|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Vanderwall called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.; and Assistant Public Works Director/Engineer
Culver called the roll.
Members
Present: Chair Vanderwall; and Members Steve Gjerdingen; Jim
DeBenedet
Members
Excused: Members Dwayne Stenlund and Joan Felice
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; Assistant
Public Works Director/City Engineer Marcus Culver; Environmental Specialist
Ryan Johnson
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of February 25, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, approval of the February 25, 2014, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 9, Lines 382 - 391 (Vanderwall)
“Change to reflect that a school
bus driver had suggested to Chair Vanderwall that a separate bus lane be
provided to avoid conflicts with other traffic…”
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
In addition to those items listed
in the staff report, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz provided an update
on water service freeze-ups since the written reports included in the agenda
materials were prepared, noting that they were tapering off, but he still
estimated approximately forty homes without water service unless they had not
notified staff of a resolution. Mr. Schwartz further noted that, since the
weather was slow to cooperate this spring, the City was still experiencing significant
frost depth and water main breaks over the last few weeks, including seven in
the last week.
At the request of Mr. Schwartz,
Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Mark Culver reviewed the
five-year Ramsey County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and map dated March
10, 2014; and how those projects specifically related to Roseville, including
the Rice Street corridor, with option for the City Council to determine
potential utility undergrounding as part of that project; and other major issues
coming up in 2014 and beyond.
Mr. Culver reviewed annual
projected reconstruction, mill & overlay and seal coating projects from
2014 through 2018, recognizing that the projects could be moved according to
available funding, with use of the new County Wheelage Tax being used for
county-wide maintenance programs, particularly in picking up backlogged
projects.
Discussion among staff and
commissioners included those projects specific to Roseville and those with
cost-share or partnership opportunities and including pedestrian amenities
and signal work planned as part of those projects; safety issues and
mitigation efforts at the ramps at the Highway 36 and Rice Street
interchange; typical safety conflict and capacity issues on high-volume
roads; Minnesota State Aid (MSA) roadway requirements; and asking that staff
make Ramsey County aware that the City strongly supports shoulders for
bicycles at a minimum on roadway sections being reconstructed, or those
scheduled for mill and overlay where striping would accomplish similar
results.
Member Gjerdingen asked staff to
provide information for a typical section design at the next PWETC meeting.
Further discussion included staff
reporting that Ramsey County had stated that they were not looking at
restriping the section of County Road C west of Victoria with the bridge
redecking; but staff committed to reviewing options for addition of a safer
bicycle lane at that point, if a narrower drive lane was possible as part of
the re-decking of the bridge; with curb placement not an option until a
future project.
Member Vanderwall suggested a
roadway with fewer lanes may be an option on that segment to provide a safe
route for bicycles; however, he recognized that when there was a traffic
slowdown on the freeway, vehicles exited onto Little Canada Road and traffic
on County Road C in this area increased significantly.
Staff suggested that a signal may
be required and/or other intersection treatment at that point.
Mr. Culver noted that the
concrete rehabilitation Larpenteur Avenue project from Oxford to Dale, west
of Victoria street, and originally planned for 2013 would be under
construction in 2014. While the County is looking to assist the City with
funding for the Victoria Street and County Road B-2 projects, Mr. Culver
noted that otherwise there were limited opportunities for their involvement
for pathway projects.
At the request of Member
DeBenedet, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that there were only two proposals received
for the County Road B-2 sidewalk/pathway project; and they were currently in
the blind review process under Best Value Procurement procedures.
Mr. Schwartz provided a brief
update of last night’s City Council meeting, and the names of those new
members who will be serving on the newly-expanded PWETC (7 members total).
5.
Ownership of Water/Sewer Service Lateral Infrastructure
As
noted in the staff report, at their March 24, 2014 meeting the City Council
began a discussion of ownership of water and sewer service laterals in the
City. Mr. Schwartz advised that the City Council had requested more detailed
information and comparison information and cost participation scenarios if
any from surrounding communities for ownership options, noting that in his
past surveys of those policies, they varied considerably depending on
specific policies for each community. At this point, Mr. Schwartz advised
that staff had received no direction from the City Council until additional
information was available and further discussion was held.
