|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, September 23, 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 Dwayne Stenlund; Vice Chair Steve Gjerdingen; and
Members Brian Cihacek, Joe Wozniak, Joan Felice, Duane Seigler, and Sarah
Lenz
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz, Environmental
Specialist Ryan Johnson, and Community Development Director Paul Bilotta
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of August 26, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Member Felice moved, Member
Cihacek seconded, approval of the August 26, 2014, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 14, Line 607 (Gjerdingen)
Typographical correction:
Correct to read: “…products (e.g. solar installations in walls
and windows) that were forthcoming;…”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 2 (Wozniak,
Gjerdingen)
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed
project updates and maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated
September 23, 2014. Mr. Schwartz advised that follow-up information on tax
increment financing (TIF) would be available to commissioners in the near future
to facilitate future discussions; update on the water tower painting and
purchase by Roseville of potable water from St. Paul Regional Water Services,
with a review of the pumping and booster stations and Alta Vista Reservoir
and continuous monitoring of demand to retain consistent pressure, with the
City of Arden Hills water tower used as the water column for pressure
monitoring; and daily testing of the City’s water.
Further discussion included
relining efforts and bursting technologies for replacement of water mains and
lines; various types of pipes in the community depending on their age and
location; concerns regarding asbestos-laden transite pipe use, used only on service
laterals in the community, and potential need for mitigation or abatement if
disturbed; and an update on the restoration of County Road B-2, including
pathways, infiltration soils, and relocation of the new north side sidewalk
located in former ditches, with staff having designed them to address
stormwater management through a variety of engineered systems, with affected
homeowners still responsible for some maintenance.
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the cost participation by Ramsey County for the County
Road B-2 project, in the approximate amount of $250,000.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Schwartz advised that the 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) would
include funding to address delaminating pavement areas as evidenced during a
tour by the PWETC, with staff anticipating presenting the 2015 CIP to the
PWETC at their October meeting. As far as any final resolutions, Mr.
Schwartz advised that the local metropolitan road experts were studying the
issue, but had yet to provide a final answer on the overall issue.
5.
Parking Requirements Discussion
Mr. Schwartz noted a previous
request by the PWETC for a better understanding of the City’s development
requirements for parking in order to reduce impacts on infrastructure and the
environment. Mr. Schwartz introduced Community Development Director Paul
Bilotta to address the PWETC’s concerns with over parking and generation of
excess stormwater, as well as the availability of transit nodes and stops.
Mr. Bilotta advised that the City
of Roseville actually had more aggressive parking standards than he found in
many other communities, and distributed as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, a copy of City Code, Chapter 1019
specific to parking and loading areas. Mr. Bilotta reviewed various options,
standards and applications, including credits for implementing parking
management plans, study requirements, the discretion of the City Engineer on
a case-by-case basis, and minimum/maximum parking standards and space
requirements.
Mr. Bilotta further reviewed
specifics and differences in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, incorporating
district and/or structured parking and minimums, as well as shared parking
arrangements, all with the effort of addressing stormwater management
concerns, and pervious versus impervious surface applications, with credit
given to developers for implementation of underground or above ground parking
structures and spaces. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Bilotta advised that it
was addressed for every 100 spaces, but at this time, raingardens and
plantings were not required, but encouraged, with impervious surfaces again
receiving additional credit. In the Twin Lakes area, Mr. Bilotta advised
that district structured parking was also encouraged, but at this point there
was no mechanism in place, since it was recognized that it was difficult to
accomplish from a finance aspect. Mr. Bilotta noted that, initially, TIF was
intended to be used for those amenities, but over time and with the area not
developing as quickly as thought, those funds had been used elsewhere, leaving
extensive costs for developers to provide structured parking.
At the request of Member Lenz
regarding striping parking areas, Mr. Bilotta advised that the developer
proposed spaces and lining them up, but staff advising them based on their
observations if they appear problematic. Mr. Bilotta further advised that
off-street parking is encouraged.
Member Cihacek noted the
differences in defining transit stops versus bus stops, and questioned how
the existing Metro Transit’s park and ride facility had been incorporated
into the overall parking plan; or whether multiple businesses could take
credit for that parking structure.
