listed in the Recycling Fund.
At the prompting of Member DeBenedet,
Mr. Miller clarified that the cash reserves of $1.5 million did not include
receivables from the Water Fund (internal loan reimbursement), and with those
funds included, the reserves would be closer to $2.1 million; and continued
the strong financial position of this fund.
At the suggestion of Member
DeBenedet that rates could be held based on those reserves, Mr. Miller
responded that, in a perfect world annual inflationary increases would be
implemented to stay abreast of inflation and avoid rate spikes; but in an
imperfect situation, opportunities were sought to lower the overall utility
bills for customers, and such reserves allowed for some flexibility in
mitigating future increases.
Storm Drainage Operations
(Attachment A, pages 3-4)
Mr. Miller noted that this Fund
was in good shape, and the proposed 2014 increase was minimal and largely
inflationary, as detailed in the report.
As the PWETC noted last year,
Member DeBenedet reiterated that the Roseville Stormwater Utility fee was
well below that of most metropolitan communities.
Recycling Operations
(Attachment A, page 4)
Mr. Miller noted that this Fund
was also in good shape; and based on the recent Eureka bid, revenue sharing
and alternative revenue sources, rates for customers would be decreasing in
2014 from $6 to $5 for curbside recycling, while increasing materials that
could be recycled.
Rate Comparisons and Impacts
(Attachment A, pages 6 – 8)
Mr. Miller reviewed the impacts
for typical, single-family homes on a quarterly and monthly basis; and
addressed the formula used for some time for commercial and residential
uses. Mr. Miller also provided comparison rates for each utility from peer
communities consisting of first-ring suburbs serving populations of 18,000 to
50,000; including differences in funding philosophies among those
communities. As an example, Mr. Miller noted that while some communities may
do so, the City of Roseville’s policy was to not use special assessments to
pay for infrastructure improvements, but funded them entirely through utility
rates.
Discussion ensued regarding rate
categories; pipe size categories and actual usage; and domestic meters and
commercial sprinkler system distinctions.
Mr. Schwartz noted that another
tremendous impact on rates was the level of treatment, using the example of
the City of Roseville centrally softening/treating water versus other
communities letting the customer do so at point-of-use. Mr. Schwartz advised
that this alone sometimes doubled the costs of wholesale versus retail water.
Mr. Miller noted that the City of
Roseville had higher water rates compared to peer communities; but part of
that in addition to Mr. Schwartz’s observations included the significant
water system infrastructure upgrades and replacements that other cities may
not be actively pursuing at this time. Mr. Miller advised that the City was
at a high point in revenues at this time in order to raise funds for
systematic capital improvements; and observed that the aggressive CIP put in
place was driving rates to the top of the chart in comparison with peer
communities compared to three years ago.
Due to previously-discussed
issues, Mr. Miller noted that Roseville was trending toward the higher end
for sanitary sewer utility rates compared to peer communities and its renewed
infrastructure investment period.
Mr. Miller noted the differing
funding philosophies again; and in conclusion noted a more comprehensive
comparison over the broader spectrum of needs and those funding philosophies,
with Roseville then among the lower portion and nearly 15% below peer
averages. Mr. Miller noted the need to look at all factors and local
preferences in determining influences affecting property taxes and rate
structures.
Member DeBenedet concurred,
noting that as part of his Master’s Degree program studies, and having spoken
to a number of Public Works Directors in other cities, he found Roseville to
be ahead of the curve in addressing its infrastructure needs, with those
other communities yet to get a game plan or have their respective staffs
bring it to the attention of their City Councils.
Mr. Miller noted two (2)
additional and related memorandums for the attention of the PWETC: Attachment
A dated October 4, 2013 entitled “Water Conservation Rates;” and Attachment B
dated October 4, 2013 entitled, “Utility Bill Senior Discount Program.” Mr.
Miller sought discussion and review of both subjects for reference prior to
City Council review.
Water Conservation Rates
Mr. Miller briefly summarized
this tiered rate program and questioned if it was meeting the original goals
or how those goals could be effectively measured. Mr. Miller noted that he
and Mr. Schwartz continued discussions among themselves as to whether or not
this made sense or how residents could be better incentivized to use less
water; and how to implement a rate structure that would achieve that goal.
Mr. Miller advised that his memorandum was intended as an introduction for
policy discussions by the City Council, and invited the PWETC to weigh in to
those discussions. Mr. Miller noted that the underlying premise was to
address excessive water usage versus normal daily household use; and admitted
the challenges in putting that into a rate structure that would incent people
to use less water. Mr. Miller noted further challenges based on the number
of people in a given household, as well as their use philosophy; and how to
treat everyone equitably without penalizing them for good water use behavior.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the PWETC
had originally spent considerable time on this issue, and made a subsequent
recommendation to the City Council; but due to the status of the service
study with the St. Paul Regional Water Board, the City Council had chosen not
to accept the PWETC recommendation at that time, which indicated some support
for a single tiered water rate system. Mr. Schwartz noted that the results
of that study had proven favorable to the City of Roseville for 2013; with
recommended increases for 2014, as previously noted by Mr. Miller. From that
staff perspective, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was recommending retaining
the same rate structure at this time.
