|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Dwayne 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; Members Brian
Cihacek, Joe Wozniak, Sarah Brodt Lenz, Joan Felice, and Duane Seigler
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and City Engineer
Marc Culver
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of February 24, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Member Cihacek moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the February 24, 2014, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 4, Line 134 (Gjerdingen)
Lower case “Wye” for consistency
throughout document
·
Page 11, Lines 469 – 483 (Gjerdingen)
Member Gjerdingen expressed
concerns with the intent of his comments and transcribed wording of this
paragraph; and with consent of the body, advised that he would provide staff
with his preferred wording.
·
Page 16, Lines 681 and 699 (Stenlund)
Line 681: Change “not” to “now”
Line 699: Change “2-3 acre lot”
to “2/3 acre lot”
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Recognition of Outgoing Members
Chair Stenlund expressed his
personal thanks and gratitude for the services of Commissioners Felice and
Gjerdingen as they completed their terms on the PWETC. Chair Stenlund noted
their invaluable knowledge of the City’s pedestrian and bicycle trails in the
community, as well as those segments still needed. Chair Stenlund stated
that he had been honored to serve with both Commissioners; and encouraged
them to be present at the April 6, 2015 City Council meeting for a formal
recognition of their service.
Public Works Director Schwartz
concurred, and included staff’s appreciation of Commissioners Felice and
Gjerdingen.
5.
Communication Items
Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Culver each
briefly reviewed project updates and maintenance activities listed in the
staff report and attachments dated March 24, 2015.
Mr. Culver expanded on the
comments regarding the City Council’s rejection, at staff’s recommendation,
of all bids recently received for the Evergreen Stormwater Re-use Project due
to their wide variation in pricing and bids coming in higher than the
engineer’s estimate. Mr. Culver advised that staff had met with the
contractor, but with the uptick in the economic situation, contractor prices
were based on their increased business and private projects, with them no
longer being as needy for work. Mr. Culver noted that this system is
relatively deep compared to a typical system, and extra depth and complexity
of the project included the need to run it underneath the sanitary sewer
line, increasing unknowns for estimating by contractors, as well as their
additional risk involved. At the request of the PWETC, Mr. Culver advised
that, while staff was still reviewing the situation, it may be determined
that it would not be prudent to rebid the project later in the year, given
the proximity to the ballfield and the actual scope of a project that would
not negatively impact the construction work planned there; and while it may
be possible, it would be challenging to find a design that could work. Under
the circumstanced, Mr. Culver noted that the City would most likely be
returning the $300,000 grant awarded for the project.
Further discussion included a
report by staff that spring street sweeping had been done in approximately
half of the City; a review of types of curbs and annual replacement as
applicable and as funds allow; staff changes within the Public Works
Department with City Council approval of organizational changes related to
building maintenance management by a private firm on a one-year trial basis,
allowing for creation of an Office Assistant position for entry-level
clerical duties; and upcoming retirements of the Utility Working Foreman, as
well as the retirement of Public Works Director Schwartz at the end of April.
6.
Leaf Pickup Program Discussion
Mr. Schwartz provided a
presentation on the current program and anticipated cost impacts for
equipment replacement in the next budget cycle. Mr. Schwartz advised that
staff anticipated a discussion with the City Council at their April Work
session and was seeking input from the PWETC before that time.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the
background of this program since it was initiated in the 1970 subsequent to
the state-wide burning ban, and noted that Roseville was one of the only
cities in the metropolitan area offering such a service. Mr. Schwartz
further noted the change to a fee-based service in 1998, dramatically
reducing annual participation from approximately 4,500 participants prior to
that time. The City Council has adopted a 2015 fee of $55 per property to
fully cover the cost of the program, Mr. Schwartz advised that the drop in registrations
has occurred at the same time we are seeing an increase in residential use of
the City’s recycling site.
Mr. Schwartz noted that among the
challenges with and costs of the program include weather due to short window
available for the services, typically three weeks, while requiring having
sufficient resources available to stay on schedule. Mr. Schwartz advised
that this requires most of the street division staff in addition to temporary
labor for clean-up raking; and in some years making it difficult to meet
customer expectations based on those challenges.
Regarding the decline in
participants from 2000 to 2014, Mr. Schwartz reported that it had been
reduced from 2,313 registered users to 694 users. Mr. Schwartz noted that
there was an impact to the City’s stormwater system if leaves are not
disposed of properly, but advised that residents were finding alternatives to
the City’s leaf pickup program.
Mr. Schwartz advised that total
program costs for 2014 were $88,696 with 694 participants, or approximately
7% of the City’s single-family residents; with $39,325 in user fees collected.
For 2014, Mr. Schwartz advised that the total cost required a significant
storm utility subsidy due to bad weather.
Discussion included the cost of
the program defined by the number of participants, as well as administrative
and preparation costs, and the need to increase fees as the number of users
decreases to cover actual costs of the program (e.g. equipment).
Further discussion included City
Code violation for leaves raked onto City streets; whether or not more leaves
ended up in the wastewater system from leaving them on boulevards while
waiting for pickup and depending on weather conditions.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had not yet determined the demographics (e.g.
elderly residents) using the program and whether or not they would be
significantly impacted if the program were eliminated. Mr. Schwartz did
advise that staff had observed that typical smaller and less treed lots did
not use the program as much as those larger area lots with more trees.
Member Lenz opined the way the
program was promoted did not serve to encourage interest its use, and
suggested better promotion of the program if it was to continue.
Member Cihacek questioned if
better promotion would bring numbers up sufficiently to make the program
viable; stating that he personally transported his leaves to the compost site
and then returned in the spring to pick up compost, noting that he found that
of value as well.