Mr. Bilotta advised that the park
and ride facility is counted now as any other transit, and the City did not
have any agreement in place with Metro Transit to use the facility for other
purposes, such as was done at the Eden Prairie Center when it was included in
the underlying development, designed largely for evening use when it was
available for other uses. Regarding credits, Mr. Bilotta advised that as
long as people came from a distance and utilized the bus service, everyone
got the credit.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Bilotta advised that defining where and how on-street parking is allowed,
was handled by the Public Works Department, and as noted by Mr. Schwartz was
dependent upon the road width, type and safety considerations as addressed
through the City Engineer’s office as to what was appropriate.
Member Gjerdingen spoke in
support of on-street parking in the case of the Twin Lakes area, and asked if
staff was doing anything to encourage on-street parking in commercial areas.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, at
this time, Twin Lakes Parkway was meant to be a reliever to County Road C,
meaning it was meant to accommodate traffic flow that wasn’t necessarily
stopping at businesses between Fairview and Cleveland Avenues. From that
perspective, Mr. Schwartz advised that on-street parking would create a
problem for that traffic flow, and therefore was not being encouraged. On
Mount Ridge Road, Mr. Schwartz advised that there was on-street parking
proposed on one side of the street on this north/south road identified as a
collector street.
Member Gjerdingen opined that,
compared to the higher volumes of downtown St. Paul and/or Minneapolis
arterial streets, the streets in Twin Lakes nor County Road C had nowhere
near those volumes, and questioned what operational issues staff was trying
to avoid.
Mr. Schwartz stated that capacity
and safety concerns were an issue since the streets in Twin Lakes or
generally in commercial areas were of a different design than those in either
of the downtowns.
Mr. Bilotta concurred, noting
that due to the location of Langton Lake, the roadways in the Twin Lakes area
didn’t grid out, which was the typical pattern for making on-street parking
work better, and since allowances were not available to provide the same
traffic calming available in other areas.
Member Cihacek asked if there
were incentives in place or intended to encourage shared parking by
developers.
Mr. Bilotta advised that this was
one big issue to address with various components to be considered by the
Planning Commission, the PWETC and the City Council: how is structured
parking going to be financed and maintained; and will it be owned by the City
of Roseville or by individual private developers. Mr. Bilotta noted that
there were few current incentives, even though developers are held to a
parking standard that was not necessarily amenable to them. Mr. Bilotta used
the recent concept plan presented for hotels and a grocery store in the Twin
Lakes area, and requirements that were not available unless a structured
parking system was incorporated with adjacent properties and allowing
interconnectivity between parking lots. While the developers have been
working together to address those issues, Mr. Bilotta noted the economics for
structured parking would become an issue over the next twelve months as
development picked up throughout the community, but especially in the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area.
At the request of Member Wozniak,
Mr. Bilotta clarified that the Twin Lakes area was not the only area where
staff anticipated required parking issues and enforcement being problematic,
and further clarified that staff was not trying to push parking on anyone not
wanting it, attempting to keep it below a reasonable shortage of parking,
with some areas tight right now, but not unreasonable, but not in an area
with stricture standards (e.g. Lexington Avenue strip mall with multiple restaurant
uses) which were not typical in that type of development since they had
higher parking requirements.
Chair Stenlund noted the
seasonality of some retailers (e.g. Wal-Mart Store); and sought encouragement
of pervious surface parking options to avoid a large impervious parking
situation (e.g. periodic parking at churches) as well.
Mr. Bilotta agreed that the “old
school” parking standards had been set up based on only seasonal needs; and
the current standards attempted to address a more normal parking need,
recognizing that during certain periods of the year (e.g. Christmas) there
may be some problematic parking issues, with the market dictating the needs
of developers and staff seeking a balance as it encouraged less parking
masses and incentives for developers to think creatively. However, Mr.
Bilotta clarified that there was nothing in the current code that required
pervious pavement use by developers, only encouraged them to pursue other
options.
Chair Stenlund suggested making
sure that encouragement was clear to developers, to incent them to explore
options for stormwater management and other environmental and/or aesthetic
amenities.
