|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Stenlund called the meeting
to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.; and Public Works Director Schwartz
called the roll.
Members
Present: Chair Stenlund; and Members Steve Gjerdingen; Joan Felice; Joe Wozniak;
Sarah Lenz; Duane Seigler; and Brian Cihacek.
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; and
Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson
2.
Public Comments
3.
Approval of April 22, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Member Felice moved, Member
Wozniak seconded, approval of the April 22, 2014, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Line 14 (Wozniak)
Typographical correction:
Spelling of Member Wozniak’s name
·
Page 2, Line 79 (Gjerdingen)
Typographical Correction: Change
“O” to “of”
·
Page 5, Lines 212 – 216 (Gjerdingen)
Correct paragraph to read as
follows: “Further discussion included the types of buses (30’) to start the
line; scheduling considerations and challenges. Discussion also included
reduced rider fairs for shorter segments that were not currently intended and
not typically used other than in downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Additional discussion included the possible addition of a sidewalk installed
west of Snelling Avenue between Skillman and County Road B; and signals
between Har Mar and Rosedale.”
·
Page 8, Line 342 (Wozniak)
Typographical Correction: Change
“high” to “low”
·
Page 9, Line 379 (Wozniak)
Typographical Correction: Change
“Rose Parade” to “Rosefest Parade”
·
Page 10, Line 419 (Stenlund)
Correct to read: “…clarified
that he wanted the report to include aspects of the recycling program that
are not working, whether…”
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed project updates and maintenance activities
listed in the staff report dated May 27, 2014.
Discussion included clarification
of the type of pipe (resin) used for sanitary sewer lining, with the entire
segment of several hundred feet performed at one time as applicable; progress
of the lining project to-date; and need to reconnect some service connections
upon completion of the lining project; with subsequent asphalt replacement to
coordinate utility improvements.
At the request of Councilmember
Felice, Mr. Schwartz reported that the curb cuts near Cub Foods were slated
to be completed this summer.
Specific to the requirements of
the City’s MS4 permit, Chair Stenlund expressed his continuing frustration
with the sloppiness of contractors working in the City in not sufficiently
addressing erosion control efforts, and protecting outfalls. Chair Stenlund
asked staff for their advice on how to get more compliance from smaller
operators.
Mr. Schwartz recognized those
frustrations, stating that it was a continuous process getting contractors to
comply and the City issues a 48-hour notice that it will take action. Mr.
Schwartz advised that the enforcement issues were continually challenging for
staff along with sufficient time for staff to follow-up and the process to
draw from contractor escrow accounts if necessary. Mr. Schwartz advised that
several contractors had been put on notice this spring, but then at the last
minute, they corrected the issues.
Chair Stenlund suggested staff
consider other ways to ensure compliance more rapidly, without the need to
give non-compliant contractors the 48-hour wiggle room. Chair Stenlund noted
that this wet spring didn’t help the situation any.
Member Seigler sought
clarification on the S Owasso Boulevard and Private Drive project.
Mr. Schwartz noted that this
private drive for several homes near the railroad track from Western Avenue
was gravel and had created many years of drainage issues flowing into Lake
Owasso. Mr. Schwartz noted that the City had been asked to help those homeowners
with a design and construction project to address those direct discharges,
most of which were due to the failure of old pipes, and along with the
solutions outlined in cooperation with the watershed district, they were
working through that issue.
Specific to County Road B-2 work
along Victoria Street, Member Gjerdingen sought a project update and what had
been decided along the current parking lot connection to the trail on the
west side near the ball fields, and whether it would move closer to the roadway.
Mr. Schwartz advised that final
plans had been drafted; and the existing trail would stay as is and connect,
with the existing signal mid-block crossing, and connecting the sidewalk on
the west side Victoria north to Prince of Peace Church. Mr. Schwartz offered
to review the final plans with Member Gjerdingen outside the purview of the
PWETC meeting.
6.
Train Noise Impacts Discussion
Mr. Schwartz briefly summarized
staff’s research after an increasing number of citizen complaints had been
fielded by staff from residents on the east side of Roseville regarding train
horns, especially during the night. Mr. Schwartz referenced the staff report
dated May 27, 2014, along with attachments.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the option
for cities to mitigate noise issues in accordance with federal law
(Attachment B) to upgrade crossings and associated costs that would be borne
by the City. Mr. Schwartz clarified that the Canadian Pacific Railroad did
not have tracks in the City of Roseville, but operated trains all night in
adjacent communities with tracks through Shoreview, Little Canada, Maplewood
and St. Paul. Mr. Schwartz noted that the tracks operating on an east/west
line in the City of Roseville were owned and operated by the Minnesota
Commercial Railroad, who did not run trains during the night.
Mr. Schwartz noted that railroads
are federally regulated and therefore local jurisdictions had limited options
available to them.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
Cities of Shoreview and Little Canada had recently commissioned an
engineering firm for a joint study to upgrade six crossings. Mr. Schwartz
further reported that late last week, staff had found that the state bonding
bill adopted in the last legislative session included significant money for
those communities to assist in upgrading crossings in their City, with most
of the increased traffic due to fracking sand and crude oil transports to and
from North Dakota oil fields. In his discussions with Little Canada
administration staff last week, Mr. Schwartz reported that they had given the
engineering firm the go ahead to create preliminary plans and specifications
to upgrade the crossings; however, they anticipated it would be well into
2015 before those improvements were completed as they proceeded in creation
of “quiet zone designations” through upgrades to those crossings.