Discussion
included whether or not freeze-ups were in localized areas or spread
throughout the community; water main materials used in the past and current
options, as well as depth of existing lines; recognizing that this winter is
not necessarily the new norm, with other options available to mitigate this
extended freeze-up list beyond typical freeze-ups in more normal winters;
ways to mitigate existing problem areas during pavement projects (e.g.
insulating pipes as water mains area replaced, bury depths and methods, pipe
bursting, and directional boring); and design considerations as watermains
are replaced along wider county rights-of-way for smaller, domestic mains on
the opposite side of the street from larger fire mains.
Further
discussion included assisting homeowners for an equitable situation, while
protecting the City’s liability with thawing lines through welding/stray
voltage concerns or other options; contracting versus private opening of
service lines; and hot water attempts with only an average 50% success rates
for those attempted due to the length of those services and more exposure on
roadways.
Member
DeBenedet opined that, from a general policy standpoint, and based on his
engineering experience, his concern was that when the City hires a contractor
and approves those plans and specifications, it needed to monitor and
follow-up with the contractor and/or subcontractors on frequent inspections
to avoid those vendors from being tempted to cut some corners and install
water service at 6’ versus the proscribed 8’ as specified. Member DeBenedet
questioned why a property owner should be responsible for that situation,
when they had nothing to do with the system’s design or inspection process,
opining that therefore the onus was not on the property owner.
Chair
Vanderwall asked staff to provide an update to the PWETC as it was available,
noting that the City Council’s policy decision would be of interest to the
Commission as well as the public.
6.
Stormwater Credit Policy
Mr.
Schwartz advised that this proposal had been on the Public Works Department’s
work plan for some time; and a property owner had recently requested
stormwater credit for mitigation efforts to prevent stormwater from leaving
his site, and fees he felt were too high based on that work, and the
topography and berming done specific to his site. At the request of Mr.
Schwartz, the City’s Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson reviewed research
on Best Management Practices (BMP’s) in urban environments to address runoff
into bodies of water, a major source of water pollution in urban areas. Mr.
Johnson presented a draft program that the City of Roseville could
potentially implement as detailed in the staff report as well as stormwater
rate comparisons with other local communities and those of Roseville. Mr.
Johnson noted that this was a first look at the proposed program, and staff
was seeking feedback, questions and ideas from the PWETC before proceeding
further.
Mr.
Johnson discussed the runoff generated during storm events for commercial and
residential properties based on their total acreage and impervious versus
pervious surface rations. Mr. Ryan noted that the goal was to encourage
property owners to manage stormwater on site to help manage problems overall,
not just in the municipality but also across the region. Mr. Johnson
reviewed some options, including rain gardens, porous driveways, dry wells,
infiltration trenches and other ways to mitigate this runoff, any of which
could qualify for a stormwater credit program, as proposed. Of course, Mr.
Johnson noted that depending on the type of system, continued monitoring at a
minimum of every five years would be required by an engineer, especially on
industrial sites.
Discussion
among staff and commissioners included how to prove underground storage
facilities were being maintained and cleaned out as applicable as diminishing
capacity was indicated with potential revoking of credits unless mitigation
efforts were forthcoming; preferred annual inspection of any property
receiving credits, whether by staff or engineers as applicable and depending
on the type of system (e.g. rain garden, pond, or underground infiltration
system); confined space entry requirements for inspection of underground
systems; whether citizen-driven complaints would initiate more frequent inspections
than typically proposed; equipment needed to monitor storm systems during
storm events; and potential for pilot programs initially, with many variables
and reliability factors coming into play that had a potential for
misinterpretation when overland drainage may occur in several different
directions from one site.
Further
discussion included assuring long-term performance for larger sites by
requiring them to have five-year inspections by an independent, certified
engineer to certify the inspection and that it was still working as designed,
with smaller items (e.g. rain gardens on one- or two-family residential
properties) handled by staff.