Chair Stenlund cautioned the
situation along County Road B-2 created by the new sidewalk installation,
while maintaining access for residents, and a walking area for pedestrians,
while still creating an enticing parking area for infrequent overflow
parking. Chair Stenlund advised that he would strongly support at least a
gap of one parked car to allow safety for bicycles or pedestrians as opposed
to putting them against the traffic, and suggested such considerations be
reviewed, such as through Complete Streets, to provide those safe places
beyond sidewalks.
Mr. Bilotta suggested several
ways that could be done, using the City of Eugene, OR as an example in
addressing alternate transit modes, and best management practices (BMP’s)
based on physical standards as applicable. Mr. Bilotta also noted other
examples of striping and/or signage for two-directional bicycle traffic not
working (e.g. First Avenue in Minneapolis).
Further discussion included when
construction and/or reconstruction triggers a review of parking depending on
the size of the project; staff’s encouragement of shared agreements; and the
challenges found during construction projects.
Chair Stenlund and PWETC members
thanked Mr. Bilotta for this useful information for their future
deliberations.
6.
Ramsey County Recycling Presentation
Mr.
Schwartz advised that Member Wozniak had offered this presentation to the
PWETC by Ramsey County on their BIZ Recycling and grant program to incent
businesses to recycle.
Member
Wozniak introduced Mr. Joel Andersen from Ramsey County to make this
presentation as the County encouraged organic collection as it moved toward
the State law requiring metropolitan counties to divert 75% of their waste by
2030 and further encouraged new or upgraded recycling programs. Mr. Andersen
provided materials, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Joel
Andersen, Ramsey County
Mr.
Andersen provided an overview of Ramsey County programs in addressing this
mandate. Mr. Andersen advised that Ramsey County considered that they had
made the lion’s share of efforts that were available to is in its residential
recycling programs, and were now shifting focus to the commercial side.
However, Mr. Andersen recognized that the relationship of government with
business was not always a well-received effort, and therefore, had created
the BIZ Recycling and Grant Program with a business to business model, with
Ramsey County working with different consultants to act on behalf of Ramsey
County and explain the process.
Mr.
Andersen reviewed the grant program, launched June 1, 2014 by the Ramsey and Washington
Counties resource recovery project. Mr. Andersen reviewed the goals of the
Biz Recycling Program, noting that Ramsey County was currently recycling 47%
to53%, and wanted to reach its goal of 75% recycling, as well as promoting
job growth and protecting the environment. Mr. Andersen advised that this
included schools, healthcare facilities, institutions, and local businesses
recycle more by providing them a financial incentive to do so, making the
effort through an economic versus mandated method more effective in
accomplishing those goals.
Mr.
Andersen noted that the garbage bills from licensed trash haulers for each
commercial business in Ramsey County included a County Environmental Charge
(CEC), at 53% for Ramsey County businesses on top of their garbage bill, and
based on the amount of trash produced by those businesses. While many
assumed that their bill was based on actual tonnage, Mr. Andersen clarified
that this is not generally true, but most business owners didn’t understand
how that CEC impacted their business costs until explained to them, providing
an economic incentive to recycle and reduce those costs. Mr. Andersen noted
that those businesses pay a 17% state tax on those garbage bills in addition
to the Ramsey County CEC fee.
As
part of an initial program to make businesses aware of and encourage
recycling, Mr. Andersen advised that during 2012-2013, outreach was provided
to over 1,300 businesses, with consultants working on site with 227 and 120
business projects completed. Mr. Andersen noted that this meant over 8
million pounds of recyclables and organic waste had been diverted per year as
a result of those efforts. To-date, Mr. Andersen advised that 42 grants had
been issued, with funds in the amount of $196,000 distributed, having a total
impact of $283,000.
Mr.
Andersen provided examples of some of those success stories, including
Concordia University, Warners’ Stellian, as well as smaller businesses (e.g.
hair salons capturing plastic bottles).
Mr.
Andersen reviewed the grant program and process, intentionally created to be
simple, with a one-page grant application and no matching funds required.
