|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, June 24, 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; Joe Wozniak;
Duane Seigler
Members Excused: Members
Sarah Lenz; Brian Cihacek; and Joan Felice
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; Assistant
Public Works Director/City Engineer Marcus Culver
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of May 27, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Member Wozniak moved, Member
Seigler seconded, approval of the May 27, 2014, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Throughout Document in General
Verify and/or add correct
addresses for public speakers/residents
·
Page 8, Line 341 (Stenlund)
Typographical Correction: change
“240 watt: to “2-40KW”
·
Page 16, Line 678 (Stenlund)
Correct contact person at U of
MN-Mankato is Rick Baird
·
Page 16, Line 698 (Stenlund)
Correct first line to read:
“Chair Stenlund asked staff to provide additional public…”
·
Page 17, Line 721 (Gjerdingen)
Typographical correction: “I” to
“in”
·
Page 17, Line 724 (Stenlund)
Typographical correction: “not”
to “no”
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Culver
respectively reviewed project updates and maintenance activities listed in
the staff report dated June 24, 2014.
Discussion included progress
to-date on County Roads B and B-2; whether or not the City ordinance was
silent or if there was a current ordinance permitting or prohibited bicycling
on sidewalks in business districts that superseded State Statute (request of
Member Wozniak), with staff tasked to follow-up and report back to the
PWETC in the near future, but staff advising that the City of Roseville had
no formal business districts established for maintenance purposes as a land
use designation versus the state’s definition of “business district;” with
Mr. Schwartz requesting assistance from Member Gjerdingen in researching
ordinances from other communities and State Statute, based on his interesting
in city-wide pathways. and future bicycling around the Rosedale area
once the County Road B-2 pathway was completed and how to define it to accommodate
pedestrians, bicyclers and other users (e.g. skateboards, roller blades,
etc.). The consensus of the PWETC was that once the County Road B-2 was
completed, if bicycling on sidewalks was promoted in that area, that the City
of Roseville was doing so legally and within the parameters of State Statute.
Additional discussion included
individual member support for bicycling on sidewalks in general; the
difference in recreational and commuter bicycle traffic; and how best to
protect students en-route to and from school; existence of an ordinance in
Minneapolis addressing those issues; ability to enforce by the Police
Department due to other priorities; and keeping it in mind for future
developments (e.g. Rice Street corridor).
Specific to the 2014 PMP
Project and installation of storm water retention and treatment devices to
address historic drainage issues, Chair Stenlund requested additional
information on the status of ponds in that area (Dellwood and Sherren
Streets); with staff duly noting the request for additional information for
the PWETC; Mr. Culver did report that the improvements included a
substantial underground storage on the east side, which was originally bid to
be constructed of precast concrete structures, but an alternate submitted
providing more storage available by using aluminized corrugated pipes was
received and after review by staff determined to be the most cost-effective
and efficient storage solution, as well as causing less disturbance at those
times. Therefore, Mr. Culver advised that both location would be constructed
using those systems, ultimately improving storm water conveyance at Dellwood
and Sherren Streets.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Culver confirmed that there would still be a filtration swale in place
before the corrugated pipe chamber system; with work anticipated in mid to
late July.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Schwartz advised that, based on studies, aggregate chips can be removed
the day after sealcoating as there appeared to be no benefit in leaving
excess loose material on any longer, as it actually dislodges some of the
bonded material. Mr. Schwartz also confirmed that excess material was
reused.
In addition to written project
updates, Mr. Schwartz reported that at their meeting the previous evening,
the City Council approved a turn back agreement with Ramsey County for County
Road B west of Cleveland; with action pending with Ramsey County Board of
Commissioners in July, and construction of the pedestrian shoulder on County
Road B scheduled to begin in late July, after that final approval of the
agreement by the Board of Commissioners.
Member Gjerdingen requested more
coordination with Metro Transit regarding issues on the Snelling Avenue BRT
project, especially aesthetics issues around the stations (e.g. trash and
recycling receptacles). Member Gjerdingen opined that Metro Transit
representatives were vague in their willingness to work with other parties,
but he felt strongly that as Snelling Avenue served as a gateway to
Roseville, especially near the Har Mar Mall area, it was important, along
with maintenance and upkeep of the facilities. Member Gjerdingen also opined
that the station could facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic crossing
Highway 36, since a bus was safest way to get across, and suggested pursuing
a “fare free zone” between Snelling Avenue and the B Station, even though
Metro Transit had previously stated that the only place such a zone existed
today was in the downtown area. Member Gjerdingen strongly urged the PWETC
and staff to push harder to get the City of Roseville more involved in this
project to address important issues for the community.