Additional
discussion included indications to determine if and how an underground system
was functioning through infiltration and retention, often difficult to
measure during storm event versus measuring the rate of infiltration after
the fact when the system is full; and clarification by staff that most of the
existing large systems had maintenance agreements in place, as required by
the applicable watershed district and having to provide that proof
periodically.
Mr.
Culver noted that the point made by Mr. Schwartz was worthwhile to realize
that projects most likely eligible for credit were probably extensions or
expansions of a required project that the site was undergoing due to
redevelopment on their site according to City and watershed district
standards necessary to meet pre-development rates and runoff, but their
pursuit of additional mitigation beyond those requirements to capture more
water. As noted by Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Culver noted that this would then
require a maintenance agreement as negotiated by the City and watershed
district, with mandated inspection requirements as part of that agreement.
Mr. Culver advised that this stormwater credit would simply piggyback on that
agreement to reward those developers and/or property owners choosing to be
proactive with stormwater management efforts.
Mr.
Johnson noted that another advantage was that often local watershed districts
had grant monies available for those seeking to be proactive, in addition to
this proposed credit, which served to decrease the overall cost of their
project, and provided more incentive and allowed them to capitalize on available
resources.
Chair
Vanderwall, with confirmation by Mr. Johnson, noted that this available grant
information could be obtained from watershed district websites, and outlining
the application requirements and process; with the information also available
by calling Engineering staff at Roseville City Hall.
Member
Gjerdingen expressed concern that, if enough credits were given, the
stormwater fund may be jeopardized; however, Mr. Johnson advised that the
stormwater fee would never reach zero, based on the proposed credits, but
anything to get less stormwater into the system, or get it treated before
reaching water bodies would serve to positively impact the area
environmentally, making the credits pay for themselves overall. Mr. Johnson
noted that this would also require a reduced cost for the City to have to
treat water going into the system, as well as taxpayers having to pay for
that treatment and have their fees increased accordingly.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that the assumption behind the proposed stormwater fee
assumes that all residential lots are similar and each contribute a certain
volume of stormwater runoff; and if that runoff was being treated and/or
volumes reduced, there would be less of an impact on the citywide storm
facilities as those properties handled their own runoff on their site. Mr.
Schwartz noted that the City had a previous credit policy back to the
inception of the stormwater utility; however, it was so outdated with current
stormwater regulations, it no longer applied, and any application of that
outdated policy had been resisted at the staff level in today’s regulatory
environment.
Member
Gjerdingen questioned if, given fixed costs for the stormwater system,
whether a budget analysis had been performed by staff if everyone participated
in the BMP program to ultimately reduce stormwater drainage; and to determine
the impacts to the utility and whether this was a good model or not.
Chair
Vanderwall opined that it may be a fair thing to do; even recognizing that
the first goal was not about revenue, but to reduce runoff. Chair Vanderwall
further opined that if stormwater out-take was reduced and fixed costs based
on revenue, they would bring other costs up; but for those not participating,
rates may actually increase across the board. Chair Vanderwall opined that,
given the cost of a BMP compared to potential savings, he wasn’t sure how
much motivation a property owner would have, if a BMP had a 30-year payback.
Mr.
Culver suggested that staff could crunch some numbers to determine what if
any losses would occur to the stormwater utility revenue. However, he
suggested that if even 10-20% of commercial or residential property owners
took advantage of the credit, they would be solving problems that the City
could not fix with its stormwater fund revenue anyway, since the costs to
handle all the existing issues were so many and extensive, current options
were simply applying Band-Aids to the problem. Even if the City received
extensive participation, with certified systems, Mr. Culver opined that if
revenues were affected, it would still have a dramatic impact on the City’s
runoff.
Mr.
Schwartz concurred, noting that the City had few opportunities to address
problem areas on private properties or rights-of-way under today’s regulatory
environment, and this allowed the City access to private property to solve
stormwater problems, with this providing some recognition and incentive for
those efforts.