Mr. Andersen noted that the consultant, Minnesota WasteWise, offered a free
assessment for each business and specific to what they needed to recycle,
depending on whether a warehouse or office type business, and then helped the
business fill out the grant, and reviewed trash hauler bills. While most
businesses don’t even review their trash hauler bills, considering it a given,
Mr. Andersen clarified that it is a controllable utility. Mr. Andersen provided
another example of a property entitled “Crossroads” with nine buildings, and
a total grant of $7,000, and now on track with a sustainable recycling
program. Mr. Andersen noted that many businesses do no recycling of any
kind, and this program is intended to start, improve, define or enhance waste
and recycling, as well as encouraging organics programs as applicable. Mr. Andersen
noted that often, businesses perceive a cost to recycling, whether real or
imagined, but is found to be mostly due to a lack of education.
In
response to questions by commissioners, Mr. Andersen advised that commercial
recycling bins are part of the grant program, allowing right-sizing of
dumpsters as more materials are diverted into recycling, also reducing costs
and/or reducing the frequency of pick-ups.
Member
Wozniak noted that the CEC fee is separately identified on each bill, and
Ramsey County has audit teams available to review records each year to ensure
that requirement is met and Ramsey County is collecting what is being billed
by trash haulers, so a lot of oversight was already built in. Member Wozniak
advised that the goal of the CEC was intended to raise awareness for
businesses that throwing things away was costing them money, and while it
hasn’t meet that requirement to-date or worked as an incentive, these
programs are designed to get their attention and encourage them to do it now,
and offer assistance to get them started.
Mr.
Andersen provided another example of a food truck that was seriously
composting: paper waste, organics, and even using compostable utensils.
Mr.
Andersen noted that an advertising campaign was scheduled for October through
December of 2014 providing information on the new state law; with articles
intended for Chamber of Commerce and business publications, as well as
articles in county and municipal publications. Mr. Andersen advised that
BizRecycling sponsored events would be hosted, bringing the information to
and connecting the local business community, with a workshop for
administrators and executive directors at The Lodge in White Bear Lake, as
well as business meetings in the City of Woodbury. By targeting business
associations and civic organizations, Mr. Andersen hoped it would provide
that necessary educational component, with funds available to incent their
involvement and partnerships.
Mr.
Andersen noted that Ramsey County often heard from businesses that start-up
costs for new businesses were a barrier, and this is one response to reducing
the impacts of those start-up costs. Mr. Andersen noted that there were
starter and bin grants available of up to $10,000 for equipment, supplies,
and/or containers, now available by applying online at www.lesstrash.com.
Mr.
Andersen reviewed the success of the organic recycling rewards program at the
St. Paul Hotel, and their annual savings at $25,000, even though it took
multiple efforts for Minnesota WasteWise to define and work out a
relationship before the Hotel’s Director of Operations was on board, but now
they were diverting 90% of the waste that went through that hotel.
Mr.
Andersen noted other programs already in place and available to Roseville
Schools for the “Food to Hogs” program, a private business, along with other
private compost sites for organics from those institutions and managed under
Department of Health regulations.
At
the request of Member Felice, Mr. Andersen confirmed that non-profits and
churches are also eligible for this grant program.
Member
Wozniak advised that one reason he wanted this proposal to the PWETC was the
interest shown by some Roseville churches in wishing to expand recycling to
join with Eureka Recycling; with this program allowing them to do so; with
Minnesota WasteWise reviewing individual bills and helping those entities
shop around for the best option for their specific operation.
Mr.
Andersen noted that commercial businesses have more than one option for their
recyclables, unlike the residential curbside pick-ups contracted for with the
City for pick-up.
Discussion
ensued regarding labels available as part of the grant program and providing
consistency throughout the metropolitan area; the hierarchy of recycling for
food stuffs from restaurants or grocery stores and served to humans, as a
consumable product and not part of this program at this time.
Mr.
Andersen advised that, while this program is very new, the goal was to reach
the state’s mandated goal, and to generate more interest in organic
recycling, and increase route densities to provide a viable business model
for haulers. Mr. Andersen noted that businesses need to concentrate on their
business, and not primarily focus on recycling, and the goal of this program
is to make it simple and cost-effective to recycle.