Member Stenlund suggested
exploring the concept if someone wrote off dependents on their taxes; look at
the value to reward their water usage based on that; with a recommendation to
standardize rate values to reward conservation on a per person basis.
Mr. Miller noted the challenge to
create a system that didn’t penalize for conservation but for higher usage;
and noted the difficulty in doing so on a house-to-house basis or means
tested based on household size. Mr. Miller noted that it was logistically
challenging to do a household by household comparison; however, he admitted
that he hadn’t thought that scenario through at this point.
Chair Vanderwall noted that usage
wasn’t necessarily based on the number of children alone, but could be
parents or others living in a household; or a family doing multiple loads of
laundry and higher water usage, but not significant usage in other areas.
Chair Vanderwall opined that it would be interesting to see if there was a
way to perform such an analysis in the future – beyond 2014; and questioned
if it would be onerous for staff time to verify that concept. In general,
Chair Vanderwall noted that the PWETC would like to see the community
responsible in its use of water.
Member DeBenedet opined that
water usage was not linear based on the number of people in the home; with
the key to incent efficiencies, whether for irrigation, car washing,
dishwasher or laundry uses. Member DeBenedet further opined that setting up
a system to recognize people in certain houses rather than others could prove
highly problematic, and raise havoc with internal efficiencies for the City
causing personnel and operating costs to go up anyway. Since the PWETC’s
recommendation to the City Council in the past, Member DeBenedet advised that
he had then seen Mr. Miller’s memorandum to the City Council outlining areas
that had not come to the decision-making of the PWETC in making their recommendation,
basically parallel to the points brought up by Mr. Miller in this
memorandum. Member DeBenedet opined that the two-tiered structure remain in
place, while consideration could be given to the break point for gallons used
per quarter. However, at this point without additional information on usage
impacts from the one tier to the two tier structure system, or whether a
household decreased or increased in size, Member DeBenedet questioned if
there was any obvious rationale in making a change. At this point, Member
DeBenedet suggested staying with staff’s recommendation to leave the rate
structure as is.
While also speaking to the next
senior discount program, Member DeBenedet observed that a senior could get a
double bonus and benefit from the lowest tier structure as well as receiving
the senior discount. Member DeBenedet stated that he agreed with some media
discussions that questioned whether a senior should receive a special,
reduced rate, while others who may have more of a financial need were forced
to subsidize those senior rate reductions.
Chair Vanderwall advised that,
while this required further discussion when not faced with the budget time
constraints, for the time being the PWETC supported staff’s recommendation to
leave the water rate tiered structure as is for 2014.
Utility Bill Senior Discount
Program
Mr. Miller briefly summarized
this program as detailed in his memorandum; and existence since at least 1970
when the City passed an ordinance to encourage homeowners to abandon their
private wells and septic systems and connect to the municipal system. Mr.
Miller noted action by the City Council in 2004 to expand the program to
include single-family homeowners meeting federal poverty guideline criteria.
While it may be a hardship for retired homeowners to pay full water/sewer
rates, Mr. Miller noted that there was no financial means testing performed
to justify this, only an assumption that if you’re retired and on a fixed
income, you get a break. Now that the program is expanded beyond that, Mr.
Miller noted that currently 25% of all single-family homeowners receive that
discount, an increase of 400 households over the past five (5) years for
water/sewer base fees. Mr. Miller recognized that Roseville was home to a
lot of seniors and with the number of baby boomers in their 50’s, it was
possible that the program could see an increase of 40% - 45% over the next
decade. Unfortunately, Mr. Miller observed that some other customer had to
make it up.
While the City Council has discussed
this program, to-date they have left the program alone. Mr. Miller advised
that, if the intent of the discount program was that younger households were
subsidizing older households, then this program was more than meeting those
goals and objectives and working wonderfully. However, if not, Mr. Miller
suggested a serious look at the program to determine whether it’s achieving
the desired outcome. Mr. Miller asked that the PWETC provide their thoughts
to the City Council.
Chair Vanderwall stated that, if
this program went from the current eligibility requirements to means, poverty
income guideline-based, he would want a more detailed analysis as to what
rates would support such a program. Even though that may mean that the base
rate would be reduced for some and increased for others currently receiving
the discount since some seniors would still meet poverty guidelines, Chair
Vanderwall opined that he thought that was the right step to take to make the
program and rate structure more equitable; and applicable to all ages and
households, no matter their age, but simply based on income.
Member DeBenedet noted that the
conjured image for some time has been that all senior citizens living on a
fixed income have a hard time making end meet. However, Member DeBenedet
opined that the actual reality may be that the younger families or households
may also be living on a fixed income, with limited savings, and actually
having a harder time making ends meeting. Member DeBenedet spoke in support
of a means tested program; again recognizing that just because he was a
senior citizen didn’t mean he necessarily qualified for a discount when
someone younger with fewer resources may better qualify for such a discount.
Member DeBenedet also noted that, in recognizing that Roseville’s older
infrastructure needed to be addressed and the City was now catching up with
providing a sustainable program, in turn some of the City’s senior citizens
had been using that infrastructure longer at a discounted rate. Member
DeBenedet sought additional federal poverty threshold guidelines from staff
specific to Roseville.