Member
DeBenedet provided a personal example based on his installation of a rain
garden that deferred half of his roof area into it; however, the cost of the
project did not provide compensation to him, only allowed him to address the
concerns from a philosophical standpoint. For commercial or industrial
properties, Member DeBenedet opined that 4.2” of rain would require massive
and expensive storage, and questioned if anyone would try to capture that for
a 75% credit based on the number of years for any payback to be realized.
Mr.
Johnson noted that those were the cases where this program’s goal could
provide encouragement, in addition to local watershed grants, making it more
inviting for them. Mr. Johnson reiterated that any BMP or mitigation effort
was not a standalone program, but would allow regional improvements for water
quality concerns. Mr. Johnson clarified that property owners would only
receive credits for areas being captured, not necessarily for their entire
property.
As
an example, Mr. Johnson reviewed the property having sought stormwater
credits, and by map, reviewed each area on the overall property and the
intended area to be treated, and based on engineering specifications.
Mr.
Schwartz spoke to the PWETC’s earlier suggestion for periodic recertification
as part of a stormwater credit program.
Mr.
Johnson clarified that it was not staff’s intent to knock on doors to solicit
BMP’s; however, it would serve as another tool for developers to encourage
them to consider low impact design or redo their parking lots to receive
credits.
Member
Gjerdingen expressed concern that this may drive developers away from the
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.
Chair
Vanderwall noted that considerable efforts had already been expended by the
City and/or developers in addressing stormwater management in the Twin Lakes
area; and questioned if this would impact development in that area negatively
if they were interested in locating there.
Mr.
Culver opined that, with any new development, there were minimum stormwater
requirements a developer would need to meet (e.g. Walmart development); but this
would allow them to go beyond those basics to obtain grant monies and/or
stormwater credits to assist with their overall development costs. Whether
or not this would prove to be a significant deciding factor or not, Mr.
Culver was unable to address beyond the minimum requirements of the watershed
district and community regardless of where they located. Mr. Culver further
opined that there may be outside factors involved as well, including a
developer’s personal philosophy or stewardship efforts.
Mr.
Schwartz noted the recent example of Maplewood Mall and partnership of the
Mall’s ownership and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, with the
project driven by the watershed district, but providing a benefit to everyone
in targeting and meeting goals in certain areas.
Member
DeBenedet noted Leadership, Environment and Energy Design (LEED)
requirements, with points allotted for stormwater plans, but only up to the
point of meeting regulatory requirements, which he found to be an odd
concept. As an example, Member DeBenedet referenced the expansion and
remodeling of the Ramsey County Library – Roseville Branch and their
incorporation of a number of stormwater features not required to achieve LEED
Certification.
Related
to stormwater issues, Member Gjerdingen expressed his personal concern with
recent trenches installed along streets (e.g. Pascal south of County Road B)
that negatively impacted pedestrian accessibility. Member Gjerdingen opined
that, depending on their location, he preferred that a considerable amount of
care be given to how and where they were used; noting that they affected
future abilities to pave pathways in that area, as grading shifted
significantly.
For
the benefit of the body, Mr. Schwartz advised that rain gardens and/or
infiltration trenches had been installed as part of a previous pavement
project.
Member
DeBenedet suggested that staff may want to calculate examples to cost out
larger sites, and provide example sites to work out factoring interest in
their cost-effectiveness evaluation. Member DeBenedet opined that staff may
find that it doesn’t pay to do this without the benefit of other motivating
factors, even though it offered an opportunity to address additional
stormwater issues.
Chair
Vanderwall opined that it would provide another tool in the toolbox that
would help the City go in the desired direction in addressing stormwater
management concerns.
On
behalf of staff, Mr. Schwartz thanked the PWETC for their feedback, advising
that staff would take the proposal to the City Council at some point in the
near future to receive their feedback as well, and whether staff was directed
to proceed.
7.
Update on Recycling for Business/Institutions
At
the request of Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Johnson noted inquiries from several churches
and businesses to participate in the City’s curbside recycling program. As
detailed in the staff report, Mr. Johnson noted that these commercial and
institutional properties had been using the blue recycling bins through the
Roseville system for the past three years, while not paying the quarterly
recycling fee, since the program was only intended for residential
properties.