Further
discussion included how the City and the PWETC can facilitate getting this
information to businesses by partnering with Chambers of Commerce and make
everyone aware of the potential and financial benefits; and limited
information needed to implement the programs, basically diversion rates, not
other business trade secrets.
Chair
Stenlund asked Mr. Andersen to also ask waste haulers to address construction
projects and their waste materials beyond metals and pavement, but the human
side of employees working for a contractor that was not being addressed at
this time (e.g. lunch waste, water bottles, etc.). While employees may not
be that interested recycling on their job site, Chair Stenlund opined that
there was no sense in burying that material on site.
Mr.
Andersen suggested such a clause for recycling those materials be written
into project Requests for Proposals; and if the construction site was within
Ramsey County, the construction would also be eligible for these grant funds
under most circumstances. However, Mr. Andersen noted that, while the law
(State Law 115A.151 as amended) doesn’t go into effect until 2016, it only
applied to certain SIC companies, and those would not include the
construction industry.
At
the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Andersen advised that many larger
chains or corporate offices had applied for grant funds and sought to reduce
their waste; however, he did note that sometimes the corporate bureaucracy and
how contracts were written on a national level may negatively impact those
local interests in participating.
Mr.
Andersen reviewed upcoming key dates for some commercial businesses to comply
with the law and those impacted by Section 473.121 in the metropolitan
counties based on the number of cubic yards of solid waste collected per
week, with the MPCA still defining the law loosely and reviewing enforcement
of it. However, Mr. Andersen noted that Ramsey County has chosen to be
proactive in its efforts to reach businesses before the program is mandated,
at which time this grant program would no longer be in existence.
Chair
Stenlund thanked Mr. Andersen for his presentation and timely information,
Mr.
Andersen offered free resources and assistance to Ramsey and Washington
County businesses, with additional information available at:
Joel
Andersen
651-266-1178
joel.andersen@!co.ramsey.mn.us
LessTrash.com
7.
GreenStep Cities inventory
Environmental Specialist Ryan
Johnson presented and reviewed a more detailed inventory of current
practices by the City of Roseville, along with the entire list of practices
and requirements for the GreenStep Program, beyond those attached inventories
and requirements included in the staff report dated September 23, 2014.
Mr. Johnson opined that Roseville
was very progressive and had been taking many of the required steps for years
without the incentive of being credited for doing so.
Mr. Schwartz noted that a group
of graduate students had initially put the inventory together, and clarified
that it remained a work in progress, with some things needing more
refinement, research or further clarification to make sure the City was fully
meeting GreenStep requirements. Therefore, Mr. Schwartz encouraged the PWETC
to ask questions of this new material developed by the grad students in
working with and interviewing City of Roseville staff.
Mr. Johnson reviewed information
entered into the GreenStep website and various columns for that data,
including benchmarks. Mr. Johnson noted that additional code requirements and
credit applications would need addressed moving forward as the City sought to
achieve a higher step up to Level 3, requiring further refinement and
completion as detailed in the inventory, and whether addressed by code or
policy.
At the request of Member Seigler
specific to higher housing density, Mr. Schwartz advised that this was a
tough issue, and actually incorporated two separate issues: higher density
and impacts on home values; as well as creating more green space. Mr.
Schwartz addressed the housing plan and goals of the Metropolitan Council as
the overall planning agency and their push for density state-wide, while not
addressing garage sizes or units per acre.
Member Seigler stated that his
number one concern with Roseville transitioning was whether it should
massively improve through new and bigger homes or through high-density
housing reducing the value of current housing stock.
Member Cihacek stated that he
didn’t see higher density decreasing housing values as long as those units
were well constructed; and opined that smaller lots on a block would reduce
the cost of municipal services. However, Member Cihacek questioned what high
density meant to Roseville within the context of the community, recognizing
that the property values in some other suburbs (e.g. Edina) with high density
actually exceeded those of Roseville, but they still faced architectural
issues. Member Cihacek noted one example was for the “grandmother”
apartments which could create a larger garage on the first floor while increasing
density on the second floor.