Mr. Miller advised that the
guidelines were based on a sliding scale, depending on the number of persons
in a household, and based on adjusted gross income.
Member DeBenedet further
supported dropping or significantly reducing the senior discount, while
maintaining the discount for those with limited incomes.
Chair Vanderwall spoke in support
of a revised discount program at 125% to 200% of income guidelines, not just
at poverty level; however, he noted that it would need to be developed and
formulated to determine the effect on rates. Chair Vanderwall noted the many
different levels of income-based programs.
Member DeBenedet concurred.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Council will probably touch on the topic at one of their November
meetings as part of the 2014 utility rate discussion; and advised that staff
would provide the PWETC comments as part of that discussion.
Mr. Miller noted that, while he
anticipated that discussion, he reminded everyone that the City Council was
not obligated to make any decisions at that meeting or at any time for that
matter; but if the PWETC was interested in providing guidance to those
discussions, they should do so. As another consideration, Mr. Miller sought
input on how to handle those 25% of households currently receiving the
discount, whether they lost it or they were grandfathered in.
Chair Vanderwall suggested
sending a message to the City Council to implement a means-tested water/sewer
rate system rather than a retirement-tested system. Chair Vanderwall stated
that, if the City Council supports that concept, the next step would be to
determine how to implement such a system. Chair Vanderwall spoke in
opposition to a grandfathering concept for current discount recipients, as it
sounded too similar to the current senior rate. While there were many
retired people in Roseville, Chair Vanderwall opined that they were not all
suffering. Chair Vanderwall opined that the goal was to provide a fair,
honest and equitable program, even though there would always be some
controversy.
Member Stenlund suggested that
the current discounts, rather than grandfathered in, could be phased out
slowly over the next five years; while still trying to achieve the
conservation challenge in the less you use, the less you pay.
In addressing the current
discount summaries provided by Mr. Miller in his memorandum, Member
Gjerdingen suggested making the change and be done with it versus phasing or
grandfathering it in order to avoid an accounting nightmare for staff.
Chair Vanderwall, with PWETC
consensus, noted that the PWEC was supportive of removing the senior discount
program as it now operated, while not yet agreeing on future methodology.
MOTION
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, recommendation to the City Council for termination of
the current senior discount program at the next rate change opportunity (e.g.
annual utility rate review); retaining the portion of the program for those
qualifying based on income guidelines; but refining that requirement for
households meeting 100% to 200% of federal poverty guidelines, subject to
further analysis by staff.
At the request of Member
DeBenedet, Mr. Miller confirmed that of the number receiving the current
senior discount, there were only a few households receiving it due to meeting
federal poverty guidelines.
At the request of Member
DeBenedet, Mr. Miller advised that senior discounts were not common among
other cities, to his knowledge, and of the 107 metropolitan cities, he would
estimate that significantly fewer than half of them offered such a program.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
MOTION
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, recommending to the City Council that they retain the
current two-tiered water utility rate structure.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
6.
Pathway Master Plan Build-Out
Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed and
presented the latest iteration of the proposed Pathway Master Plan Build-out
based on discussions and re-ranking to-date; and as detailed in the staff
report dated October 22, 2013.
Member DeBenedet opined that the
composite rankings had come out as he expected. Member DeBenedet addressed
the portion of County Road B between Highway 280 and Cleveland Avenue; and
discussions held at the NRATS Subcommittee for the Parks Renewal Program and
Parks & Recreation Commission meetings recognizing that that portion of
the City had no park, and received little or no attention or benefits. On the
other hand, Member DeBenedet advised that, in light of park project
discussions, the park bonding issue had monies set aside for pathways.
At the last NRATS meeting, Member
DeBenedet advised that new information was brought forward differently than
before. Member DeBenedet noted that the County Road B-2 pathway was retained
as a #1 priority, but remaining monies were reallocated for internal park
improvements. Given the concerns with safety and accessibility, Member
DeBenedet opined that the shift had surprised him somewhat; since as those
projects were originally developed, the earliest consideration should have
been with safety and accessibility with the ADA being in effect for 23 years
and mandating public facilities being accessible, with the City of Roseville
currently way behind the curve in that aspect. Member DeBenedet opined that
there was a need to find a way to cover County Road B-2 and other needs
strictly for pathways for recreational opportunities and non-motorized
transportation, not just commuting, walking, shopping, or bike riding at
leisure. Member DeBenedet suggested that the PWETC give that further
consideration as it finalized this build-out plan before recommending it to
the City Council. Member DeBenedet recognized audience members attending
tonight to speak to this issue as well.
Chair Vanderwall reviewed the
process to-date as charged by the City Council to the PWETC for a an update
and review of the City’s original Pathway Master Plan first developed in
1975, with several updates over that 38-year period, mostly recently in
2008. For the benefit of the listening audience, Chair Vanderwall noted that
the PWETC looked at the Master Plan differently than the Parks &
Recreation Commission or other people, since they were the Commission charged
with the structure of the community: water, sewer, roadways, and commerce
around the City. Chair Vanderwall noted the PWETC’s interest in making sure
roadways and pathways got people through town easily; and therefore its
criteria would appear from a different perspective, whether it seemed fair to
a neighborhood or not.