At the request of Mr. Schwartz,
Mr. Culver confirmed that Metro Transit intended building the first prototype
BRT station in Minneapolis this fall; and Mr. Schwartz suggested a tour of
that facility once constructed would be prudent for the PWETC to include in
their annual field trip itinerary, providing an idea of how they would look.
Mr. Culver noted that the Metro
Transit representative, when speaking to the PWETC in the past, had provided
some mock-ups of station design, and short of aesthetics, they intended them
to be pretty consistent across the board, with modular shelters, technology
pylons and ticket machines built into the pylons, bike racks and benches, and
a few other amenities. Mr. Culver advised that he would check with Metro
Transit design staff to clarify trash and recycling receptacles, as well as
who would be responsible for their maintenance, and who and how would enforce
it. Regarding the “no fare zone,” Mr. Culver advised that it may prove
difficult for Metro Transit to enforce such a system.
Member Gjerdingen opined that
everyone had to get off the BRT at Rosedale anyway, and suggested at a
minimum the northbound BRT have the “no fare zone” available, since it would
address existing issues that unfortunately occurred some time ago when the
Highway 36 cloverleaf was installed, and this could provide an opportunity to
improve that situation.
Member Gjerdingen stated that he
would like to see the PWETC get more involved in the I-35W/Cleveland Avenue
project layout and design, specifically for pedestrian crossings, medians and
how they looked; whether there would be one or four crosswalks and getting a
sidewalk installed as part of it if the road was intended to be widened
anyway, opining that a sidewalk versus turn lanes would be more beneficial,
especially with the complications in the marsh land in that area.
Mr. Culver advised that federal
funding on the project would make additional design amenities difficult, as
minimum elements were needed for installation on which those federal funds
were based, with their priority being to move traffic. With the current
layout providing dual left turn lanes onto the I-35W ramp, Mr. Culver advised
that it was important to preserve some capacity in there; and while there may
be alternative intersection designs as part of that, there would be
limitations to changes in order to keep the width down. However, Mr. Culver
agreed with Member Gjerdingen that the City should continue to do its best to
get pedestrian facilities installed there.
Discussion ensued among
commissioners as to the location being referenced by Member Gjerdingen (along
Cleveland Avenue from the intersection to Symantec).
Member Seigler noted the
discussion held with the City Council at their joint meeting and their
support for filling in sidewalk segments to obtain the maximum return for
minimum dollars available as a priority of the City Council, and appearing to
be a direct charge to the PWETC to facilitate, as well as recognizing that
any installation needed to be maintained as well, which would typically be
the City’s responsibility
Mr. Culver clarified that, as part
of the annual and long-term CIP budget, infrastructure – including sidewalks
and pathways – would be included in funding allocations.
Mr. Culver concurred, noting that
each project would come back for review several times before actual
construction.
Chair Stenlund noted previous
requests, and repeated interest expressed by the City Council, to participate
in a tour of the Eureka Recycling facility; and asked that staff coordinate
with them and try to pick a date for a joint tour by the PWETC and City Council
in the near future; and a future tour of the BRT station in Minneapolis when
built.
5.
Recap of Joint Meeting with City Council
Chair Stenlund thanked those
members of the PWETC who’d attended the joint meeting with the City Council;
expressing his pride in the group.
Of the items discussed with the
City Council, Chair Stenlund noted that organized trash collection remained
silent, with no direct charge to the PWETC to pursue it further at this time.
From his notes of the joint
meeting, Chair Stenlund reviewed the directives and comments provided by
individual City Councilmembers, and his recommendation for those items the
PWETC should include in their work plan for ultimate recommendation to the
City Council as applicable.
·
Involve and/or increase participation in curbside recycling
collection by multi-family apartments, businesses and churches to continue
increasing participation and a larger percentage of recovered material.
·
Green Cities Program: determine where that process is at,
and next steps.
On a related noted, Chair
Stenlund advised that he had recently attended a water quality workshop in
St. Louis Park for commission members, which he found quite interesting and
offered to share information with others if interested.
Mr. Schwartz reported that
Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson had recently taken a look at the
project performed by Mankato State students, and met with Metro/CERTS in
mid-April to discuss the process and next steps to reach a Level 2 minimum
Green Step. Mr. Schwartz further reported that this morning, Mr. Johnson had
tentatively scheduled a meeting with the City Council at their July 14, 2014
meeting for formally establish the City of Roseville as a Green Step City via
resolution, after which the MPCA would get the City started on their website
for additional data entry; and the City of Roseville would be recognized at
the next League of Minnesota Cities annual conference in June of 2015.