Member Seigler noted that the
City of Roseville was currently strict on any reduction for lot line
setbacks, especially for a two-car garage; and if the City adopted the
GreenStep program, those setbacks may no longer exist.
Member Felice opined that, with
no setbacks and more density, it served to make the City of Roseville more
livable for transportation and walkability. Member Felice opined that it was
her understanding that zero setbacks were for businesses with the intent of
targeting huge parking lots versus buildings right up against the sidewalk
without pedestrians having to navigate a lot of cars, creating some
advantages and making the community much nicer and pedestrian friendly.
Member Seigler opined that he was
concerned with residents willing to put hundreds of thousands of dollars in
their homes and being told no, while high-density housing is permitted right
next door.
Mr. Schwartz advised that cities
typically set up zoning areas for higher density, while other large lot
residential areas stay that way to avoid changing their character.
Member Seigler expressed concern
that the City may be in a panic to pass this GreenStep program and
inadvertently change everything.
Mr. Johnson clarified that it is
not the goal of the GreenStep program to do that, but to have something to
work toward; and by sharing data with other cities, it was recognized that
everything in Roseville was not applicable to some of those other communities
(e.g. septic system requirements). Mr. Johnson advised that it was the
intent of this program to make it broad enough to allow a number of different
and unique cities to meet the goals and move through the process. Mr.
Johnson noted that everything as not going to be checked off, and the City of
Roseville intended to work through the things that could be accomplished, but
not with the intent of changing the character of Roseville, but simply to
take credit for the green steps already being accomplished. If things were
modified in the future (e.g. Complete Streets) as other things were
implemented, Mr. Johnson opined that they could provide additional benefits;
however, he did not realistically see the City being able to check off every
one of the items on the inventory.
Member Seigler opined that he did
not think the City should attempt to do so either.
Member Wozniak opined that the
GreenStep Cities template was intended for any city to see how they compared,
and since the City of Roseville was almost fully developed and a mature
suburb, a lot of things wouldn’t apply to it while it may apply to other
cities having more growth potential (e.g. new cities and new developments).
Member Wozniak opined that he didn’t see that happening in Roseville.
Member Seigler noted that even
recently, some zoning districts have been changing from R-1 to R-2, serving
to allow for that increased density; opining that it looked to him like an
intentional step in meeting this program’s goals.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he
would consult with Mr. Bilotta to get more specific information on those
zoning districts and their locations. Mr. Schwartz noted that density as
always a tough issue for suburban communities; and encouraged members of the
PWETC to provide public input for the pending Metropolitan Council’s housing
goals as they deal with these and other issues as well.
Chair Stenlund reviewed those
items required on the inventory (Steps #1, 11, 15, and 24) opining that those
were the most difficult ones to accomplish, and if required it would change
the total character of Roseville to accomplish that density. Therefore,
Chair Stenlund questioned if one of those things created an impediment to the
decision process, the City of Roseville may not get out of Tier 1 of the
GreenStep Program.
As an example with Goal #1
(building energy goals), Mr. Schwartz advised that there was no specific
energy use goals, but simply a tracking of information for comparison purpose
with other communities and the City of Roseville itself.
Mr. Johnson further clarified
that Xcel Energy had already sent the information, but the ball was in his
court to enter all of the five years worth of data from all City buildings
onto the GreenStep website, which he found to be very doable. Mr. Johnson
opined that most of the required steps could be accomplished.
Regarding Step #15 (purchases and
consumables), Mr. Schwartz advised that the City currently had a
decentralized purchasing policy which made it more difficult to achieve that
requirement.
At the request of Member Felice,
Mr. Johnson addressed the intent of the benchmarks and community engagement
process for development, noting that within the website itself, there was
more detailed information on each of these. Mr. Johnson opined that #24 was
probably the hardest to attain, with the City having done less work under its
five subheads than the other goals, and needing the most work, with #1 the
closest to being accomplished.
Mr. Schwartz opined that the
PWETC could provide assistance in advising how best to engage with the
community to get the word out.
Member Gjerdingen expressed his
unfamiliarity with some of the framework and terms for green building, and
sought additional information or a source to find this information.