From his personal viewpoint,
Chair Vanderwall stated that when he looked at pathways, he considered how
many people would actually use and it how much traffic would they encounter
in doing so. While it may not be the same criteria that the Parks &
Recreation Commission might use, Chair Vanderwall reiterated his and the
PWETC’s concern in how to get bicyclers and pedestrians safely around the
community as their numbers continued to increase. Chair Vanderwall noted
that individual Commissioners agreed to rank their priorities, and then
develop a composite of those individual rankings to compromise on those
priorities in reviewing the broader picture, recognizing that individual
priorities may not end up ranking as high as preferred by those individual
Commissioners, himself included.
Member Stenlund provided his
rationale for his individual ranking, noting that he made the assumption for
those things already being funded, they would be built; and scored priorities
accordingly; and not ranking something already being done, since they were
already in process.
Member Gjerdingen provided his
rationale for ranking, including those roads transferred from Ramsey County
to the City, and those still pending.
As previously notified, and
unable to attend tonight’s meeting, PWETC Commissioner Joan Felice provided
written comments via e-mail dated October 22, 2013, requesting
reconsideration of the priority ranking for the southwestern segment of
County Road B to Cleveland Avenue segment, based on feedback she’d received
since the last PWETC meeting; attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Public Comments
A bench handout was provided
for the meeting from Gary Grefenberg, Executive Committee Coordinator of the
SouthWest Area of Roseville Neighborhoods (SWARN) dated October 22, 2013; and
incorporating e-mail communications among the neighborhood and residents; as
well as excerpts of the Implementation Planning Session One for Southwest
Roseville dated April 11, 2013 attached hereto and made a part hereof;
and specific to a segment of County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue.
In addition to that, staff
provided e-mail correspondence from residents, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, from the following residents:
Kris & Dr. Mac Baird;
2239 Fulham Street
Martin Schoen; 2096 Fairways
Lane
John Bachhuber; 2223 Marion
Road
Dick & Shirley Friberg;
2130 Fairways Lane
Megan Dushin; 2249 St.
Stephen Street
Julie Fraser; 2181 Midland
View Court
Glen & ClaudiaWoker; 2186
Fulham Street
Paul A. Lefebvre; 2230 Marion
Road
Chair Vanderwall recognized
audience members, who were obviously concerned with where their area of
interest or neighborhood ranked in the overall plan; and opened the meeting
up to public comment from them at this time.
Gary Grefenberg
Mr. Grefenberg shared his
credentials and involvement over the last four years in this process on
behalf of the SW area of Roseville, and volunteer efforts of SWARN; and
thanked the PWETC for hearing his comments tonight. Mr. Grefenberg stressed
the importance of pathways; especially in the SW section of Roseville bounded
by Highway 280 on the west, I-35W on the north, and a golf course on the
south; with their only egress and access along County Road B, as well as
their only connection to the rest of the community. Mr. Grefenberg addressed
safety concerns; lack of attention to this area of the community compared to
other areas of the City receiving more interest; his interpretation of
comments from the Parks Department and allocation of bond funds for pathways
inside parks. In general, as referenced in the SWARN letter and attachments,
Mr. Grefenberg summarized the collective impression by this area of Roseville
that its residents continued to be short-changed based on having to compete
with other interests seeking recreational opportunities and connectivity,
beyond safety. Having been involved in this process since 2011 with the
transitions along County Road B, and promises to-date, Mr. Grefenberg opined
that the neighborhood thought their requests and concerns had been heard and
would be addressed; however, he noted that it was apparent that they should
have been tracking the process more carefully, as they seemed to be getting
lost in the shuffle once again.
Chair Vanderwall recognized the
frustration; however, he clarified the process within the PWETC with that of
the Parks & Recreation Department and their priorities in ranking various
projects
Mr. Grefenberg further addressed
the neighborhood’s safety concerns, interest in recreational opportunities,
and access to schools; seeking a sidewalk from on County Road B to Cleveland
Avenue that would provide a link, address safety, and add cohesion. Mr.
Grefenberg referenced letters from neighborhood mothers and activists addressing
their concerns for bicyclers and pedestrians due to the excessive speed along
this stretch, even beyond the 40 mph posted speed.
Mr. Grefenberg opined that this
stretch should certainly rank higher than adding a sidewalk to the west side
of Fairview Avenue. After discussing this concern directly with PWEC
Commissioner Felice, Mr. Grefenberg noted her e-mail in which she reversed
her position. Mr. Grefenberg further opined that the PWEC’s ranking of these
segments without input from those neighborhoods directly impacts was a fatal
flaw of this update.
Chair Vanderwall, again respected
the concerns expressed by Mr. Grefenberg; however, he explained that the
PWETC didn’t work the same way as other groups in reviewing projects. Chair
Vanderwall noted that the original Pathway Master Plan was brought to the
body at the charge of the City Council for a review and update of priorities
for recommendation to the City Council, in addition to the other work of the
body. Again, Chair Vanderwall explained the perspective of the PWETC; with
the body hopefully able to compromise and bring a consensus from their
individual viewpoints for a recommendation to the City Council. Chair
Vanderwall agreed that the Parks & Recreation Renewal Project had been
vetted in many ways through the process referenced by Mr. Grefenberg, of
which he had also participated.