Therefore, Mr. Schwartz advised that the program should be up and running
before too long.
Chair Stenlund asked staff to
include an update from staff for the benefit of new commissioners on a future
PWETC agenda.
·
Status report on single-sort recycling program to-date
after its initial roll-out in February of 2014; and as part of that a
reminder about the requested Eureka tour.
·
Frozen water pipes: how to solve the problem before the
coming winter; and Best Practices ideas from other communities or sources.
·
Alternative salt/ice control materials and cost impacts.
At the request of Member
Seigler, staff provided additional information on why the City was moving
away from using salt and toward other materials to address stormwater runoff
and negative impacts on water bodies, locally and in the broader area.
Mr. Culver suggested part of
that discussion and research could be how to use sodium chloride more
effectively to provide safe driving situations for the public, especially at
intersections, but how to use less of the material, or whether other
chlorides would prove just as effective but have less of an environmental
impact. Mr. Culver noted that there were other mixes to be researched that
may have lower melting temperatures allowing less material to be used, along
with beet juice and cheese brine as some of the materials being studied and
experimented with. Mr. Culver advised that staff would research other items
and report back to the PWETC to facilitate their discussion and subsequent
recommendation to the City Council. In response to discussion among
commissioners, staff noted that use of sand, while effective, also provided
its own pollution concerns, requiring its eventual removal from bodies of
water. It was the consensus of commissioners that public safety was a vital
part of this discussion, in addition to cost, water quality and pollution
issues; with staff noting that there also a limited amount of material
available and also that they were permitted to use.
Mr. Schwartz noted that some
heating technology elements were currently being used in Europe to some
extent and had proven effective.
·
Pavement Condition Index / Pavement Management Program (PMP)
Goals.
Chair Stenlund stated that he had
been personally shocked at the joint meeting that any consideration was being
given to reduce the current goals and funding, opining that it would only
make it more difficult and take more money to get back to an acceptable level
of service. Chair Stenlund suggested a more prudent approach would be to
hold the current level of service by continuing a small investment now to
avoid a major investment later. However, Chair Stenlund stated that his take
away from the meeting was a charge by the City Council for the PWETC to
research and make a recommendation on the impact and potential cost savings
if the Index goals were dropped by 5%.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the City Council’s rationale in requesting that study
based on the current reserves (e.g. interest earnings) in the PMP reducing
annual projects and future planning needs as roads come up for reconstruction
beyond normal maintenance.
·
Pavement
Lamination Issues
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Culver reviewed what this meant, and suggested a review by the PWETC
should be wrapped into their PMP study as well.
Members were directed to some problem
roadways for their inspection and at varying levels of deterioration:
Rosewood west of Cleveland; Minnesota Avenue between Rice and Lovell north of
Highway 36; and west of County Road C.
·
Community Solar Gardens.
The consensus of the PWETC was
that the City Council’s initial charge was for a review of the City’s current
ordinances and how solar installations would be accommodated and/or
prohibited and revisions to address that. Also, commissioners recognized
that this review would be part of the grant application, if awarded, for that
detailed review; with the initial step taken by staff to draft a Letter of
Support on behalf of the City Council to submit for the City of Roseville to
become part of the State’s forty cities designated as a “Solar Ready City” in
Minnesota. Mr. Schwartz opined that there would be a role for the PWETC in
that review process.
Other potential work plan items
and areas of interest expressed by the City Council and/or PWETC members
included:
o
Organic
collection
and how/if the City should be proactive; research of information on State
Statute and Ramsey County mandates to understand how the City will implement
it I the future; and requirements of cities receiving SCORE funding for
curbside recycling to comply with the Ramsey County plan in the future.
Commissioners noted that discussions and research of the Eureka Recycling,
3-year contract was needed as that was part of their proposal to provide
organic collection opportunities in the third year of the contract; and/or to
have it in place before new contract bids in 2016.
Mr. Culver noted the strong
interest and clear desire of Eureka to be a willing partner and move forward
with organic collection, which is more easily facilitated with single sort
recycling, with their current trucks having space available for organics,
making their conversion easy.
o
Pathway
Master Plan
Member
Gjerdingen expressed interest in pursuing ranking beyond the
2008 ranking, and
shorter versus longer segments and funds required, and
how to build in
funding mechanisms to build out the pathway system
following
conclusion of the Parks Renewal Program.