Public
Comment
Jim Perry,
3054 Woodbridge Street (one block west of Rice Street)
Mr. Perry requested a list of the
crossings in Shoreview and Little Canada that would be upgraded.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he had
been unable to connect with the Shoreview Public Works Director for
additional information about the bonding money and their crossing upgrades
before tonight’s PWETC meeting. Mr. Schwartz noted that he had been made
aware that MnDOT had requested more horn alerts due to the increased traffic
with construction work on I-35E and the need to re-route traffic based on
safety concerns in Maplewood.
Amy Kerber, 3030 Woodbridge
Street
Ms. Kerber advised that they
lived within a ½ block of two railroad crossings, and it was becoming very
unpleasant; often hearing one train at the various crossings for 5 – 10
minutes, and sometimes three separate trains running between 1:30 – 3:30
a.m. Ms. Kerber opined that the noise was having a big and adverse impact on
their nice residential community; causing considerable concern among the
neighborhood. Ms. Kerber advised that the neighbors didn’t want to see their
diverse neighborhood deteriorate due to train noise. Ms. Kerber noted that last
year she had counted twenty-seven trains within one twenty-four hour period.
Ms. Kerber alleged that what the neighbors heard and what BN reported didn’t
necessarily match. Ms. Kerber asked that the City of Roseville needed to be
conscious of trains and keep the pressure on the railroads; and wondered if
there were any options available in 2014 for experimental quiet zones.
Mr. Schwartz advised that
information was available on the City of Little Canada website that they had
shared with their residents, with contact information for the railroad
companies; and urged citizens to call the railroad companies direct with
their concerns.
Ms. Kerber stated that it was
really painful to live in their neighborhood anymore, and asked that the City
of Roseville keep in touch with the community regarding this issue.
Mary Rhode, 3161 Sandy Hook
Drive
As a Roseville resident on the
south shore of Lake Owasso, Ms. Rhode advised that they were the recipients
of the train noise coming from across the lake. Ms. Rhode expressed her
appreciation to hear about the quiet zone, and asked that staff make sure
that information on the legislative funds and potential “fix” got out to the
media in an effort to sooth neighbors.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he
would see that either Roseville staff or the City of Little Canada got that
information out to the typical media sources; and noted that when it became
available, staff had immediately posted that update on the NextDoor.com
website; and would attempt to get it placed in the Roseville Review
and/or City News newsletter as well.
Chair Stenlund noted some train
shifting during the winter months, but didn’t know if that increased traffic
on closer lines during that time. Chair Stenlund opined that air conditioning
helped, but trees didn’t do much to mitigate is; and while he could ignore
the noise during the daytime, it was obnoxious at night.
Member Cihacek asked staff if any
other steps for noise mitigation were possible (e.g. vegetation areas), such
as done around airports, as an additional option for citizens, or why that
may not be feasible.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he was
not aware of any particular mitigation, but presumed that it may apply in
this case, similar to freeway or other noise (e.g. vegetation, insulation).
Mr. Schwartz noted that obviously when windows were open in the summer it
became even more problematic. Mr. Schwartz noted that wind was also a
determining factor.
At the request of the PWETC,
staff was asked to further research and report at next month’s meeting on
potential noise mitigation options going forward for long-term solutions for
those affected parties.
6.
Community Solar Presentation
Mr. Schwartz introduced Ms. Diana
McKeown from Metro Certs/Great Plains Institute to provide a background and overview
of the community solar program; with additional information, including
details about utility programs and rules for community solar gardens,
available at SolarGardens.MnCERTSs.org.
Diana
McKeown from Metro Certs/Great Plains Institute
Ms. McKeown noted that tonight’s
presentation was intended as only the beginning of the conversation. Ms.
McKeown advised that interest in community solar gardens is extensive as many
users have poor roof options or don’t want a solar unit on their roof.
Ms. McKeown’s presentation
included the mission of CERT’s (Clean Energy Resource Teams) and partnerships
to help communities identify and implement community-based clean energy
programs and resources. Ms. McKeown advised that she was only one of a group
of regional coordinators throughout the state offering support and a steering
committee and served as a governing body for the regional team operating with
partner organizations. Ms. McKeown advised that she was employed by Great
Plains Institute located in south Minneapolis, a sixteen year old
non-partisan non-profit, which was part of a public/private partnership with
the U of MN, MN Project, the Institute, SW Regional Development and the
Department of Energy.
Ms. McKeown reviewed some of the
specifics of community shared solar for centrally-located solar PV panels
installed in a community in sunny locations to produce renewable electricity;
with each subscriber’s utility bill then credited with the electricity
created by their share of the solar garden. Ms. McKeown noted that
individual entities could subscribe to enough solar to cover up to 120% of
their annual electricity usage. Ms. McKeown advised that it worked similar
to a community sustained agriculture (CSA) program.