Chair Vanderwall stated that he
sat through 18 months of hearings, planning meetings, and other venues; and
it was clear during that process that the residents on County Road B needed
and wanted a pathway. At this point, Mr. Grefenberg noted that he was
therefore speaking with some frustration, as he felt the City had made a
commitment to implementing one, whether the funds came from the Parks
Department or the PWETC’s funding source.
Chair Vanderwall clarified that
the PWETC did not have a funding source.
Mr. Grefenberg opined that the
Parks & Recreation Department was clearly not telling the PWETC what they
had told residents on April 11.
With the permission of the C
hair, Public Works Director Schwartz clarified that County Road B remained a
Ramsey County roadway, and was not yet under the City of Roseville’s
jurisdiction.
In response to Mr. Grefenberg’s
comment that it was in transition, Mr. Schwartz clarified that Ramsey County
and City staff are in discussions, but at this point, nothing had been
brought to the City Council’s attention for a formal agreement to transfer
that jurisdiction.
In response to Mr. Grefenberg’s
comment that a portion of County Road B (east side) was under City
jurisdiction, Mr. Schwartz clarified that the entire road was under Ramsey
County jurisdiction.
At the request of Mr. Grefenberg
as to how a sidewalk had been installed on one segment, which he understood
the City Council had authorized several months ago, Mr. Schwartz clarified
that they had authorized a sidewalk was authorized on County Road B-2.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the City
could work with Ramsey County to request that the City be allowed to install
a pedestrian facility on- or off-road on any County roadway; and sometimes
they participated in those costs if approved.
At Mr. Grefenberg’s request for
display of the map used by the PWETC and his confusion with some of the
numbers shown indicating priorities, Member DeBenedet clarified that those
were map numbers for various segments, and did not represent priority
rankings.
Member Gjerdingen identified the
various map keys (e.g. 2008 Pathway Master Plan scores; rankings over or
under “90”).
Mr. Grefenberg noted that County
Road B had apparently been ranked as a high priority in the 2008 scores; to
which Member DeBenedet concurred that, at that time, it made sense as it connected
to Highway 280, until the collapse of the I-35W bridge and part of the new
bridge’s realignment cut off that connection. As part of the 2008 study as
well, Member DeBenedet advised that his rationale had therefore changed due
to that realignment.
Mr. Grefenberg stated that his
major point is that for a series of neighbors (e.g. St. Croix, Acorn), the
only route they had was on County Road B, not south, not west due to Highway
280, nor north due to Highway 36. Mr. Grefenberg opined that this road is used
often, probably more since the closing of Highway 280; and suggested
comparisons of traffic counts before and after. Mr. Grefenberg noted that it
provided the only link to schools, parks, and broader community amenities,
and from his perspective, it currently created a risk to the safety of people
walking, since there was no shoulder there. Mr. Grefenberg opined that those
risks alone should surely rank it higher than a “40.”
In response to Mr. Grefenberg
noting that Fairview Avenue (map #11) had only received a score of 2.9, yet
it was considered a priority; Chair Vanderwall reviewed the ranking by the
PWETC from 1 to 5, noting that a “2” is high, with a ranking of “1” the
highest.
Mr. Grefenberg concurred with the
written comments of PWETC Commissioner Felice; opining that whether ranked by
the Parks Renewal Program or this body, County Road B should be addressed by
a higher ranking.
With due to respect to Mr.
Grefenberg’s perspective, Chair Vanderwall noted the changed dynamics in
County Road B from the past as an arterial street, dangerous to pedestrians
and when it provided an outlet for the whole neighborhood. However, now with
no through traffic, the traffic profile of that neighborhood had changed
significantly from when it was an arterial to Highway 280. While still
recognizing the safety concerns expressed, Chair Vanderwall noted the PWETC’s
need to compare that to, as an example, County Road B-2 from Lexington Avenue
to Rice Street and their need to determine which of them experienced more
hazards. In establishing his individual priority list, Chair Vanderwall
advised that he attempted to remove bicyclers and pedestrians from truck
traffic; with priorities varying depending on traffic counts as well as other
considerations. From that perspective, Chair Vanderwall noted the traffic
counts on County Road B had to be compared with streets with traffic counts
of 25,000 per day.
Mr. Grefenberg reiterated his
perception that the neighborhood had been promised this pathway as part of
the Parks Renewal Program.
Member DeBenedet expressed his
sympathetic consideration, noting that he had been involved in the pathway
planning process for Roseville for over 30 years. With this most recent
update, Member DeBenedet advised that the PWETC was trying to offer the City
Council a reasonable and realistic plan to get segments finished out within a
5-10 year timeframe. In keeping with comments of Public Works Director
Schwartz at previous meetings, Member DeBenedet noted the important to keep
in mind that often sidewalks, when made part of the Master Plan, can perhaps
be developed before anticipated or scheduled if and when redevelopment occurs
in an area as part of the agreement with a developer. Member DeBenedet noted
that any opportunity was sought to leverage funds with private development
funds and/or other governmental agencies to get pathway projects completed.