Mr. Schwartz reminded
commissioners that there was currently no dedicated funding for new pathways
at this point beyond the CIP recommendations the City Council and staff were
relying on, showing the Parks Renewal Program running through 2017; with 2018
beginning allocation of some dedicated levy funds for pathway construction.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the last levy funds for pathway construction was in
2002, after which the funding allocation was eliminated. Mr. Schwartz
further noted that a new update on the City’s Comprehensive Plan would be
required in another 4-5 years, and suggested an appropriate time to bring
that proposal forward for a formal update of the 2008 Pathway Master Plan,
allowing a broader discussion with a cross-section of the community and
commissions jointly receiving and collating public comment to recommend
dedicated funding sources, unless the City shoes to commit to its funding
before that time. Mr. Schwartz questioned the value of looking at the
pathway ranking and funding now, other than applying state aid dollars for
road construction projects and/or addressing certain segments as part of
redevelopment as applicable.
Member Gjerdingen questioned if
all the funding of the $2 million bond issue was already committed to Parks
Renewal Project expenses beyond internal pathways in parks as part of the
process; and suggested the Parks & Recreation Department be consulted accordingly.
Member Gjerdingen spoke in support of a resolution from the PWETC to the City
Council recommending a designated amount of dedicated funds for
implementation as other major pathway projects (e.g. County Road B-2) were
completed.
Mr. Schwartz reminded Member
Gjerdingen and other members of the PWETC that they had already adopted such
a recommendation several years ago, requesting the City Council to consider
such funding.
Member Gjerdingen suggested the
PWETC and City get more creative in requiring businesses to include pathway
installation as part of their redevelopment requests in the future (e.g.
Interim Use and Conditional Use permits) as opportunities came forward.
Member Wozniak, in his prior
role on the City’s Planning Commission, advised that those discussions were
often part of the land use application and approval process.
6.
Stenlund Capstone Project Presentation
Chair Stenlund reported on a
completed senior class project for Civil Engineering Students at the U of MN
for an idea he’d submitted and students had bid on a proposal to provide a
feasibility study on City/State retrofitting use of LED lighting for street
lights. Chair Stenlund noted that the students: Daniel Fife, Matthew
Neudecker, and Sam Trebesch had completed the project and reviewed their
report and executive summary.
Areas covered included the scope
of work, light quality and sources; conversion; sustainability; light
pollution; energy savings; maintenance; priority replacement schedule; and
cost benefit for such a retrofit and payback time as part of their economic
analysis and rate of return.
Chair Stenlund advised that their
final recommendation was in support of the retrofit, and reviewed proposed
approaches to facilitate the retrofit based on a systematic approach to consider
high use areas, light locations and wattage based on uses (e.g. pedestrian
walkways, signal lights, etc.), vehicle traffic, road safety, environmental
benefits, air emissions during manufacturing and energy used in the
manufacturing process; and availability of rebates.
In conclusion, Chair Stenlund
advised that their recommendation was that it was worthwhile for the City to
make the conversion as funding became available.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the City
Council had begun funding $25,000 per year for LED conversion, with 2014 the
first year for scheduling thirty-seven fixtures on County Road C for
conversion of pedestrian level lights to LED.
Discussion included past interest
expressed by Xcel Energy, but based on their return of investment or available
revenue received through rate increases for customers to fund that conversion
to LED.
If other members of the PWETC had
ideas they’d like to submit for consideration as a Capstone project, Chair
Stenlund encouraged them to submit them. Chair Stenlund advised that he was
resubmitting his proposal for students to design a community car wash system
or kit to fit on a trailer, to be stored in a city-owned facility, for
schools, churches or community groups to use for all water to be re-used and
soaps and garbage from vehicles properly disposed of. Chair Stenlund advised
that the system would be similar to the portable system currently used by the
DNR in dealing with Zebra Mussels.
7.
Lexington Bridge at Highway 36 Layout Overview
Mr.
Culver reviewed the preliminary schematics and highlights of the project’s
elements and timing for MnDOT’s replacement of Highway 36 bridges,
specifically the Lexington Avenue bridge in this instance.
Mr.
Culver advised that Ramsey County and the City of Roseville had been working
with MnDOT for a number of months on design elements and staging concerns for
the overall project, with stormwater improvements and ultimate staging and
final bridge aesthetics details to be finalized over the next year. Mr.