In
an effort to encourage their continued interest and participation in
recycling, Mr. Johnson advised that staff had consulted with Eureka
Recycling, who was willing to deliver a cart and add these properties to
their routes if the City wanted to expand its recycling program. Mr. Johnson
advised that the City would receive revenue sharing from anything coming out
of these issues, and in an effort to tap into their interest and potentially
expand the recycling program even further for commercial properties and
further reduce materials going into landfills, there seemed to be a driving
force to at least initiate the conversation. Mr. Johnson noted that these
types of institutions typically had been found to produce similar materials
to average household.
Member
DeBenedet noted that expanding the program had been discussed by the PWETC in
the past when addressing community values.
Chair
Vanderwall opined that it was beneficial that these customers sought out
participation, with the set-up already available to those who were already
participation and providing an opportunity for others to participate, versus
the City mandating their participation.
Mr.
Johnson concurred, noting that it provided another option for more materials
to be recycled rather than end up in the landfill, a goal of both the City,
the majority of its residents, and Eureka Recycling.
At
the request of Chair Vanderwall, Mr. Johnson reported on the how the
single-sort recycling implementation program was going overall; noting that
his initial time spent at 31% during the initial roll-out had now decreased
to approximately 5% of his time spent. If the City Council chose to expand
the program into commercial properties, Mr. Johnson opined that it would
increase again. However, Mr. Johnson advised that Eureka Recycling staff had
stated that this was the smoothest rollout they’d experienced to-date; with
residents appearing to adapt to it well, and the only issues with figuring
out their scheduled pick-ups. Mr. Johnson opined that it had gone well from
his perspective, and he had heard no negatives from Eureka about the carts;
with most calls to staff from residents having been positive and working out
well.
Member
DeBenedet expressed his frustration with plastics marked “3” or “6” not
included in the pick-up, when his initial understanding had been that Eureka
would pick-up everything marked “1” through “7.” Mr. Johnson clarified that
there was currently no market for “3” or “6” containers, and they would
simply end up in the landfill.
With
Chair Vanderwall noting that the ability to recycle those plastics marked “5”
had helped considerably, with Mr. Johnson concurring that it was a big
addition to the program.
Chair
Vanderwall opined that it would be nice if manufacturers would apply numbers
so they could be read more easily.
Referencing
a recent document he’d received from the City of St. Paul, Mr. Schwartz noted
the intent to ask the public to pressure the packaging industry to change to
recyclable products; and offered to pursue interest from the City Council in
helping with those efforts from a consumer standpoint.
In
conjunction with that document referenced by Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Culver noted
the mission of Eureka Recycling in educating and communicating with consumers
on their purchase choices when there is more than one option; with
consideration given to not only price, but packaging and whether recyclable
or not. Mr. Culver noted that the pressure on any manufacturer was the
bottom sales line.
Chair
Vanderwall advised that using that choice on whether or not a package was
recyclable or not was weighing in on his personal purchasing habits.
Returning
to the potential expansion of recycling to interested institutions and small
businesses on a voluntary basis, Mr. Johnson advised that those properties
seeking this service were fully aware that they had not been charged in the
old system, and would not be charged on their utility bills like other
properties receiving the service. Mr. Johnson advised that he had heard no
objections about that potential cost, with their interest being the
preference to have this choice provided to them. Typically, Mr. Johnson
advised that the expanded program would fall under the $5/quarter fee; noting
that the list of types of uses (Attachment B) had been provided to Eureka for
them to perform a fair market cost top pick up at each of those types of
businesses, with the cost difference based on weight.
Mr.
Johnson sought feedback from the PWETC on whether or not they thought this
was a good approach to offer small businesses and institutions moving
forward.
Chair
Vanderwall expressed his hope that Eureka could keep prices in line or below
the cost currently realized by businesses having their trash haulers take
materials, in an effort to provide motivation that they’ll benefit from such
an effort.
Mr.
Johnson opined that it could then serve to spur others to seek that same more
economical options, creating another avenue to get more materials recycled
and out of landfills.
Chair
Vanderwall expressed his interest in hearing more about this expansion going
forward.