If the neighborhood felt that the
Parks Renewal Program had promised them something, Member DeBenedet stated
that he saw the validity of their concerns. Member DeBenedet noted that, in
the process of engagement with the PWETC talking to the Parks Program, the
attempt was to get back to the beginning of what the City promised would be
used for pathways, or non-motorized pathways throughout the City for
recreation and connectivity. In all fairness, Member DeBenedet noted that
the total for all projects on the draft list totaled up to $17 million to
build it out, including the County Road B pathway. Under those
circumstances, Member DeBenedet questioned the position of the neighborhood
in recommending to the City Council a bond in 2014 for build-out in 2014.
Mr. Grefenberg advised that he
would need to consult with the SWARN Executive Committee before responding to
that question.
Member DeBenedet asked Mr. Grefenberg to do so and respond accordingly.
Mr. Grefenberg reiterated that
the neighborhood would like this segment higher on the priority list based on
needs versus available funding; and built sooner rather than later.
Mr. Schultz noted that there was
currently no funding source identified for any of the segments listed in the
draft rankings.
Member DeBenedet thanked those
attending tonight’s meeting; and suggested that the PWETC take another look
at its rankings to determine if a way could be found to reorder them to make
everyone happy; even though the group was doing its best in addressing the
needs of the overall community.
Jerry Larson, ___ St. Stephen
Street
In response to Chair Vanderwall’s
identification of 400 vehicles per day, Mr. Larson corrected that information
as 1,500 vehicles per day on County Road; with that correction duly noted by
the Chair.
Mr. Larson addressed those
walking along County Road B from Highway 280 to Cleveland Avenue, including
elderly people; and noted the number of vehicles they would most likely
encounter during that time during peak periods; and noted the limited
pavement available outside the stripe and cars forcing people off the area as
well, based on his personal experience. In his 32 years living there, the
roadway was an arterial during most of that time, and whether or not there
was a high volume of traffic, it was still dangerous and no off-road pathway
was ever provided during that entire period of time. Mr. Larson opined that
this history supported the neighborhood’s concern in seeing no action, even
though they had asked a number of times during those years; and clarified
that the neighbors were not asking for a trail requiring acquisition of
rights-of-way or paving; but opined that people would be happy with a painted
extension of the shoulder.
Mr. Larson opined that in his
review of the numbers for drainage, he found those cost estimates to be
bizarre. Mr. Larson stated that, as a group, they were fairly disappointed
with the process; noting that over his 32 years in the neighborhood, there
was still no park, and limited areas for walking safely. As of last April,
Mr. Larson opined that the neighbors thought they’d been heard and were on
the right track, anticipating resolution in the near future based on the
Parks ranking of #7. Now, Mr. Larson observed, it had gone from a #7 to
entirely off the table, and he was no longer optimistic that it was going to
ever happen.
Chair Vanderwall again noted that
the rankings of this body were entirely different that those used by the
Parks group, and using different criteria and information based on individual
and composite rationale in establishing their rankings. Chair Vanderwall
noted that, when the PWETC had started this exercise, they had started with a
blank sheet showing segments, with no previous ratings, costs, traffic, maps,
and other information; with each Commissioner coming at their priorities from
a different viewpoint.
Mr. Larson opined that he found
that troubling, as if using different criteria, the rankings were sure to
reflect individual preferences.
While this may be true, Chair
Vanderwall noted that as a volunteer, private citizen committee working with
different areas in the committee, the PWETC those individual experiences and
expertise were part of the dynamic of the group in providing recommendations
to the elected officials, the City Council.
Mr. Larson opined that, while
everyone may have different perspectives, the criteria employed in developing
the ranking should be understood and similar. Mr. Larson stated that he had
great respect for their time and work on behalf of the community, but in this
case, he did not agree with the rankings.
Shirley Friberg, 2130 Fairview
Lane
As a resident in this
neighborhood since 1960, Ms. Friberg stated that she had spoken repeatedly to
the City’s Engineer and Public Works Director, and had also met with Ramsey
County staff during that time. During those discussions, Ms. Friberg alluded
to excuses she’d been given why a pathway could not be constructed along
County Road B or in that segment (e.g. not enough children in neighborhood to
matter). Ms. Friberg reviewed several mishaps on the roadway; and her
previous petition, which should be in the City’s records, which had 150 signatures.
Ms. Friberg referenced concerns she’d expressed about a lawsuit for the City
or County; and subsequent white dividing line painted on by “the City” in
response; and later patching by “the City” of portions of the roadway
(approximately 12 years ago) that were in disrepair. Ms. Friberg opined that
this still did not solve the problem of not having an area long the shoulder
of the roadway to safely accommodate pedestrians.
Ms. Friberg opined that the City
had not been honest about a number of things, whether the Public Works,
Engineering, or Police Departments. Ms. Friberg, as a medical reserve core
volunteer and former nurse, expressed concern with emergency access from then
neighborhood as well. Ms. Friberg opined that the City still had liability
on that road; and suggested members of the PWETC attempt walking along it.
