|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Vanderwall called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Vanderwall; and Members Dwayne Stenlund; Steve
Gjerdingen; Jim DeBenedet; and Joan Felice
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; and introduction
of Assistant Public Works Director / City Engineer Marcus Culver
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of November 26, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the November 28, 2014, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 2, Line 57 (Felice)
Correct second name reference to
“Culver” rather than “Schwartz”
·
Page 2, Lines 77, 79 (Gjerdingen, DeBenedet)
Line 77: Revised sentence to
read: “… Woodhill, or potentially C-2; Dale Street…”
Line 79: Correct to read County
Road “D” rather than “B”
·
Page 3, Lines 80-82 (DeBenedet, Gjerdingen)
Correct to read: “…County Road C
from the west end to Rice Street). Member Gjerdingen stated that [in
the] future, [planning] would determine how things
would look with the PETC expected to weigh in heavily [consult]
during that process.”
·
Page 4, Lines 139-140 (Vanderwall)
Correct to read: “Mr. Schwartz
questioned how best to obtain that information to get a comparison of existing
cities [with organized collection and multiple haulers] currently
dividing the city, but part of organized collection.
·
Page 6, Line 222 (Vanderwall)
Correct to read: “…with the 85th
percentile [speed of all data collected] indicating a speed of
46.1 mph [on the east end] and 36.2 mph [near the west
end.]”
·
Page 8, Line 347 (Gjerdingen)
Correct to read: “…-road
solution made more sense [would make more sense at
that time].
·
Page 12, Line 517 (Gjerdingen)
Correct to read: “…Highway 36 [Service
Road.] …”
·
Page 12, Lines 532-534 (Felice)
Correct to read: “The City
Council to consider accomplish[ment] of this build-out plan for those
projects with a composite ranking of 3.4 or [and] higher
[(on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the highest)] within an
approximately twelve (12) year period.”
·
Page 16, Lines 708, 721 (Gjerdingen, Stenlund)
Line 708: Typographical
correction “year”
Line 721: Typographical
correction “responsible”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Abstentions:
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Schwartz
briefly reviewed and provided project updates since the last meeting; and
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
January 28, 2014.
Discussion included new
technologies being researched by staff for sewer lines with frequent failures
close to the “Y,” costs for that technology; current City policy for
cost-share between the City and property owner for line failures depending on
the location of those failures; availability of an updated Pavement
Management Map (PMP) available in the near future; investigation by staff of
eligibility of common interest properties for I & I grant funds from the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for private sewer services; staff
acknowledgement of attendance by several PWETC members at the recent Metro
Transit Open House for the proposed Bus Rapid Transit Line and additional
study required; and Twin Lakes rights-of-way purchase negotiations to-date.
Chair Vanderwall requested a
future comprehensive report on sewer lining technologies as referenced by
staff.
Further discussion included the
short supply of ice control materials due to the winter weather conditions
throughout the region to-date; and a number of weather-related water main
breaks and meter freeze-ups.
Mr. Schwartz informed the PWETC
of the City Council’s recent expansion of with two additional members,
effective April 1, 2014; in addition to filling to expiring terms during that
same cycle.
Member Stenlund questioned the
City Council’s rationale in expanding the PWETC membership.
Mr. Schwartz noted that this was
not a staff-generated suggestion; and suggested the intent may have been to
ensure sufficient attendance for a quorum, not just for this commission, but
consistently among all advisory commissions.
Member DeBenedet referenced the
recent public informational meeting held for the proposed County Road B
pathway, and positive feedback from residents on for the interim solution as
directed by the City Council; as well as current negotiations for turn back
of the roadway from Ramsey County to the City of Roseville, with anticipated turn
back for presentation to the City Council in 2014. Member DeBenedet also
noted the administrative agreement by Ramsey County and the City of Roseville
to lower the speed limit along this segment to 30 mph; with staff proposing
to address that within the next few weeks as work schedules and weather
permitted. Member DeBenedet noted concerns expressed by neighbors was to
install some type of barrier or rumble strip to separate vehicular and
pedestrian/bicycle traffic, or some method to alert drivers from wandering
from their lanes. Member DeBenedet noted that the anticipated life cycle
left on the existing pavement was ten years; and that widening the shoulder
would be an expensive project.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
was scheduled to return to the City Council with neighborhood feedback on the
County Road B pathway at their regular February 10, 2014 meeting.
Further discussion included
variable speed limits along County Road B; the deleted work on Rice Street
water main lining project in 2013 and what may be reprogrammed for those mains.