Consensus
of the PWETC was that they were supportive of the potential expansion of the
program moving forward to the City Council.
Regarding
previous requests of the PWETC and others in the City who wanted to tour the
Eureka single-sort facility at some point in the near future, Mr. Schwartz
advised that Eureka was still working out some minor bugs with installers and
manufacturers of equipment, but were looking at May or early June for a tour.
Chair
Vanderwall asked staff to include retired commissioners on the tour as well;
which was duly noted by Mr. Schwartz.
8.
Staff Update on 2013/2014 Snow Management Process
Mr.
Schwartz provided an update to the PWETC on 2013/2014 snow management efforts
as detailed in the staff report and his March 19, 2014 memorandum to City
Manager Patrick Trudgeon entitled, “State Contract Ice Control Materials
Purchasing,” as had been requested by the City Council.
Discussion
among staff and commissioners included the little amount of salt on hand, and
increased use of sand, recognizing the negative impact on the stormwater system;
preparations of street vacuuming/sweeping in the near future as soon as the
weather allowed; and anticipated increase in many agencies in their salt
requests for next season to have additional security with larger reserves and
to rebuild depleted reserves if large enough storage facilities were
available, and related impacts to prices. Mr. Schwartz advised that most
states were experiencing similar shortages, as well as production issues
created with those additional requests.
Chair
Vanderwall asked staff the results of their conversations with Ramsey County
in addressing those areas on County roads throughout the City that needed
more attention, particularly at intersections. Chair Vanderwall noted the
difficulties in meeting local requirements when main arterials throughout the
community were controlled by other jurisdictions.
In
defense of Ramsey County efforts, Mr. Schwartz advised that their roadways
were often faced with much higher traffic volumes; and with the cold
temperatures, the materials applied had limited effectiveness, especially
with the products available during the most recent storm event. Mr. Schwartz
advised that City staff forwarded citizen, Police and Fire Department
complaints as applicable to Ramsey County as they were received, and Ramsey
County had shown up to treat those areas. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that
often, within a few hours that material was no longer effective, or pushed
off to the side or blown off by traffic volumes. Mr. Schwartz noted that the
last snow event had also been an issue of timing, opining that it was rare
that prolonged cold weather occurred after such an event. While Ramsey
County did secure additional salt at some point, Mr. Schwartz noted that when
temperatures warmed it made a world of difference. Whether or not Ramsey
County could have done better, Mr. Schwartz could not offer an opinion.
Chair
Vanderwall opined that, in his 38 years in the transportation industry, this
had been the worst winter in his memory, and the snow event referenced by Mr.
Schwartz the worst episode he’d seen – both how it started and its length.
Chair Vanderwall noted that agencies were out working on the issues, but
received little for their efforts expended; which was now leading to
resulting potholes and the patching being experienced throughout the
metropolitan area.
At
the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz responded that, at this point
and depending on what happened to the price of salt and other ice control
materials, the City would not need to seek additional revenue sources from
the City Council. Mr. Schwartz advised that one of the reasons for this was
that the winter season was spread over two budget cycles, with purchases of
sale made in the fall for the preceding year, which fell in the next year’s
budget cycle for snow and ice control dollars. Mr. Schwartz opined that he
didn’t see the need for additional funding at this point; however, he
anticipated typical price increases, with actual bids done annually in June,
at which time staff would know the numbers needed for the next budget cycle.
At
the request of Chair Vanderwall, Mr. Schwartz advised that the bid documents
were just being prepared, so at this time he was not aware if they would
include a request for increased overage percentages.
Chair
Vanderwall opined that he wouldn’t necessarily want Roseville to purchase
additional salt for next year, but would support the State Bid seeking a
larger cushion statewide to be prepared for extreme winter weather, as the
potential for weather instability may continue. Chair Vanderwall spoke in
support of one source available for salt storage by the state, without
building larger salt piles at individual cities.
Member
DeBenedet noted that salt had a limited shelf life; with Mr. Schwartz agreeing,
noting that humidity affected with caking occurring. Member DeBenedet opined
that typically, sever winters tended to run in cycles of 2-3 years, and a
clustering of events may occur; making it prudent to purchase an extra 10%
for the upcoming year and the year after that, and then adjusting purchases
after that cycle.