Ms. McKeown advised that each project
involved many players: subscribers (individual entities receiving solar
power); developers (primary group organizing the solar garden); host site
(location where the solar garden is installed); finance (sources of financing
for the project); utility (electricity provider – Xcel Energy in this case –
where the garden is installed); site assessor (expert that studies the garden
location); installer (expert that installs the solar garden); and outreach
partners (groups that find subscribers).
Chair Stenlund referenced the
recent accomplishments by students at the U of MN in looking at solar
openings in the area, including mapping those solar opportunities in the
metropolitan area.
Ms. McKeown noted that the
research project had received only a temporary license for data collection,
and would be continued if/when additional funds were received. Ms. McKeown
advised that her CERT’s team was actively working with the students with
support and resources; commending the students for their enthusiasm.
At the prompting of Chair
Stenlund, Ms. McKeown agreed that the intent is not about cutting down trees
to find opportunities for community solar arrays, but finding existing areas
where light is available for such placements. Ms. McKeown noted that there
were many available open spots, based on land uses, including Brownfield
areas.
Ms. McKeown discussed what role
the City may want to play and partners it could work with (e.g. school
districts, Ramsey County, other agencies) to accomplish a community solar
system. Ms. McKeown reviewed the amount of electricity used per year
determined how much solar was allowed, with subscriptions based on up to 120%
of that annual usage. Ms. McKeown advised that one delay in the metropolitan
area was waiting for approval of the Xcel program as mandated by the Public
Utility Commission (PUC); with Greater MN projects already in place. Ms.
McKeown referenced some of the current projects: Wright-Hennepin Cooperative
Electric Association, Lake Region Electric Cooperative, Connexus Energy,
Tri-County Electric Cooperative, among a few. Ms. McKeown reviewed the
anticipated Xcel Energy timeline, with the original proposal submitted to the
Department of Commerce and PUC, which was rejected in April; with Xcel filing
a revised plan in May of this year. Once the plan is approved by the PUC,
Ms. McKeown advised that Xcel has ninety days to begin accepting garden
operator applications. Cautioning that, due to many unknowns at this point,
and based on the value of solar vs. retail rates and competitive advantages
among developers, Ms. McKeown opined that it may be August of September
before the final rule and acceptance of applications were accepted, which
would be on a first come, first served basis.
As noted by Mr. Schwartz, Ms.
McKeown noted that the reason for the limited number was that only a certain
number of subscriptions would be accepted per year for solar gardens,
otherwise it may become overwhelming for the current structure and industry.
If the City was to consider solar
arrays for the community, Ms. McKeown noted some of the considerations needed
to be: what was needed to make the project possible (e.g. 30% tax equity
partner); choice of a developer that had staying power, listened to the
needs, and provided maintenance and insurance coverage; the need to have a
minimum of five subscribers; and the minimum purchase amount of 200 watts,
but no more than 120% of electric use.
Ms. McKeown reviewed some of the
challenges for the community, including: clarifying the community values
upfront (e.g. will only a local contractor be considered, and must the
product be manufactured in MN); identifying a host site that has good solar
access and a structurally sound roof with relatively easy access; and finding
the 30% tax equity owner if you are an entity that doesn’t pay taxes.
Ms. McKeown reviewed some of the
responsibilities for a solar garden operator, including a copy of the solar
panel warranty; a copy of the garden operator’s production projections and a
description of the methodology used by the operator to develop those
projections; and disclosure of future costs and benefits of a solar garden
subscription to name a few.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Ms. McKeown reviewed other energy options offered by Xcel Energy, including
wind source, and potential to purchase wind and/or solar energy, with solar
probably proving more expensive; and ability to transfer solar energy credits
to others with some stipulations.
As another resource for the City
or community members, Ms. McKeown advised that the Minnesota Renewable Energy
Society met on the second Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m. at the
Mayflower Church in So. Minneapolis; additional solar classes were available
by visiting the MRES website or the CERTS website and keying in “metro” and
“solar”; and offered to research any other resources of interest, with many
already available at: http://SolarGardens/MnCERTs.org.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Ms. McKeown clarified that any one entity can own up to 40% of the solar
garden, but if it was a city or non-tax entity, it would not qualify for
credits. At the further request of Member Cihacek, Ms. McKeown reviewed
potential in-kind lease agreements, opining that developers would probably be
interested in various options, as long as they were legal since there was no
third party leasing available in MN; with the City of Maplewood pursuing an
option with different contractors, based on regulations of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), restricting a municipality serving as its own
developer or operator that may be outside those legal restrictions and
requiring careful review.
Public Comment
Donna Peterson
Ms. Peterson referenced the solar
energy being pursued by the City of Falcon Heights at this time.
Ms. McKeown advised that they
were rolling with one system at this time, but that it wasn’t a community
solar garden, but there remained a great amount of interest in pursuing that
option. Unfortunately, Ms. McKeown noted that the community of Falcon
Heights had most of its living areas with gorgeous old trees, but not a lot
of solar opportunities. Ms. McKeown advised that the community continued to
look into the process, but with the rules not completely written, there were a
number of ideas; and she continued to work with a number of communities
and/or agencies in the metropolitan area to further the program.
Linda Yeals, ____ Woodbridge
Avenue
Ms. Yeals asked if the City of
Roseville had any thoughts for soliciting community interest in solar
gardens.