Chair Vanderwall noted that there
was a portion of Dale Street adjacent to the former fire station that had a
reduced speed limit of 30 mph; and suggested that with redevelopment in the
area and demolition of the fire station, staff give consideration to and
discuss with Ramsey County whether to increase the speed to be consistent
with other portions of the street currently at 35 mph.
5.
Update of Recycling Program Roll Out
Mr. Schwartz provided a brief
update on the upcoming roll-out of the Recycling Program by Eureka Recycling
for single sort recycling, new wheeled containers versus bins, and
every-other week pick-up. Mr. Schwartz noted that Eureka was prepared to
deliver carts for two weeks; and residents were informed of the schedule by a
flyer in the mail, as well as other media sources, including the City’s
website.
Discussion included the need to
publish the calendar, including holiday pick-up changes, on the Public Works
section of the City’s website; and the request for proposals process having
evolved prior to current discussions at the Legislature for a proposed
recycling charge for bottles and cans.
6.
Pavement Management Program (PMP) Goals and Funding
Mr.
Schwartz provided a detailed presentation of the current PMP and methodology,
as requested by the PWETC. Mr. Schwartz asked commissioners to let staff
know, following this presentation, if additional information or research by
staff was needed. Mr. Schwartz’ presentation covered: goals, policies,
maintenance practices; and budget scenarios at various funding levels to
demonstrate potential impact on pavement conditions with each scenario.
Pavement
Management – ICON software program
·
Systematic
approach – 20% per year analysis
·
Annual
condition surveys
·
PCI
Rating (Pavement Condition index)
·
Defined
maintenance program based on condition rating – typical condition versus cost
analysis
·
Monitor
system condition to recommend spending plan – Capital Improvement Program
(CIP)
Discussion
included variables to move areas up as pavement conditions change or to
correlate project areas, and under the overall CIP, including other inputs
and factors.
Maintenance
Policy
·
Rating
66 – 100 = preventative crack sealing, sealcoating
·
Rating
36 – 65 = preventative crack sealing, sealcoating, mill and overlay
·
Rating
35 and under = reconstruction
·
Goal
to maintain an average rating of 75 network condition index
Discussion
included typical life cycles of pavement, and deterioration based on many
factors, including weather, short-term (annual) and long-term maintenance;
and visual examples of various conditions and ratings.
Mr.
Schwartz referenced the recent field tour taken by PWEC members, and existing
delamination roads (20.55 miles) city wide, with quite a few still under analysis
depending on the year they were paved, water conditions, and whether there
are indications of whether a more than normal number of pavements at a
certain age have deteriorating pavements, observed by surface distresses.
Mr. Schwartz noted that this is not an exclusive City of Roseville issue, but
under discussion by the industry metro-wide. Mr. Schwartz clarified that
surface raveling had little effect on overall pavement ratings under the
current methodology, but with further examination and study being performed
by transportation and engineering staff at the state, county and local levels
to determine if this is a materials or construction issue.
Member
DeBenedet asked staff, for the next discussion of the PMP, they provide a
plot map showing marginal streets (in the 50-35 range), then adding poor
(below 50) and other streets with surface distress to provide a more accurate
picture of what the City was facing over the next 5 years to 10 years.
Mr.
Schwartz noted that the program indicated an overall rating of just over 80,
but staff considered it to be lower, with the City’s overall goal currently
to maintain the street network at a level of 75 or higher.
Current
Funding
·
Infrastructure
Fund = $13 million plus
·
Minnesota
State Aid (MSA) Streets = $900,000 for 2014 construction allotment
·
Street
maintenance annual budget
Mr.
Schwartz reported that, according to Finance Director Chris Miller, the
current investment on the PMP is around a 3% annual return; with original
assumptions for a return of 5-6% annual return; creating some funding challenges
for the PMP.
Budget
Scenarios Used by the City Council’s CIP Subcommittee in Developing the
20-year CIP
Mr.
Schwartz reviewed various funding scenarios for the pavement program showing
the backlog of CIP needs. Mr. Schwartz noted, displaying a graph showing
current funding, that the Subcommittee found that the City would need to
increase the PMP funding and spending to keep the PMP ratings at an
acceptable number by increasing the PMP funding by approximately $1 million
annually. Mr. Schwartz noted that there would be $300,000 and $400,000 of tax
levy available as existing street bonds were paid off in 2014 and 2015.
Mr.