Mr. Johnson advised that once the
website was more built out than currently done, that information would become
available on the GreenStep Program website and would provide more information
than the MPCA site. Once the resolution was passed by the City Council and
the website built, Mr. Johnson advised that the City would have more access
and more explanations available. Mr. Johnson offered to answer specific
questions of the PWETC, and if not available to him on the website, he would
e-mail the MPCA for definitions and that information and provide it for
dissemination to the PWETC. Mr. Johnson clarified that level #1 in accessing
the website would be the City Council’s passing of the resolution; which
would become public for anyone to access the information specific to the City
of Roseville. At this time, Mr. Johnson advised that it was readable for the
public, and offered to send out a link to the Roseville site, but cautioned
that the information to-date remained rather mundane with only population and
demographic information completed until things were filled out more. Mr.
Johnson suggested a review of the City of Shoreview’s and City of Falcon
Heights’ sites as examples of information developed over several years
already. Mr. Johnson advised that he intended to fill in more data during
the winter months as the construction period wound down.
Chair Stenlund noted that some of
the GreenStep areas are not specific to the PWETC, but some more applicable
to Finance, Planning or other areas of expertise. Chair Stenlund suggested
it would help to know how the PWETC can help, and not just in educating the
community.
Member Seigler agreed, opining
that Step #23 would be good for the PWETC as well.
Discussion ensued regarding other
areas listed in the inventory and how they applied specifically to current
and/or future Roseville code and policy; and the need for an outline of gaps
beyond those required that may indicate communication with block clubs,
congregations or other community groups to facilitate their education.
Mr. Johnson advised that he would
segregate those items more appropriate for the PWETC to handle and suggest a
role for them to play in helping.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
would first select the easier items to accomplish and bring it back to the
PWETC for their policy direction and a list of priorities and next steps for
checking those items off the inventory.
8.
Community Solar / City Facility Energy Use
Mr.
Schwartz provided a brief update since the last meeting on community solar; expressing
his hope that things could have been further along, but noted that financial
discussions were still underway internally, and information not yet
available. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that Mr. Johnson had prepared a
chart on energy use by city facilities; and staff had met with the 10K Solar
firm from Bloomington, part of the Minnesota Made Companies qualifying for
Made in MN credits, who was putting together budgetary numbers and
potentially would bring one of their marketing people to the next meeting of
the PWETC to discuss their findings. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff’s
vision at this time is to have that budgetary discussion and consideration of
the next steps at the October meeting, after which actual solar developers or
construction companies could be brought in once the PWETC determined the best
direction and what kind of realistic proposals should be recommended to the
City Council so they could ultimately decide how best to proceed.
Mr.
Schwartz reported that one finding brought from the meeting was the cost
reduction in solar from $10-$11 per KWh to $3-$5 per KWh, some of which was
due to tax credits, and with increased technologies will serve to make
projects much more feasible and justify solar as a competitor over the next
few years with rising energy costs.
Mr.
Johnson presented his findings of annual City campus KWh usage and needs for
a 3,800 square foot area to install a 40 KWh system. Mr. Johnson opined that
the City campus provided a lot of space to accomplish an array, even with the
existing HVAC system and allowing for future additions to the solar system.
Discussion
included usage per building; solar conditions; projected generation over a
12-month period (e.g. City Hall building at 40 KWh system, generating
approximately 400,000 KWh or half the usage required); and size limitations
based on MN credits, tax credits and the Xcel Energy program and comparisons
to current energy costs.
Member
Cihacek opined that unless the City owned a share, it could not receive the
full benefit of a 40 KWh system as a developer, but could as a host site. As
staff develops this model, Member Cihacek asked staff to provide scenarios if
the City served in the role of a shareholder at a minimum number of shares;
information on the financial analysis portion and what was needed to protect
the advantage for leasing space (e.g. change in insurance limits or incurring
construction costs to determine efficacy); and the financial payback
available to the City as one of twelve shareholders – the minimum and impact
of that cost analysis.
Member
Seigler asked for additional information if the City were to lease or rent a
commercial rooftop (e.g. lease rates) and what the actual value of the City’s
rooftop actually was; opining that if the City gave that area away, what it
was actually giving away financially.