Mr. Schwartz responded that the
City Council has expressed some interest, and a representative of Metro
CERT’s had been invited to the June 23, 2014 to make a similar presentation
to tonight’s to provide further education for the City Council and
community. At this time, Mr. Schwartz opined that it was unknown what level
of interest there was by those decision-makers. In 2012, Mr. Schwartz
reported that the City Council had approved an application for a solar
rewards program to house two 40 kilowatt solar systems on the City Hall
campus, but it was never funded. Similar to this program, Mr. Schwartz
reported that there were a finite number of systems funded under that
previous program. After the City Council heard the presentation, Mr.
Schwartz stated that their decision would reflect what role they deemed best
for the City of Roseville and its residents.
At the request of Mr. Schwartz,
Ms. McKeown summarized the various roles that cities could pursue, including
serving as a host site for a community solar system, acting as a developer,
performing outreach and making sure their zoning and other ordinances would
support a community solar system, determining where the City would or would
not like to see solar made available, whether as a community or in general.
Ms. McKeown opined that this was a consideration for the near future, and
provided a number of different roles for the City to play depending on where
it wanted to position itself and other partners to help developers or expand
outreach, whether only on the City Hall campus or beyond that. Ms. McKeown
noted that their role could also be to work with other businesses willing to
serve as a host site, to facilitate meetings to discuss opportunities, and
updating ordinances and getting realistic standards in place to support such
an effort beforehand.
Stuart Roberts, Roseville
resident and business owner
Given the previous discussion
about train noise and as a resident on the north end of Rice Street observing
the tracks on a daily basis, Mr. Roberts opined that better than 90% of the
loads represented frack sand and/or oil tank cars. Therefore, Mr. Roberts
opined that getting into renewable energy sources was of great interest to a
number of residents. While it was easy not to see or hear people, Mr.
Roberts further opined that there were a number of residents seriously
interested in doing something different. However, Mr. Roberts noted that, as
an example, his home was not a suitable candidate for a private solar system,
but similar to a number of other residents whose homes were too small or not
located for appropriate solar panels, there was considerable interest in
pursuing other options.
Mr. Roberts noted that many
residents remained unaware of options such as these, and discussions about
those options, such as tonight’s presentation, opining that the room would be
filled to capacity or beyond if that information was made available. Mr.
Roberts stated that residents wanted their City to understand the interest
and need for more information, and be responsive accordingly. Due to the
cumbersome code system currently in place, Mr. Roberts opined that it had
proven impossible to pursue a solar option over the last decade. Also in
terms of trying to get a sense of interest, Mr. Roberts suggested using the
City newsletter; provide e-mail notices, or other to consider other options
to reach the public. Mr. Roberts opined that he found the whole concept of a
community solar garden interesting, and while new and engaging, people often
didn’t understand that it was so simple to seek these new and engaging
options.
Given the limited amount of roof
space he has available, and other issues with businesses in leased spaces and
having no control over the building, Mr. Roberts opined that it may be hard
for a property owner to put PV’s on a roof, and the current rules were
holding up the option for a community solar garden. While it’s a great idea
from the perspective of most people, while others thought it too complicated
to accomplish, Mr. Roberts encouraged the City to work on getting the City’s
portion of the costs taken care of, and if there was enough financing
available for a return, it should pay for itself. Mr. Roberts expressed his
appreciation for having this discussion, and spoke in enthusiastic support of
the City pursuing the idea.
As Chair Stenlund polled the
audience on their interest in being subscribers, all those in attendance
showed their interest in a community solar option.
Mr. Roberts advised that, upon
resale of his home in the future, he would make the solar option part of his
sales package.
Sara Barsell, 1276 Eldridge
Avenue
Ms. Barsell stated that she could
not sufficiently express how important she thought this was, since she’d been
contacting Mr. Schwartz for at least 18 months to pursue it, as well as
organizing citizens for a meeting held in April, even though it had been
restricted to those she was aware of who had some interest in such a
program.
Ms. Barsell suggested several
steps to pursue in the immediate future, including having the Mayor of Falcon
Heights Pete Lindstrom, speak to the issue, as the city had a solar array on
their City Hall, as well as having it on his home. Ms. Barsell opined that
another option would be to contact Ralph Jacobson, CEO of Innovative Power
Systems, who would be willing to talk on any topic identified by this group
and related to solar energy, guaranteeing that it wouldn’t be a “sales
pitch,” but provide his perspective in having been in the solar industry for
a number of years. Ms. Barsell also referenced Ms. Jen Hasselbrook a
municipal employee in Oakdale, who was involved in the CERT’s program and
could speak to her research on solar and energy efficiencies for commercial
properties.
Ms. Barsell opined that Roseville
had oodles of flat roofs available city-wide that could house a solar system,
with more and more flat roofs available throughout the metropolitan area as
more development occurs. Ms. Barsell stated that she’d been in continual
contact with I.S.D. School District No. 623 Superintendent Dr. John Thein to
pursue solar energy, opining that a number of the district’s school buildings
were prime candidates for a solar array.
Ms. Barsell further opined that
there were many areas of interest already expressed by citizens, who
supported the City going forward to begin by fixing its ordinances to support
it, opining that it should be a no-brainer for any non-profit, commercial or
residential applications. Ms. Barsell noted that she’d been advised that a minimum
of two churches in the community area interested in installing PV.