Schwartz displayed several different budget scenarios for the years between
2014 and 2033, using current average PCI; and the subsequent total backlog
created for the PMP for those specific years based on the current maintenance
program, totaling $90 million.
At
the request of Member Felice, Mr. Schwartz responded that the deterioration
and condition index was not directly related to traffic only. Mr. Schwartz
advised that the methodology developed for this pavement condition index
software used nation-wide data, with adjustments to the Roseville deterioration
curves made over time based on our data sets. Mr. Schwartz advised that this
program had been used by the City since the 1980’s, and the local data
suggest that the city’s pavement life averages better than nationwide data.
Specific
to the surface deterioration dilemma, Chair Vanderwall questioned how
confident staff was that the current projects were not experiencing the same
issues and problems with materials and premature deterioration of pavement
conditions.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the information was not available, but staff was
considering designating some control areas to determine how they perform, up
to the time they would typically be scheduled for mill and overlay.
Member
DeBenedet spoke in support of those control areas, opining that he had often wondered
if the time and expense of sealcoating had a significant enough payback to
continue. Member DeBenedet noted that many cities had ceased that practice;
and questioned if there was a broader issue, whether only materials or mix
design issues with MnDOT.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that some studies are currently underway to determine if
there were actually construction issues, problems with mix materials, or their
application.
Chair
Vanderwall spoke in support of investigating the process applied and area
covered by independent parties that weren’t trying to defend their particular
positions.
At
the request of Member DeBenedet, Mr. Schwartz reviewed how and when staff was
available to provide on-site inspections for mill and overlay projects;
typically with the inspector on-site when the mixture is applied, especially
as required for all MSA streets, with additional core and temperature testing
performed as indicated.
Chair
Vanderwall alerted Mr. Schwartz to an apparent core hole at County Road C and
Western that needed filling.
Member
Stenlund observed that for those roadways at a PCI rating of 77 or higher,
and that the trend of the displayed graph indicated that the City was close
to the intercept slope, with the backlog larger than desired.
Mr.
Schwartz noted that staff was observing more common distresses in pavement,
some due to age, for the majority of those streets constructed in the late
1980’s and 1990’s; creating the concerns in materials applied and/or
construction processes used.
Returning
to the current spending level presentation, Mr. Schwartz reviewed scenarios
that would eliminate sealcoating and crack sealing efforts; and estimated
that, without basic preventative maintenance developed from index data,
condition ratings for those streets would fall to 44. Under that scenario,
Mr. Schwartz noted that it showed if the City were to put all maintenance
dollars toward reconstruction with no maintenance, the average ratings were
reduced to 36 after 20 years.
Discussion
included small town versus some streets in Roseville currently bituminous and
resident expectations that even under a worst case scenario, they would not
support those roadways not revert to gravel, in addition to the expense of
removing and resurfacing to that material and ongoing maintenance as well;
providing support for elected officials needing to make sometimes unpopular
spending decisions to maintain an effective and cost-effective PMP, as well
as helping residents understand the seriousness of this funding situation.
Members
observed that these types of infrastructure issues, including underground
utilities, were invisible and unknown to taxpayers until they failed.
Next
Steps – Additional Information Needed
Member
DeBenedet opined that the information provided by Mr. Schwartz was
sufficient. Member DeBenedet noted that over past years and occasional street
reconstruction projects in Roseville, residents were not supportive of paying
assessments for curb & gutter installation. However, he opined that such
an attitude wasn’t fair to the broader community if a neighborhood was able
to dictate projects specific to their neighborhoods, without giving fair
consideration to the benefit for the entire City. Member DeBenedet spoke in
support of the City Council’s policy decision to not assess for street
maintenance programs that might create additional difficulty in getting
projects done; with all taxpayers paying versus individual assessments, as
supported by the PMP.
At
the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz responded to potential cost
savings if street widths were reduced when reconstructed, at a minimum for
residential streets that were low volume; advising that obviously while less
pavement equaled fewer dollars, the Roseville street width policy came at a
time before current water volume concerns and green space concerns, and cost
ramifications. Mr. Schwartz opined that, if Roseville had developed at a
different time, it may have had narrower streets. However, Mr. Schwartz
noted that the City of Roseville is not scheduled to be reconstructing a lot
of streets in the next twenty years, and while there may be occasional
opportunities to follow this trend being used by some other cities (called
“road diets); when possible the City could consider this option to narrow the
vehicular portion of the roadway to make room for pedestrian and/or rainwater
facilities. Mr. Schwartz noted that some of those options had already been
used (e.g. County Road B and Victoria Street) where roadways appear to be
overbuilt for current and projected traffic volumes. Mr. Schwartz opined
that this may be a valid consideration going forward.