Member
DeBenedet opined that the cost of the material itself was not as great of an
expense as the extra costs for salaries, overtime, vehicle and equipment
operations, and fuel.
Mr.
Culver noted that contracts with vendors were negotiated, putting them at
risk to move up to an additional 30% overage as well, which had the potential
to increases costs as they tried to cover those unknowns and reduce their
additional risk.
Chair
Vanderwall expressed his appreciation to staff for hearing about this from
their perspective.
9.
Recognition of Outgoing Commission Members
Member
DeBenedet noted that he had the pleasure of serving on the PWETC for almost
eight years, originally filling an unexpired term, and subsequently serving
for an additional two full terms. Member DeBenedet thanked the City Council
for appointing and reappointing him; noting that he had stressed at the time
of his appointment, and reiterated it periodically, that his interest had
been to see how the City was addressing its one to five year maintenance for
its underground infrastructure. Based on his work in the engineering field,
and observing the negative impacts in deferring problems until they showed up
on someone else’s watch, Member DeBenedet expressed appreciation for the City
of Roseville stepping up and addressing those infrastructure problems with a
forward-looking approach through implementation of its long-term capital
improvement program. Member DeBenedet opined that, for those expecting to
live in Roseville for the long-term, this provided more stability and would
avoid them seeing dramatic increases in future water and sewer bills. Member
DeBenedet opined that staff deserved a lot of credit for those efforts and
the results.
Member
DeBenedet expressed his personal appreciation in having served with Public
Works Director Schwartz and former City Engineer Debra Bloom; as well as
current staff, stating that he had no advice for them other than heard from
his fellow PWETC members.
Chair
Vanderwall concurred with the comments of Member DeBenedet for the most
part. However, Chair Vanderwall advised that he didn’t seek appointment to
the PWETC based on his interest in water and sewer infrastructure, but
instead having more interest in the City’s road system. Chair Vanderwall
opined that it was a great pleasure for him to be an insider to the work of
staff and the department; and to hear things from their perspective. Chair
Vanderwall expressed appreciation to staff for their professionalism as they
listened to the questions and comments of the PWETC, individually and
corporately, even when some of those questions and comments may have been
misguided or opinionated; and still responding with honest and well-thought-out
answers. Chair Vanderwall opined that it was great to have the opportunity
to ask those questions and learn from the responses.
Chair
Vanderwall thanked staff and the City Council for creating the PWETC. As a
participant in the recent interview process for newly appointed
commissioners, and with the expansion of the PWETC from five to seven
members, Chair Vanderwall opined that, from his observations, the City
Council’s appointees would do well.
Chair
Vanderwall thanked Member DeBenedet for serving as his mentor, and for his
service as the former Chair of the PWETC. Chair Vanderwall concluded by
stating that his time of service on the PWETC had been good, and he felt
honored to have served in that capacity.
While
the City Council would be formally recognizing them in the near future
(scheduled for April 17, 2014 at this time on the preliminary agenda), on
behalf of staff, Public Works Director Schwartz extended the appreciation of
staff for the thoughtful input provided by Chair Vanderwall and Member
DeBenedet over the years. Mr. Schwartz opined that it extended staff’s
expertise to be able to draw upon the knowledge of citizen/residents to help
staff through issues they were faced with. Mr. Schwartz thanked them both
for their time and effort, and the many Tuesday evenings they served on the
PWETC.
10.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – April 22, 2014
·
Stenlund
Capstone Presentation
·
Asset
Management Implementation Update
·
Election
of Officers with the expansion of the PWETC to seven members Chair Vanderwall
noted that Member Stenlund was Vice Chair of the PWETC, and therefore may be
the convener of the meeting next month.
·
Mr.
Schwartz noted that there may be additional items coming from City Council
discussions between tonight’s meeting and next month’s meeting.
11.
Adjourn
Member DeBenedet moved, Member
Vanderwall seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:24 p.m.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|