Culver noted that the project was originally slated to be underway already,
but with the acceleration of the I-35E MNPASS system and impacts to the I-35E
project, this project was pushed out to eliminate and/or reduce those
impacts. Mr. Culver advised that the updated tentative timeline was for bid
in the fall of 2015 and construction start in 2015. Mr. Culver advised that
staff continued to work with MnDOT to keep construction activities limited to
one year versus a two-year project as originally planned, in order to reduce
local impacts.
Specific
to the aesthetics of the current versus new bridge, Mr. Culver advised that
the existing railing no longer met current design or safety standards for
interstate roadways, but staff was attempting to work the Art Deco design
into the new bridge and maintain the look of existing pillars, and the arch
element.
Discussion
included the importance of this Lexington Avenue corridor for school
students; similar travel lanes (two through lanes and one center turn lane);
existing pedestrian facilities with a better 2’ separation between the
pathway and drive lanes, with slope paving on the west side; and a 10’ clear
zone on the east side. Mr. Culver advised that staff continued to consult
with MnDOT on the potential installation of a sidewalk on the east side,
since there will be some width gained underneath the bridge that could
hopefully extend north, with installation under the bridge now and future
extension and connection both north and south as a future project.
On
the freeway side, Mr. Culver advised that was supportive of the long-term
goal for three lanes on Highway 36 eastbound, and was therefore building the
roadway wide enough to support that in the future, with only striping at this
time, but scripted as a wide shoulder and construction of the bridge at this
time supporting that application in the future. While it was difficult to
absorb the whole context of the interchange layout form these maps, Mr.
Culver reviewed areas of new pavement, signal replacement for ADA compliance features
at ramps; and concrete rehabilitation on the Hamline Avenue ramps on the
north side, which will also be closed for a portion of the construction
project as well.
At
the request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Schwartz reviewed past considerations by
MnDOT to remove the Hamline Avenue overpass and exits when the bridge was
originally slated for replacement in 2005. However, Schwartz advised that in
2000, additional discussions had been initiated with MnDOT on the feasibility
of that, originally intended to look at the broader spacing along this
stretch and desire by MnDOT to eliminate weave movements between ramps and
westbound traffic and the Hamline Avenue off ramp, and based on exits too
close together according to ramp spacing guidelines. However, Mr. Schwartz
advised that at the request of Ramsey County and Roseville were the negative
impacts that would have on traffic on Snelling and Lexington Avenues and in
front of the high school on County Road B-2, with that infrastructure being
inadequate to take on an additional estimated 14,000 cars displaced from the
Hamline Avenue ramps. Mr. Schwartz noted that, around that same time,
funding shortages occurred; with the current project focus simply one of
bridge replacement and not reconfiguration of other elements.
Additional
discussion included changes in alignment of two of the four ramps; lack of
analysis by MnDOT pursuing roundabouts in this area to avoid back-ups during
peak school times, but limited by significant grade issues and challenges to
the cost of the project. Form a staging perspective, Mr. Culver advised that
diverting Highway 36 traffic off the ramp and then back onto Highway 36
around bridge replacement segments would cause Lexington Avenue to be closed
to through traffic for a time. Mr. Culver advised that MnDOT had originally
intended to divert eastbound traffic, build the bridge and move traffic onto
it; however, that would have required two construction seasons, and the City
had suggested that MnDOT look at widening the ramp temporarily to allow one
lane in each direction in order to build both bridges at the same time and
provide significant economies of scale (e.g. easier traffic control and
contractor mobilization costs). Mr. Culver advised that this would save a
whole construction season of difficulty for Roseville residents and users of
Lexington Avenue with one versus two construction seasons, with Lexington
open to local traffic only.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that the proposed closure would be four months. At the
request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that staging remained
preliminary at this point, and MnDOT was committed to looking at it again.
Mr.
Culver advised that, if traffic was completely diverted, contractors could
accomplish the work quickly to the benefit of all. As an example, form his
experience with bridge construction on Highway 610 in Maple Grove, one
freeway overpass in forty-five days, proving that it can be done, as well as
saving money and time and impacts. At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr.
Culver advised that consideration was given to impacts to State Fair traffic
impacts as well as school schedules, with determination that the larger
impact would be for State Fair traffic, and therefore, the project may need
to be initiated before school gets out.
Member
Seigler opined that Highway 36 was currently backed up daily, and with
reduced lanes during construction and/or diversion of the traffic, it would
bury Larpenteur Avenue, Highway 96 and other alternates as people found those
options.
Mr.
Culver agreed that there would be serious restrictions during rush hour, but
the goal was to focus the pain into a few months versus two years, and get
the project done.