Further
discussion included potential water issues if on-street parking was not
provided on an engineered or paved surface; potential roads that could be
redefined if currently overbuilt to provide pedestrian/bicycle facilities;
areas of deterioration in pavement typically seen in wheel paths and/or shady
areas; costs of removing existing asphalt to reduce a roadway width and
removal/replacement of curb & gutter; and reconstruction practices for
pavement depths leaving existing curb lines as more cost-effective compared
to mill and overlay.
Recess
Chair Vanderwall recessed the
meeting at approximately 7:49 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:54 p.m.
7.
Introduction of City Engineer
Mr.
Schwartz introduced the City’s new Assistant Public Works Director/City
Engineer Marcus Culver, who started employment with the City on December 3,
2013.
Mr.
Culver provided a brief summary of his background; personal and professional
biographies; expertise in transportation engineering areas; and work to-date
with 2014 PMP and pathway projects as well as the Parks & Recreation
Revitalization program, in addition to daily workloads.
At
the request of Chair Vanderwall, Mr. Culver reviewed his educational and
training background in more detail; and work in the transportation arena on
the technology side with video detection equipment worldwide installing that
software before moving on to the City of Maple Grove and development and
management of larger projects as he was introduced to multiple municipal
engineering disciplines. Mr. Culver reviewed some of the larger projects
he’d been involved in, including extension of Highway 610; federal aid
projects on larger county roads; and developing a network with federal, state
and county industry representatives.
At
the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Culver reviewed some of the potential
projects coming before the City of Roseville over the next few years,
including an I-35W interchange project; development of the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area; the overall regional and local traffic situation; and
lessons learned to-date in speed controls, signal timing and monitoring in
cooperation with state and county guidance for their equipment.
At
the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Culver briefly reviewed some of the
goals he saw for the department, expressing his appreciation of the
groundwork already laid by Public Works Director Schwartz and former City
Engineer Debra Bloom, opining that due to their accomplishments. Mr. Culver
advised that he saw a need to continue the good relationships with area
watershed districts; coordination with other engineering staff and their
areas of expertise; addressing the City’s historical issues and challenges in
resolving stormwater drainage; PMP issues as discussed earlier this evening
with Mr. Schwartz; all while meeting the expectations of residents while
balancing that with the realities of today.
At
the request of Chair Vanderwall, Mr. Culver recognized the need for ongoing
cooperation with Parks & Recreation Department staff and Public Works
staff and commissions to provide sufficient engineering expertise. Mr.
Culver noted that, to-date, the Public Works/Engineering Department had been
very involved with the Parks Master Plan process, and would continue to do
so, in conjunction with their planners and engineers, and as they sought
input. Mr. Culver noted that, while the two departments were separate with
separate and sometimes competing funding sources, they are key to each
other’s success.
At
the request of Member Stenlund, Mr. Culver briefly reviewed his perception of
emerging engineering issues for Roseville, including new technologies of
which he was aware from his traffic background, and opportunities for
Roseville to benefit from them, particular on the signal side as they were
able to perhaps provide adaptive timing of those signals around the Rosedale
Mall area, benefitting the City as a whole and regional traffic issues. Mr.
Culver noted that there are many new technologies and computer software
programs available to provide management tools, as well as making that
information available to residents to improve their quality of life. Mr.
Culver suggested that some of those technologies may be available for use as
the Twin Lakes area redeveloped.
Mr.
Culver noted that another trend was for “Complete Streets,” and recognized
the great work the PWETC had done in updating the master trail system with a
priority to connect the City, opining that was always a challenge if a newly
paved surface was indicated but removal of trees and/or vegetation was
required.
Mr.
Culver further referenced the recent open house for the Bus Rapid Transit,
using it as an example of new transit opportunities for Roseville, both
short- and long-term; as well as anticipating how bus and light rail may
evolve in the regional area.
Mr.
Culver advised that he had only been able to initially skim through the
Comprehensive Plan related to traffic.
Member
DeBenedet noted the significant issues with increased traffic from Twin Lakes
and impacts to County Road C traffic at Snelling Avenue and wait times,
particularly during the peak p.m. period. Member DeBenedet opined that as
expressways around and through the City have developed enough, he could not
support further upgrades for Snelling Avenue (e.g. grade-separated
throughways) that would basically serve to provide routes for other
communities through Roseville. Member DeBenedet asked that Mr. Culver take
that into consideration as neighborhoods and areas developed around the Twin
Lakes area.