Ms. Friberg further addressed the former pond that is now basically road
runoff that was “green and smelly;” even though it had been trimmed after the
neighborhood complained.
Ms. Friberg opined that the
number of vehicle trips made from those in the neighborhood were significant
each day, in addition to outside traffic. Ms. Friberg further opined that
this was not a safe road, nor was the lighting around it very good.
Ryan Westby, ___ County Road B
As a father with two children,
having moved into the neighborhood more recently, but as a Roseville resident
his entire life, Mr. Westby reiterated the safety concerns in this area,
opining that they were major. From his perspective as a father, but also a
law enforcement officer with Hennepin County, Mr. Westby noted that the road
went from 40 mph, then east of Cleveland it was 35 mph, then east of Fairview
if dropped to 30 mph. With the narrowness of this roadway and no shoulder,
as well as poor visibility with growth along it, Mr. Westby opined that this
was a recipe for disaster. Mr. Westby noted that, when it rains, the
shoulder area was washed out and creating ruts and other issues, which made
it next to impossible for kids – or adults – to ride on the shoulder. Even
with constant reminders to his children to not ride on the road and stay on
the shoulder, Mr. Westby noted the difficult for them to maintain any
traction due to washouts and rain. While he and his wife have been making
conscious efforts to reduce their own speed on that part of the road, Mr.
Westby stated that when he had made inquiries with Ramsey County, they were
deferred and told that the County no longer controlled that portion of the
road, but that the City of Roseville was responsible for controlling speed
limits on the road. From a law enforcement officer’s perspective, Mr. Westby
opined that the problem is not only vehicles going over 40 mph, but also
compounded by other factors and creating this recipe for disaster. Mr.
Westby noted that there were other neighbors with young children; and with
the approval for the Acorn Development, the neighborhood would continue to
grow and traffic would continue to increase. When the bridge collapsed, Mr.
Westby stated that he expected that the vehicular traffic would drop
dramatically, and while it has gone down, there is still considerable traffic
and it is going at excessive speeds.
Chair Vanderwall advised that,
whether or not the PWETC could get a pathway in the neighborhood, at a
minimum City staff could work with Ramsey County on the speed limit, at least
to take a step in the right direction.
From his perspective, Chair
Vanderwall noted that historically City rights-of-way and brush make it
difficult to see around corners; and suggested that property owners or the
City could be contacted to trim it to ensure good sight lines. Chair
Vanderwall noted that this was also something the City could pursue, and
noted that Mr. Schwartz was taking notes of this conversation.
Unidentified Male Speaker in
Audience (off microphone)
The speaker noted the danger for
walkers, including those walking their dogs; and questioned the cost for
installing a sidewalk on the south side near the golf course along that span;
opining that it didn’t seem that it would be too outrageous.
Chair Vanderwall responded that
the off-road option was included on the list of rankings for County Road B;
and the neighbors were welcome to obtain permission from 100% of the property
owners and offer to fund it, as per current City policy.
Unidentified Female Speaker in
Audience (off microphone)
The speaker spoke of a new
condominium development approximately three blocks from the area.
David Nelson, 2280 Highway 36
W
As a resident in this neighborhood
since he was 4 years old, Mr. Nelson opined that this was not an expensive
project to do, for installing a shoulder along the south side by Midland,
simply by a slight grading and pavement. Mr. Nelson further opined that
there was no need to do anything with drainage, stating that it already
drained into a drainage pond at Fulham and Highway 36.
Public Works Director Schwartz
noted that not addressing drainage was difficult in today’s regulated
environment, when mitigation is required.
Mr. Nelson opined that the
neighborhood was concerned about the segment between Fulham and Cleveland, as
that is the largest concern due to speed. Mr. Nelson further opined that the
biggest problem was transient residents in the apartment complex at the end
of the road; and based on his observations, they were responsible for 90% of
the speeding on that road. Mr. Nelson noted that he had recently seen a
speed trailer in the area, but had no idea of the results of the study.
Mr. Westby stated that the
particular speed board did not record data, simply alerted drivers to their
speed.
Mr. Nelson opined that most of
the neighbors make 4-5 trips from the neighborhood daily.
Chair Vanderwall noted that
Ramsey County performed traffic counts, using the strips across the road;
with Mr. Schwartz volunteering to look into that option with the County.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall, Mr. Schwartz provided an update on the status of County Road B’s
jurisdiction. Mr. Schwartz advised that the roadway was still under Ramsey
County’s jurisdiction, but that the City was continuing conversations with them;
and noted his receipt of a recent e-mail from them indicating that they were
getting closer to a number of terms of it becoming a turnback road to the
City of Roseville. As staff has stated all along, when roads are turned
back, if they are in relatively poor condition (e.g. drainage, surface,
etc.), the road should come with funding in place to allow the City to
address those deficiencies. With Ramsey County coming closer to a number
that the City could find acceptable, Mr. Schwartz advised that the conversations
would continue accordingly.
Ms. Friberg
Ms. Friberg stated that when she
talked to a Ramsey County Commissioner in the past, he said the road would be
turned back to the City if and when it was no longer a thoroughfare. Ms.