Chair
Stenlund concurred, opining that people tended to adjust after the first
week.
Specific
to drainage issues and designs by MnDOT, Mr. Culver advised that City staff
was working with their proposal to address what was needed locally from a
drainage perspective, and allow the City to incorporate its historical
drainage issues in that area and flow issues for the nursing home and other
problem areas (e.g. Sherren and Dellwood areas) as part of that extended
drainage management mitigation. Mr. Culver noted that there were several
open spaces that may allow for shared ponding between the City and MnDOT; and
assured members that staff would continue working with them on that aspect.
At
the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Culver advised that based on the noise
analysis performed by MnDOT, as long as no lanes were being added at this
time, no noise walls were required. However, when the third lane occurred,
Mr. Culver advised a noise wall would need to be installed, and based on
preliminary noise wall studies along this corridor indicating areas that
qualified under those standards.
At
the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Culver advised that a mill and overlay
of Lexington in that area would be included as part of the project; and while
MnDOT has accommodated the City’s request for a 10’ clear zone on the east
side of Lexington, it was doubtful they would agree to any additional
widening to accommodate expanded pedestrian and bicycle facilities due to
lack of additional funding, and the need for Ramsey County to fund additional
bridge length to accomplish that additional width. At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Culver roughly estimated the cost for six lanes with
shoulders at a significant amount per linear foot, $100 - $150 per square
foot of additional bridge.
Mr.
Schwartz concurred, and advised that Ramsey County did not foresee, in the
next twenty years, needing additional capacity in this area, which may be a
value judgment on their part, but supporting their cost analysis projections
and planning.
Member
Gjerdingen opined that this put the City in a tough spot; and questioned how
the cross section of road under the bridge compare to the north/south areas
of Lexington and Sherren.
Mr.
Culver advised that there would be about the same area as far as width on the
left; and if smaller than the rest of the roadway, it seemed prudent to
expand the width unless this is a natural chokepoint. However, Mr. Culver
opined that it would be difficult for the City to consider expansion of
Lexington Avenue north or south of the bridge to add a full additional travel
lane, based on available of rights-of-way.
Additional
discussion ensued regarding Member Gjerdingen’s concerns about sufficient
space on the shoulder for pedestrian and bicycle traffic; 40 mph speeds
posted on Lexington Avenue; with Member Gjerdingen offering to personally
measure the roadway to alleviate his curiosity and concerns; seeking
assistance from staff to determine the actual right-of-way locations and
widths.
Chair
Stenlund noted that, by comparison, the Dale Street bridge was not as wide as
the Lexington bridge, and the proposed slope paving would make it appear even
wider. With MnDOT willing to provide the additional 10’ clear zone requested
by the City, which it currently didn’t have, Chair Stenlund opined that this
was a great addition to the project and to the benefit of the community.
Mr.
Schwartz concurred, noting that the slope paving could also be dealt with
differently in the future to widen the roadway if and when needed; and the
lanes in place now would allow sufficient width for a small shoulder on
either side of Lexington, and curb & gutter to provide better drainage.
As
an example, Member Gjerdingen referenced the wide curb installed in
Minneapolis and on Como Avenue.
Mr.
Culver noted that in some places the wide gutter was used as a bicycle lane,
even though the seam was difficult for riders to deal with, but creating a 4’
gutter and an 11’ through-lane.
Member
Gjerdingen concurred that as the pavement got worn, the seam was difficult to
deal with; and questioned how the sidewalk could be extended, since he was
aware that MnDOT preferred to have a connection point at both ends.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that staff would need to look at the potential of extending
from Sherran to Lovell, but cautioning that MnDOT would not pay for such a
extension, and would not pay for even the portion they’d already agreed to,
but it would be up to Roseville and/or Ramsey County to pay for it at a
negotiated cost between them. Mr. Schwartz offered to discuss Member
Gjerdingen’s suggestions with Ramsey County to determine their interest;
however, he noted that there was no construction fund dedicated by the City’s
levy dollars to facilitate the expenditure; and would need to determine if it
made sense in the overall scheme.
Member
Gjerdingen opined that, if the dollar amount was small enough, it could be
worth bringing to the attention of the City Council for funding. Member
Gjerdingen further expressed his concern with crosswalks at those
intersections, and across the Highway 36 ramps on the east/west portion of
the roadway.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that it had been decided that at least crosswalks installed
at the controlled intersections for ramps would provide some relief; with the
intent to leave all four in place as they currently exist.