Mr.
Culver recognized that there had been and would continue to be a constant
battle in dealing with Snelling Avenue, with crossings having been
problematic for some years already.
Chair
Vanderwall suggested that, if Mr. Culver could solve pedestrian crossing for
County Road B and Snelling without risking their lives that could serve as a
career goal for him.
Mr.
Culver advised that he was looking forward to working with MnDOT on potential
solutions through signal coordination that may reduce some of those longer
cues on side streets crossing those major intersections. Mr. Culver
recognized that some of those intersections in the metropolitan area were
notorious for very long green times on roads under other jurisdictions while
they were not so accommodating for left turns or crossing traffic; noting
that was a valid point as well as a challenge. Mr. Culver noted that, while
the City of Roseville could decide to spend a lot of money on Snelling Avenue
resolutions, it would only serve to result in higher speeds on Snelling; and
was essentially a much larger regional problem to get traffic off Snelling
Avenue and back onto I-35W or other transit options. Mr. Culver noted the need
for the City to be involved in those regional discussions, recognizing the
value of Mr. Schwartz’ services on the TAB Met Council Transportation
Committee to provide input as those policies were developed or updated. Mr.
Culver noted that it was a complicated issue with an unfortunate trickle-down
effect for Roseville.
While
he was cognizant of some of these issues, Mr. Culver admitted that it had
been hard to get a clear picture during typical rush hours, when there were
currently so many other factors at play, including ice and snow on the
roads. Mr. Culver noted that he had observed huge cues in December and
January on County Road C, but had yet to determine the norm even though he
recognized that it wasn’t good, and would require discussions with Ramsey
County and MnDOT.
Beyond
transportation, Mr. Culver advised that he needed to study the City’s storm
water comprehensive plan, as well as more in-depth study of the land use and
transportation comprehensive plan. Mr. Culver noted the number of things on
the horizon mandated for the City by the MPCA for potential TMDL’s for
stormwater, including chloride for all jurisdictions/agencies in MN. Mr.
Culver noted that this winter was a prime example of the importance of those
new mandates and balancing safety versus water quality, a very difficult and
political battle that would impact Roseville in the near future.
Chair
Vanderwall thanked Mr. Culver for attending tonight and providing his
perspectives.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that he would not be available for the February 2014
meeting, and Mr. Culver would be the staff representative for the PWETC.
8.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – February 25, 2014
·
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was nearing final plans on
several projects, and would provide a preview of that work
·
Member Felice expressed an interest in the water quality
issues, their location and specific problems.
Mr. Culver advised that some
projects were slated for 2014, but obviously some larger water quality issues
would remain and could be addressed as part of that discussion.
·
Member Stenlund advised that his capstone project for Roseville
with U of MN students had looked at LED lighting, and their report was worth
bringing to the PWETC’s attention, as he found it quite valuable.
Member Stenlund advised that he
would be unavailable for the February and March meetings due to work travel
commitments.
Chair Vanderwall suggested
waiting until Member Stenlund returned to receive the report.
·
Member Stenlund requested a discussion and staff report on the role
of trains in Roseville, since this issue had become a hot topic in other
communities; and the need for Roseville to be prepared to understand where
the rail lines were, how and when engines were idling, their frequency, and
quantity.
Chair Vanderwall suggested there
was probably an increase in rail activity with the increase in economic
activities; and recognized that there were federal laws in place that
addressed their operation.
Member Stenlund suggested the
City needed to be aware of those regulations to be prepared to address any
noise and/or quality of life issues, particularly for north/south routes.
·
As mentioned at a previous meeting, Member Gjerdingen requested
a discussion on ice control citywide, specifically on pathways and trails;
and standards for plowing in residential and commercial areas and how they
were similar or different. Member Gjerdingen opined that a review of
internal and external publications should be performed by the PWETC,
including a review and feedback for the Parks & Recreation Department and
City Council eventually; but to begin with a review of current practices and
policies. Specific to streets, Member Gjerdingen requested consideration of
intersections, crosswalks, signals and bus stops. Member Gjerdingen
expressed concern that the public may not be aware of current regulations and
expectations about sidewalks, and suggested additional communication was
needed to inform residents of those standards; along with a review of current
ordinances on commercial property owner responsibilities for sidewalks.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that
the Parks & Recreation Department be part of those discussions as well.
9.
Adjourn
Member Felice moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:24 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|