Friberg questioned why it had not been turned back to the City yet.
Mr. Schwartz responded that the
reference was a technical definition used specific to the County receiving
funding for a road from the State (Minnesota State Aid – MSA). Mr. Schwartz
clarified that this term was all about funding; and a County road did not
necessarily have to connect to a higher level road if funding was still
available.
Unidentified Speaker in
Audience – “Gordy?” (off microphone)
The speaker questioned if a road
was closed, was it a County, MnDOT or City decision.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City would be one of the jurisdictions included in the conversation, along
with the County and MnDOT; and would require a public hearing before taking
action.
The speaker noted that she had
spoken for former City Engineer Debra Bloom many times, and she just loved
her, and she was always told by Ms. Bloom that she would have to talk to the
County about a pathway along County Road B.
Mr. Schwartz concurred with those comments. Mr. Schwartz advised that Ramsey
County had a new cost-participation policy; but prior to its inception
approximately 1 year ago, they didn’t participate in any pedestrian
facilities; with the previous policy stating that local costs were borne by
the local city. Mr. Schwartz noted that this was one of the changes passed
recently by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, based on comments from
county residents that pedestrian facilities were a high priority they are now
willing to consider participation.
The speaker encouraged the City
to reduce the speed limit to 30 mph from Cleveland Avenue to the apartment
complex.
Mr. Schwartz advised that such a
request was also a process; and reviewed how it started with the City Council
adopting a resolution requesting Ramsey County to perform a speed study. Mr.
Schwartz advised that he would also look into that possibility.
Unidentified Female Speaker in
Audience (off microphone)
The speaker questioned which body
would make a decision on whether or not a pathway along County Road B would
happen: the Parks Department, the PWETC, the City Council; or who they should
speak to.
Chair Vanderwall advised that the
City Council is the final authorizing body for any decisions; and reviewed
the process for the work of the PWETC in submitting its recommendations to
the City Council based on their charge to the Commission in its advisory
capacity appointed by the City Council for matters pertaining to public
works, environment, and transportation.
Specific to the speaker’s
question related to Parks, Chair Vanderwall advised that they also served in
an advisory capacity as appointed by the City Council; and opined that the
City Council would consider the recommendations of all their advisors in
making their decisions. Chair Vanderwall noted that the City Council, as
elected officials, were the final decision-makers for the municipality.
At the request of the speaker as
to whether or not the County would also be involved, Chair Vanderwall
clarified that if the pathway was under City jurisdiction, the County would
have no need to be involved, other than their staff working with City staff;
but not providing any funding. If the City eventually owns the road, Chair
Vanderwall stated that it makes it easier for the City to set up pedestrian facilities
on-road versus off-road; perhaps by simply widening the road by 3’. However,
Chair Vanderwall noted that it all required a process that proceeded through
many small steps. Chair Vanderwall reiterated that this would be from a
different perspective from that of the Parks Department. For instance, Chair
Vanderwall noted that, with few exceptions, the draft priority list did not
look at any pathways through Central Park, but the majority traveling through
the community.
The speaker thanked the PWETC for
their help.
Mr. Grefenberg
Mr. Grefenberg requested that any
comments heard tonight; and the written comments and attachments be
incorporated into the meeting minutes and any other information sent to the
City Council.
Chair Vanderwall concluded public
comments at this time for discussion by the PWETC; and thanked the audience
for their attendance and their feedback.
Member DeBenedet suggested that
the body take the information from tonight’s meeting; and agree to return to
the next regular meeting to continue this discussion. Member DeBenedet
further suggested that the neighborhood heard from tonight select a representative
to attend that next meeting to ensure that whatever final recommendation the
PWETC made was clearly heard by the neighborhood, to avoid any allegations
that anything was decided in secret. Member DeBenedet noted that the PWETC
had already held four meetings on this issue.
Mr. Grefenberg offered the
services of the SWARN Executive Committee to facilitate that notification;
sending out information to their mailing list consisting of 70 people.
However, Mr. Grefenberg asked that their Committee be given more than 4-5
days notice of the next meeting.
Chair Vanderwall advised that the
PWETC met monthly on the fourth Tuesday of every month; with the exception of
December of this year (Christmas Eve); but scheduled to meet the week of
Thanksgiving, on Tuesday, November 26, 2013.
Mr. Grefenberg opined that it
would be helpful if these meetings could be held earlier, a goal that had been
addressed by the Civic Engagement Task Force. At the request of Chair
Vanderwall, Mr. Grefenberg noted that the notice received from Interim City
Manager Patrick Trudgeon had been sent out to phone trees; and in retrospect,
their neighborhood should have been attending the PWETC meetings from the
beginning.
Chair Vanderwall advised that the
PWETC would discuss notification options further at a later date.
Member DeBenedet asked to talk to
Mr. Grefenberg personally about this issue outside of this meeting.
7.
Natural Resources and Trails Subcommittee (NRATS) Plan /
Discussion
Due
to time constraints, this item was deferred to a future meeting.
8.
Receive 2014 Public Works Project Presentation
Due
to time constraints, this item was deferred to a future meeting.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – November 26, 2013
10.
Adjourn
Member Gjerdingen moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|