With
discussion on specific buildings and their energy production potential, Mr.
Schwartz reminded members that the limit was 120% of the energy use of a
building; with credit for KWh taken off the main bill.
Member
Gjerdingen suggested looking at some of the park building roofs.
With
projects planned in Minnesota – half in the metropolitan area and half
out-state – Mr. Schwartz advised that the goal is to find ways to make the
solar projects pay for themselves with larger systems versus smaller ones.
Further
discussion and additional information requests included opportunities and
advantages of a separate system available for redirection for emergencies;
opportunity cost analyses, and also soft costs incurred if the City chose to
be a host site (e.g. insurance, liability, wear and tear, etc.); cost benefit
for taxpayers; comparative analyses of lease rates and financial modeling of
how to best benefit from an installation; and identifying developers and
determining what those developers are willing to pay.
Regarding
the timeline, Mr. Schwartz clarified that the only concern in timing is the
application period for Made in Minnesota credits, due by February 28 of each
year for their lottery system for funding with only finite information
available at this time.
Chair
Stenlund reviewed the timeline and intent of the next three meetings to
gather sufficient information to make a recommendation to the City Council
based on the due diligence of the PWETC and subsequent submission to the
lottery system, even if the first round was neutral, and only limited use
achieved. Chair Stenlund opined that subsequent lottery rounds could enhance
the opportunities as it was determined how best to sell the Roseville solar
pieces.
Mr.
Schwartz referenced the St. Paul Port Authority presentation and their
financing powers, as recently hosted by the City of Roseville’s Housing &
Redevelopment Authority; as they reached out statewide for financing options
through joint powers agreements. Mr. Schwartz advised that the City of
Roseville was interested in this option due to the interest expressed by
several churches in Roseville; and ability to fund solar projects through
special assessments for those entities over time. Mr. Schwartz noted that
this was in process as well as staff’s continued search for funding
opportunities through private entities in Roseville.
It
was noted that 10K Solar would be making a presentation to the PWETC at their
October meeting; in addition to staff providing answers to the questioned
raised tonight; and developed as more information became available.
Further
discussion included the RFP process needed; lining up financial partners;
host site versus developer status; potential complexities of financing; and
certain scenarios that may be excluded based on a lack of financing, with the
host site seeming to be the most passive of the three options and potentially
a much simpler process if conditions were met.
Staff
encouraged members to advise staff of any additional information requests
before the next meeting.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – October 28, 2014
·
Revisit Information on parking provided by Mr. Bilotta
tonight and Chapter 1019 (Cihacek)
1) Inclusion
of permeable surfaces as an addition to parking standards;
2) As
discussions surround the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, consideration of
shared parking in the Metro Transit’s park and ride facility as a viable
development option;
3) Examination
of credits to developers for using permeable parking materials
4) Encourage
the Met Council’s discussion for the Twin Lakes area and business strategy to
encourage development
·
Include information on salt in staff’s communication update
(Stenlund)
·
Staff coordination for remaining members to tour the Eureka
facility (Seigler)
·
Update on the 2014 Public Works work plan (Lenz)
·
Update on MnDOT and City Projects
·
2015 Public Works Work Plan
Member Lenz requested an
overview of the whole pathway situation for new members from the Public Works
perspective
Member Gjerdingen requested a
review of the current policies in place for public sidewalk maintenance that
are publicly posted whether electronic or written and also current laws. This
could include a recommendation to the Parks & Recreation Commission
and/or City Council if the PWETC found any gaps.
Mr. Schwartz suggested bringing
staff from the Parks & Recreation Department to talk about their snow
removal for trails since they were in charge of that policy; as well as a
discussion on commercial code requirements for snow removal; and suggested
that be part of a broader snow and ice discussion, along with water line
freeze-ups.
With new members on the PWETC,
Chair Stenlund asked that staff’s communication report include information
and updates on street sweeping, leaf removal and other standing programs as
well as keeping he public alert on the annual work of the Public Works
Department.
·
Community Solar – continued discussion
10.
Adjourn
Member Cihacek moved, Member Lenz
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:42 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|