Member
Gjerdingen opined that it was important to him to know sooner than later if
that was going to change.
8.
Public Works Department Overview
Mr.
Schwartz provided an overview of the Public Works Department, which had
originally been put together by staff for the benefit of new commissioners,
but deferred due to other agenda scheduling conflicts. Mr. Schwartz advised
that the information was also periodically updated as part of the “Roseville
University” workshops held for interested citizens over the last few years,
with each City department presenting information to better inform residents
about their community and local government operations. Mr. Schwartz
referenced the atlas pages in hard copy form that had previously been
provided to PWETC members, and encouraged them to ask questions of or provide
input to staff at any time.
Mr.
Schwartz reviewed the City of Roseville’s 13.8 square miles and population of
33,600, 2014 Public Works Department budget of $19,500,000 and 32 FTE staff,
and its current organizational chart. Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed each
division and their specific responsibilities: Public Works Administration,
Engineering, Street Maintenance, Utilities, Building and Vehicle Maintenance,
Solid Waste, and Asset Management.
As
part of the Street Maintenance Division, Mr. Schwartz included a discussion
of the PMP and street lifecycle applications; 40 city-owned parking lots;
and public owned pathways; in-house preparation by grading and prep work
before paving to reduce costs; and snow plowing and the City’s current policy
on street plowing (available at www.cityofroseville.com/snow).
Mr.
Schwartz also provided an update on the City’s automatic meter reading (AMR)
and replacement of commercial and difficult-to-read meter replacements begun
in 2010 and expectations of meter replacement to be finished in 2016, with
4,000 installed to-date, with the Finance Department then able to read all
meters city-wide from four data collectors placed throughout the City. Mr.
Schwartz advised that this also allowed more useful data for the City and its
customers in leak detection, promoting efficiency and conservation,
decreasing costs of meter reading and billing times, reliability and better
management of staff resources.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that 1/3 or more of the City’s entire sanitary sewer system
was cleaned annually with a high pressure jet, and in some cases, root
cutting; with 50,000 plus feet of sewer main televised annually to remain
proactive in finding problems and high priority segments. Mr. Schwartz
advised that staff had made significant progress in addressing problem areas,
especially when 80% of the City’s pipes were clay tile, and with lining
technologies, PVC products could be used inside those areas where the clay
tile was failing, with over six miles accomplished in 2014, seven miles in
2013, and five miles in years prior to that. Mr. Schwartz noted that grant
dollars available from State bonding through the Metropolitan Council helped
the City be able to do more than it could accomplish on its own financially.
Mr.
Schwartz reviewed the City’s sanitary sewer back-up cleaning assistance
policy established by the City Council several years ago in an effort to
protect the health and safety of its citizens in addressing immediate needs
in the event of a sewer back-up and cleaning it up as soon as possible. Mr.
Schwartz advised that the amount of assistance, up to $5,000, was intended to
offer assistance to residents, no matter if and when liability was determined
by outside insurance providers, and did not include restoration.
As
part of the Building and Vehicle Maintenance Division, Mr. Schwartz reviewed
facility projects; vehicle maintenance for a 250 plus vehicle and equipment
list handled by two full-timer shop personal (working foreman and mechanic)
responding to over 1,000 work orders per year, along with preventative
maintenance on vehicles based on mileage and/or hours. Mr. Schwartz noted
that this also involved keeping the HVAC systems running, and any painting or
minor rehabilitation of public and office areas. Mr. Schwartz noted that it
had been over ten years since the last update in paint at City Hall, and a
need in the near future would be for some carpet replacement in areas showing
extensive wear. Mr. Schwartz noted that the Division also addressing campus
lighting issues inside and out for select hallway and office lights on 24/7
to meet code; with other lights on timers and sensors to conserve energy.
Mr. Schwartz provided energy savings trending from 2010 through 2012, with
costs being reduced based on a focused effort by staff to reduce the City’s
carbon footprint and providing significant savings at City Hall and the
Public Works building, and vehicle idling policies as well.
Specific
to the Engineering Division, beyond the obvious responsibilities for the PMP,
project management, infiltration and inflow, development project review,
erosion control, right-of-way management, drainage, a city-wide GIS – with
Roseville being a leading city on those GIS services – Mr. Schwartz advised
that the City provided consulting engineering services to the City of Falcon
Heights. Mr. Schwartz noted that, with recent rain events and increased
volume of water into the sanitary sewer – requiring treatment – the City had
been able to identify significant areas with sump pumps connected to the
sanitary system versus the storm sewer, and would be addressing those in the
near future to reduce treatment costs city-wide. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the
intent of the PMP program and annual inventory and CIP.