Ms. McKeown advised that her
group was already working with one Roseville church in that pursuit.
Ms. Barsell stated that many
people were interested in solar energy, but didn’t know how to coordinate
that interest and get together; opining that this provided a challenge for
the PWETC to foster learning situations for the community to become aware of
what was being discussed, and provide learning opportunities for them, as
well as addressing their concerns and finding answers to their questions.
Considering the previous
discussion about trains and the additional fossil fuel being produced and
transported through this area exacerbating that problem, Ms. Barsell opined
that the more that could be done to find alternative and renewable energy
sources, the better for everyone.
Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge
Avenue
Mr. Neprash expressed his
appreciation for the question, “What should the City’s role be?” as a good
starting point, suggesting that the City view itself as a facilitator in this
process, since it was obviously clear that there was interest in it. Mr.
Neprash suggested a variety of roles for the City, including: collecting and
distributing information based on the City’s credibility and its
communication sources; soliciting expressions of interest in a systematic
way; addressing questions of codes and ordinances and identifying hurdles and
reducing them; and assisting with expert services (e.g. specialized legal
services) and providing individual citizens with those resources, as this is
often difficult for those citizens to locate, while the City can solicit
interest from those firms and evaluate their skills; structural engineering
opportunities to look at roofs. If the City is genuinely interested in the
facilitator role, Mr. Neprash suggested that they first lay out a plan
identifying the questions and resources to answer those questions.
If there was support for a
community solar garden, Mr. Neprash noted that this would require a good
sized array or arrays; and suggested it may be more prudent to look at more
and smaller numbers, but to make a determination on which would be more
appropriate and benefit residents and the community the most.
Ms. McKeown stated that based on
the grid for this area and required space and band width to get that solar
panel onto the grid, there were certain places that it would work well and
others that would not. Ms. McKeown advised that Xcel Energy and a developer
could work on where the best place would be; and assured that Xcel would not
approve the location if it wasn’t going to work well. Ms. McKeown clarified
that specific to the grid situation, it was less important on how big or
small it was, but where it was positioned on the grid.
Mr. Neprash thanked the PWETC for
this presentation and discussion, opining that it was a great start for an
exciting opportunity.
Nettie Wertz, ____ Avenue
Ms. Wertz questioned how long the
state had to decide on this Xcel application; with Ms. McKeown estimating
that the PUC had ninety days to make their decision; and if a plan was
approved and the doors opened, Xcel had 30-60 days to approve any solar
garden that came available. Ms. McKeown anticipated that by August or
September of 2014, the rules should be in place, but cautioned that it
remained pending at this time.
If the plan got approval, Ms.
Wertz questioned if the City of Roseville would then be more apt to get solar
energy in place and installed, as it wasn’t applying for grant funds, but
doing it in a different venue.
Mr. Schwartz responded that he
found the community solar gardens a more attractive option than the previous
solar awards program, with the City not eventually owning the system,
providing an opportunity to have a private operator in the business of
producing power or owning the system(s). Mr. Schwartz stated that he saw the
City as a franchise holder in that scenario, collecting rent, with the array
located on the roof of a City facility, but not owning or operating the system,
and serving as more of a facilitator than a power producer.
Ms. McKeown noted that, if the
City didn’t own the array, it could still tap into some portion of it for its
electricity, as long as it didn’t own the entire array, and only hosted it,
usually with a host least payment with developers.
Chair Stenlund encouraged
residents to let the City Council know of the community’s interest in this
concept before or at the June 23, 2014 meeting.
Chair Stenlund sought additional
information from Ms. McKeown and or Mr. Schwartz and staff going forward:
1) Example
scenarios for what it would take for the City to move forward, since nothing
was listed out at this time, but what options were available for the PWETC to
make an informed recommendation to the City Council, with those tracks
written out; including what other communities had done to-date.
2) Model
ordinances to review and recommend that would allow private developers to do
this versus current roadblocks to prevent them from doing so, and draft
ordinance language to eventually recommend to the City Council. Chair
Stenlund suggested consideration be given to streamlining current ordinances
versus rewriting them in their entirety.
3) A financial
analysis outlining the payback period versus depreciation, as the City
represents the community, and how to make this beneficial to the community
and its residents in a realistic manner to not necessarily profit from the
opportunity as much as to address sustainability and renewable resource
considerations.
Chair Stenlund asked that staff
provide that information to the PWETC at their earliest convenience to inform
further discussion before making a recommendation to the City Council in a
timely manner.
In response to item 1), since no
one had yet completed the process, Ms. McKeown clarified that it would be
difficult to provide specific tracks of options for cities, as nothing had
been laid out yet; but offered to consult with her contacts and work with
staff on potential scenarios.
Chair Stenlund supported that
methodology, to provide a few pathways to move forward, understanding that
the majority of it was based on guesswork at this time and would need
tweaking before finalized. Chair Stenlund opined that other states must have
something available that could be built on.
In response to item 2), Ms. McKeown offered to look at the City’s current
ordinance language, and provide model language from the Green Step Cities
website that would allow developers to move forward if and when adopted. Ms.