Mr.
Schwartz reviewed other aspects and improvements made recently with the
City’s comprehensive asset management software program for tracking all work
performed in the department.
As
a recent hire to the City, Mr. Culver offered his favorable impression when
accepting the position, of the City’s atlas and the amount of information
contained within it and coordinated through the GIS program and providing
location-specifics to better plan and complete projects.
Chair
Stenlund and members thanked Mr. Schwartz for providing the information and
recognized the diversity of the Public Works Department and related role for
the PWETC.
At
the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Schwartz advised that the data was
available to the public as requested, including requests of commissioners.
If
interested, staff encouraged members to contact them to see a lining project
live and in operation, as there were several underway at this time.
9.
Possible
Items for Next Meeting – July 29, 2014
·
Community Solar Issues, including reviewing other
community ordinances (e.g. City of Rosemount) to keep on track to facilitate
possible 2015 City participation in community solar issues and their role and
what is best suited for the City of Roseville.
·
Frozen Pipe Alternatives as a priority topic to provide
recommendations to the City Council before needed this fall in anticipation
of the winter season.
·
Pathway Priorities and Rankings
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, staff advised that they would review the previous resolution
adopted by the PWETC and presented to the City Council and whether additional
work was needed at this time. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that this was an
exceptionally busy time of year for staff to focus on research given the
number of construction projects it needed to monitor and inspect, but offered
to research whether or not any additional work was needed on pathway issues.
·
Bicycling/Commercial Districts, with Chair Stenlund
advising that additional education was needed for the PWETC to better understand
the situation prior to any additional meeting discussions. Member Gjerdingen
expressed interest in reviewing other cities with district mapping as part of
that educational piece.
Mr. Culver advised that staff
could briefly explore current State Statute and what the City was bound to,
along with anything in current City Code that may supersede Statute or
anything additional needed. Mr. Culver advised that the information could be
provided to the PWETC for their feedback at that time.
·
Mr. Schwartz noted past discussions about having Mr. Johnson
provide information on rain gardens and BMP’s, and current practices.
Chair Stenlund suggested a
representative from Capitol Region Watershed District as another resource for
that discussion as well.
·
Chair Stenlund requested an update on railroad noise issues
in Little Canada, and any communication on where the signalization efforts
are at.
·
Green Step Overview Program and Tiers
·
Member Seigler requested a quick overview and update on the
Wal-Mart development, now that it was fully functioning, and what was
happening in that area specific to traffic, lighting and movement through the
area, even if the impact was found to be less than originally anticipated.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he
wasn’t sure if sufficient data was available yet as to the impact, but
offered to research it. Mr. Schwartz advised that there were other
activities in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area that were also
stirring things up, and preliminary to future projects. Mr. Schwartz suggested
that update be provided on an upcoming Feasibility Study on the next phase of
Twin Lakes Parkway and remaining infrastructure improvements.
Member Gjerdingen expressed his
interest in the proposed design for the cross-sections as part of the new Twin
Lakes Parkway and where on-street parking fit into the picture, or how the
environment may be improved for vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the Twin
Lakes area.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that,
based on his recollection, there was no on-street parking anticipated in the
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and as part of preliminary plans completed a
few of years ago. Mr. Schwartz advised that the infrastructure already built
today did not allow for on-street parking, and he didn’t anticipate the next
phase did so either; with concurrence by Mr. Culver.
Member Gjerdingen opined that it
was worth discussing, especially with the Planning Commission, as it was a
very important component of a vibrant, walkable city to have buffers between
traffic and pedestrians.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
storm water infrastructure constructed to-date provided buffer opportunities
as part of stormwater mitigation amenities. Mr. Schwartz, as noted by Member
Wozniak, advised that in determining street and right-of-way widths, trade-offs
had been made for parking, trees and boulevards. Mr. Schwartz further noted
that there was a good portion of the next phase of infrastructure already
redeveloped, with stormwater ponds in place, and the current proposal for
apartment buildings near Fairview may allow an opportunity to review and
share that data.
·
Member Wozniak suggested a future presentation by Ramsey County
about available recycling containers and grants available for small
businesses and institutions interested in applying.
Given the number of items
already addressed, Mr. Schwartz suggested flexibility in accommodating that
on the July or August agendas as time allows.
10.
Adjourn
Member Gjerdingen moved, Member
Seigler seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:58 p.m.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|