McKeown advised that the model language was already available as part of her
work with the Department of Energy. Ms. McKeown advised that the City of
Rosemount had recently passed a good model ordinance, specifying where they
did and did not want solar panels located.
In response to item 3), Ms.
McKeown noted that this is all so new, CERT’s had purposely decided not to be
aggregators or developers, in order to provide unbiased information to
encourage and address community interest and protect those interests in
partnership and provide resources and information as requested, as no one
else was serving in that capacity at this time.
Carol Rust, representing Knox
North Como Presbyterian Church
Ms. Rust advised that the church
was interested in installing a solar array; and questioned if there was a
minimum amount allowed for a building. Ms. Rust advised that the church was
considering installing 80-100 panels at this time.
Ms. McKeown responded that the
minimum was probably five panels, and the same number of subscribers;
cautioning that the system could not be built beyond the 120% of the church’s
current energy use.
Member Seigler noted that there
was nothing to preclude the church installing solar if they owned it themselves;
but Ms. Rust clarified that the church was pursuing community solar options.
Ms. Rust stated that they had
been told that community solar was more expensive as the community then took
more risk and maintained the panels, even though they had yet to determine
costs. Ms. Rust advised that the problem was not knowing more information
ahead of time before making those decisions; and the lack of information
about where to go to get accurate information for non-profits; and asked for
Ms. McKeown’s assistance.
Ms. McKeown advised that she had
applicable information with her, and was also available on their website; and
should provide the church with the most thorough, unbiased information
available at this time.
Stuart Roberts
Mr. Roberts referenced Bethel
Church in Minneapolis, and suggested that Ms. Rust model their program on
theirs rather than trying to do their own.
Ms. McKeown clarified that the
Bethel model was the second pledged project and not subscribed, as no program
was available yet. Ms. McKeown further clarified that there were two
different systems in Minneapolis that were fully pledged, with their firm
having helped them work on the legislation; stating that she had a press
release with her about that program, which was not ready to move forward.
Ms. McKeown advised that she could not expressed preference for one
particular vendor over another in order to remain unbiased; and opined that
it depended on your goals and specifics for each individual entity.
At the request of Ms. Rust, Ms.
McKeown addressed the process for defining the number of subscribers for a
host site, and advised that it was up to the host site and developer as to
how they arranged their partnership; reiterating that there was a minimum of
five subscribers, but to her knowledge, no maximum; but defined according to
the host site and developer’s agreement.
Chair Stenlund thanked Ms.
McKeown for her presentation, comments and information; to the PWETC for
their interest and discussion; and the public for their attendance and
interest. Chair Stenlund suggested that, depending on the interest of the
City Council and their direction, in the meantime, individual members
brainstorm their ideas on paper for how the City Council and staff could make
such a program happen, at which time they could review items at the next
meeting.
Contact Information: Diana
McKeown; Metro CERT Director; Great Plains Institute; 612/278-7158; dmckeown@gpisd.net.
Recess
Chair Stenlund recessed the meeting at approximately 8:10
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:16 p.m.
5.
Annual Stormwater Meeting
Mr.
Schwartz advised that this is a public hearing as a component of the City’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program and
permit requirements. Mr. Schwartz advised that the public information
meeting provided an opportunity for residents to share their comments and
feedback regarding the City’s proposed Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP) and past year’s actions; with the report and findings from
this meeting part of the permit’s documentation. Mr. Schwartz introduced
City Environmental Specialist, Ryan Johnson, to summarize the report, as
detailed in Attachment A (2013 Annual Report) and Attachment B (2013 NPDES
Phase II Permit) to the staff report dated May 27, 2014.
Mr.
Johnson reviewed the establishment of the permit, effective from August 1,
2013 through July 31, 2018, and approved in April of 2014; and conditions
allowing the City to discharge stormwater and other specific related
discharges to state waters as defined for small municipal separate storm sewer
systems, separate
Mr.
Johnson reviewed outreach records and their connection and documentation as
part of the process; storm sewer mapping that will be strongly highlighted in
2014 and in the future; and detection and elimination efforts for illicit
discharge situations throughout the community.
Mr.
Johnson reviewed specific and significant changes made in best management
practices (BMP) and minimum control measures (MCM) measurable goals and their
implementation status (Attachment A) in relationship to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) flexibility in reviewing the City’s
progress in meeting permit requirements outside a standard punch list; and intent
for increased education of residents and field staff in identifying and
documenting illicit discharges. Mr. Johnson advised that this would include
written procedures in place for site plan review; public input, site
inspections and investigations, and elimination of the individual problem
areas.
Mr.
Johnson advised that written enforcement response procedures (ERP’s) would be
put in place to enforce and compel compliance with regulatory mechanisms
developed and implemented by the City of Roseville (e.g. city code and the
local surface water management plan).
Mr.
Johnson advised that Como Lake (Gottfried Pitt area) was currently listed as impaired
water, with upcoming total maximum daily loads (TMDL’s) for Bennett Lake,
Little Johanna Lake, Long Lake, and in 2015, Pike Lake.
For
the benefit of newer commissioners, Chair Stenlund clarified that there was a
maximum limit of nutrient loads allocated and affecting everyone, with the
City of Roseville having a certain allocation of that loading, with the
overall goal to reduce that loading.
At
the request of Member Cihacek, Chair Stenlund and Mr. Schwartz listed some of
the types of pollutants, how they all fit together, and could be reduced by
better housekeeping and staff training.
Mr.
Johnson reviewed some examples (e.g. Ramsey County Ditches 2, 3, 4 and 5
along Snelling Avenue, Zimmerman Lake and west to the boundary of Roseville,
and their eventual draining into Long Lake) and the need to reduce phosphorus
going into those water bodies and reduce flooding into Long Lake. Mr.
Johnson noted that further compounding the problem was the different types of
soil across the City, with clay on the west side and difficulties in
effective infiltration to reduce stormwater other than delay attempts or
delaying it; with credits provided for mitigation efforts in those more
problematic areas.
Mr.
Johnson advised that the most difficult and time-consuming tasks for staff to
accomplish in the next year included completing written procedures and
documenting ERP’s. Mr. Johnson predicted that the items seeing the most
improvement over the next year included MCM #5, post construction stormwater
management, including inventorying ponds, public and private BMP’s, and
combining databases with GIS maps for easier tracking.
Chair
Stenlund suggested that staff explore MCM #4, streamlining a faster staff
reaction time; and encouraged staff to contact Rick Baird in Mankato for
examples on how to effectively encourage contractors to stabilize
construction sites and erosion control measures that they were fully capable
of addressing, provided the City ensure those contractors stopped playing
their current games by the City’s application of significant fines for their
mismanagement of those controls.
Chair
Stenlund sought evidence of rain garden documentation done over the last
year; with Mr. Schwartz responding that one of Mr. Johnson’s charges was to
get all of those documented.
Chair
Stenlund also sought evidence of how many participated in education
opportunities and training, and the need for verification of MPCA training.
Given
the fact that oil recycling is handled at the Ramsey County site, Chair
Stenlund suggested that it needed to be documented so it didn’t appear to be
an omission.
Member Lenz left the meeting at
approximately 8:33 p.m.
Chair
Stenlund requested Mr. Johnson to ask staff to provide additional public
education about grass clippings placed on curb lines and how they added to
nutrient loading in the stormwater system; and asked that individual PWETC
members report their observations to staff when found, rather than personally
confronting them, just to bring them and/or photo documentation of illicit
discharges to staff’s attention for follow-up. Chair Stenlund opined that
public education should be part of the PWETC’s role, individually and
corporately, as stewards of the community.
Mr.
Johnson advised that he was starting a list of things observed by homeowners
and would be working with the Communications Department to get quick blips
out asking residents to alert City staff as they’re out and about in the
community.
Member
Gjerdingen opined that this included leaves stacked up late in the season, as
well as grass clippings during the spring and summer.
At
the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Schwartz clarified that sump pumps were
currently allowed to drain on grass as it was clean water, but should not be
dumped into the sanitary sewer due to capacity and treatment issues.
However, Mr. Schwartz clarified further that this did not apply to
chlorinated pool water.
At
the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz clarified that the City was
not responsible to sweep county roads; and noted that this year the City was
last in the county to be swept, as the county supposedly rotates sweeping
among communities within their jurisdiction.
There
were no public comments related to this item.
At
the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Johnson expressed interest, outside the
meeting parameters, of discussing a partnership in a capstone project for
rental kits for group car washes, kept at a central location (e.g. fire
station) to educate residents and organizations on how best to cleanse the
water before entering the water system. If that were to occur, Member Felice
suggested a follow-up newsletter article on its success and positive benefit
to water quality that would further serve to educate the community.
6.
Discussion Topics for June 23, 2014 Joint Meeting with the City
Council
Discussion
was held regarding discussion items at the upcoming joint meeting of the
PWETC and City Council on June 23, 2014, including activities and
accomplishments since their last joint meeting, a work plan for the upcoming
year, and questions or concerns from the City Council. In no particular order
or category, items included:
·
Alert
the City Council to the community’s excitement about community solar gardens
(Felice)
·
Comments
and frustrations expressed by business owners with the City’s current
permitting process; and the need to address that frustration and determine
its source, questioning if some projects were being deferred due to those
issues (Seigler). While not sure if it fell within the purview of the PWETC,
Member Wozniak supported that discussion; and Mr. Schwartz suggested it could
be discussed as part of the broader permit and fees discussion.
·
Bike
pathway progress to-date (Felice)
·
Organized
collection process and update (Felice). Mr. Schwartz advised that the most recent
community survey included a question on organized collection, and should be
made public by the June 23rd meeting.
·
Recycling
changes and discussion of the change from sorted to single sort, including
how that impacts the MS4 permitting (Stenlund)
·
Highlighting
the current status of the Pavement Management Plan funding and issues with
some premature pavement degradation and impacts to annual projects and funds
(Stenlund). Chair Stenlund noted that a lot of discussion had occurred and
needed to continue on the PMP infrastructure needs; and asked that staff
provide new commissioners with the information revisited over the last year.
Member Felice noted the need to address reduced miles in the PMP due to
increased pricing of materials, and deferred maintenance of streets
(Felice).
·
LED
lighting and suggested tour of So. St. Paul on the next outing (Stenlund) and
the capstone college student project for LED retrofits. Mr. Schwartz advised
that the City Council’s approved CIP included 2014 dollars for initiating a
phased retrofitting for city-owned street light fixtures, along with the need
for more discussion and research on interior city-owned building lighting
retrofitting.
·
Given
the amount of time the PWETC put into pathway master plan ranking compared with
the 2008 pathway master plan process, a consideration of reviewing the
ranking criteria and a process to receive public input and move forward based
on City Council direction, and if and when a funding source was found for trails,
or an alternative plan to consider as projects come forward (Gjerdingen).
·
Railroad
noise
·
BRT
meetings to-date
·
Water
freeze-ups, mitigation and discounts (Wozniak)
Chair
Stenlund suggested that the PWETC be flexible as things come up in the next
year; and noted the need to emphasize to the City Council the body’s
celebration of the addition of four additional commissioners.
Member
Wozniak noted the need to address the City’s overall infrastructure; with Mr.
Schwartz reviewing the work done to-date with the new asset management
software program and twenty-year capital improvement plan now in place,
noting that they were both a work-in-progress at this time; and offered to
share the information with the PWETC at their discretion.
Chair
Stenlund encouraged all members to attend the joint meeting on June 23rd;
asking that they show interest in this way and support the overall body.
At
the request of Member Wozniak regarding anything staff found exceedingly
problematic last winter other than the water line freeze-ups and weather-related
issues, Mr. Schwartz responded one thing really needing attention and
creating a challenge for staff was the TMDL’s for chloride, and regulatory
issues with how much ice control material was used and other products
available to keep the roads safe.
Member
Wozniak advised that he was currently working with Ramsey County on their
emergency response committee, and one of their questions was where cities
were at with their disaster management plans; noting that the City of
Roseville would be approached in the near future on how that process and
coordination will work.
Member
Wozniak suggested another looming issue was climate change responses and how
cities plan for it.
Chair
Stenlund suggested that the City needed to define a process for addressing
diseased trees (EAB, Oak Wilt, and Dutch Elm) in quarantined areas and/or
after storms to ensure they were not spreading the diseases.
7.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – June 24, 2014
Other
than those items listed in the staff report dated May 27, 2014, as possible
discussion items at the June 24, 2014 meeting, other considerations included:
·
Alternative
mitigation options for train noise and how other municipalities deal with it
(Cihacek)
·
Additional
discussion and information on how the City addresses and provide initiatives
for rain gardens; where programs exist and where they overlap for residents
as part of a broader management plan area; how the City encourages them and
the assets behind them; if and how the City tracked sites that may be good rain
garden sites and the planning process to achieve those goals. (Cihacek)
·
Discussion
on double car garages and the permit process (Seigler)
Public Comment
Jim
Anderson, 2085 Marion Street
As
he listened to comments about storm debris, Mr. Anderson advised that he
moved to his current residence from across the park, and when a tornado went
through their back yard in 1982, the City helped remove the debris.
Mr.
Anderson advised that he purchased his current home in SE Roseville, and
subsequently built a garage, at which time Mr. Johnson designed his rain
garden as the new garage moved him over the 30% impervious coverage limit.
Mr. Anderson advised that he had built the rain garden substantially larger
than needed, as he planned to eventually build a screen porch and expand the
kitchen on the rear side of the home. Since the garage was constructed prior
to the 2010 code change for BMP’s and rain garden, and the kitchen and porch
constructed after that, it pushed him into the new code requirements. Besides
the addition and garage adding to his property value, and raising property
taxes, Mr. Anderson noted that he would now be required to pay for a
stormwater permit recertification and inspection every five years, with forms
submitted annually. Mr. Anderson opined that this seemed like overkill for a
small residential rain garden.
Related
to the MS4 permit, and the extra paperwork for that new requirement and
related costs, Mr. Anderson questioned - as he contemplated adding other rain
gardens to facilitate down spouts on his property – if the City planned to
mitigate or encourage the addition of rain gardens, or if the additional fee
in perpetuity and recertification would discourage residents from improving
their properties, and thus the ability of the City to increase property taxes
on those improvements. As discussions continue for residential BMP’s, Mr.
Johnson suggested consideration to waiving those fees and requirements based
on the broader community benefits of those improvements, since the property taxes
would increase accordingly.
Chair
Stenlund noted that in the City of Minneapolis, everyone paid a stormwater
fee, which was then reduced according to the pervious features incorporated
in your landscape (rain barrels, rain gardens, swales, etc.).
Mr.
Schwartz advised that staff recently held a conversation with the City
Council at which time they approved a credit program; however, he noted that
it didn’t apply to the features added if they were done to address exceeding
the 30% impervious surface coverage and necessary to obtain a permit, which
was mandated by the NPDES permit for the City.
Mr.
Anderson opined that it would be nice if some mitigation were available at
some point, especially given the success he’d observed with his rain garden.
Member
Cihacek suggested that over the next year, the PWETC evaluate the current
structure or program and its efficacy to see if there was a better way to
meet the goals for residential properties.
Chair
Stenlund reminded members that the joint meeting would occur on Monday, June
23rd, followed by the PWETC meeting on Tuesday, June 24th.
8.
Adjourn
Member Cihacek moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:08 p.m.
Member Lenz noted that she would
not be available for the June meeting.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|