Member Lenz suggested promotion
of both the leaf pickup program and availability of compost for residents to
help the environment either way.
Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed
anticipated replacement equipment needs in 2015 and 2016 at a total of $350,000
specific to the leaf program itself, and not including extraneous equipment
such as dump trucks and equipment used for other applications as well. Mr.
Schwartz advised that, the reason staff was seeking input from the PWETC was
due to the current equipment being at the end of its useful life, leaving no alternative
but to replace it if the program was to continue.
Specific to labor for the leaf
program alone, Mr. Schwartz advised that in 2014, the City documented 1,026
crew hours for this program. Other Street Division activities at that time of
year (e.g. tree trimming, tree storm damage removal, sign maintenance,
patching, sweeping and other preventative maintenance) are put on hold.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Mr. Schwartz confirmed that hours currently used for the leaf pickup program
could be allocated to those other areas. Mr. Schwartz noted that, if trees
were not consistently and properly trimmed, it created additional maintenance
costs to the City when additional tree damage occurs during storms.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Schwartz advised that more users didn’t necessarily mean a direct
incremental cost to the City as the current smaller number of participants
required more travel time between stops for the crew.
While recognizing that promotion
often impacted participation, in this case Member Wozniak opined that it
wouldn’t be highly evident. Personally, Member Wozniak opined that, while a
nice service, the program was not worth the money required; and without a
large population turnover in the community that might increase participation
or indicate a newer demographic not aware of or alert to the program, he
could see no major increases in the program through additional or more
enticing promotion of it.
Member Felice observed that if no
other municipalities were offering such a program, new residents may not be
looking for such a service, or even thinking about using the service based on
past experience.
Public Comment
Kathy Clink, 535 Ryan Avenue
As a current user, Ms. Clink
spoke in support of the program, even though she wasn’t sure the City should
spend $350,000 on the program to update equipment. Ms. Clink stated that
when she mentions the Roseville program to residents in other communities,
they’re impressed with such a service being available. Ms. Clink opined
that, if you had a small property in Roseville, it probably wouldn’t be
cost-effective to pay a fee to have the leaves picked up by the City, but for
those with larger lots choosing to use the program, it was appreciated.
Chair Stenlund asked staff to
determine if the primary users of the program were Roseville’s elderly
residents; and if so, if there may be a way to offer the service through a
privatized service outside the City. Chair Stenlund further questioned if
there was perhaps a correlation between mulching mowers and the decline in
participants, or if it was simply based on the cost to homeowners for the
previously no-cost program.
Mr. Schwartz noted that there
were many alternative options now available for residents, including backyard
composting, mulching mowers, free access to the recycling center and/or
Ramsey County yard waste sites, or curbside pickup by private trash haulers,
even though some haulers may charge a fee for that service.
Member Felice suggested
interesting civic or service organizations in providing a leaf raking service
versus offering car washes as a way to raise money.
Member Lenz suggested staff
running the GIS program to determine ages of users; and if senior citizens
were predominantly using the program, it may suggest a different approach
since they would represent a different market and need and eliminating the
program may significantly impact their quality of life.
Member Seigler noted that 92% of
residents were already using other options; and his personal observation in
his neighborhood was that only those with larger lots used the program which
he attributed to an economy of scale issue in the current cost.
At the request of Chair Stenlund
to provide staff’s recommendation, Mr. Schwartz advised that the program had
a high impact on existing resources of the department, making it difficult to
contract out a program of this magnitude, particularly with the specialty
equipment required. Given the alternatives currently available for
residents, Mr. Schwartz stated that staff’s recommendation would be to
discontinue the program and reallocate staff resources in other areas where
additional time was needed.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Mr. Schwartz advised that the additional resources for the 2014 program, were
redirected from the Stormwater Fund. If the leaf program was eliminated, Mr.
Schwartz advised that those funds would stay in the Stormwater Fund and go
toward other programs to improve water quality including increasing compost
education efforts.
Member Wozniak stated that he
would much rather see use of the compost site increase in participation
versus continuing the leaf program.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, and recognizing the other tasks for staff during that compressed
period of time used for leaf pickup, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would
continue to clean gutters at various times during the year to prevent or
reduce their impact to the stormwater system.
Chair Stenlund stated his gut
feeling would be to look at alternatives in eliminating the program.
With the upcoming additional
equipment replacement costs, Member Gjerdingen opined it would be worthwhile
at this time to discontinue the leaf collection program.
Member Seigler concurred that the
program should be eliminated and replacement equipment should not be
purchased.
Member Cihacek agreed with his
colleagues, but asked that staff explore alternatives to the program and the
demographics of those residents currently using the program, with that
request duly noted by staff.
Member Lenz recommended giving
the program one more opportunity for 2015 with additional marketing and
promotion, and if those efforts saw no significant community support, then
not replace the specific equipment.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff may be able to provide the program with the
existing equipment for the 2015 season.
While there was no formal action
taken by the PWETC, by consensus, Chair Stenlund noted that the body
recognized that there were apparently not enough users to justify the program
with additional costs to replace existing equipment specific to the leaf
pickup program.
7.
Pavement District Issues Discussion
Mr.
Culver advised that staff would be presenting this information to the City
Council in April for their input as well as this initial presentation to the
PWETC.
Mr.
Culver reviewed the overall purpose of a Pavement Condition Index model where
roads are periodically rated and an inventory taken of cracks, potholes, or
other distresses and a subsequent calculation based on the condition index
based on those distresses, providing an ongoing and consistent projection for
maintenance and/or replacement.
Mr.
Culver reviewed the City’s current maintenance program from when new pavement
was installed, and a following program of seal coating in years 2 or 3, a
second application of seal coating in years 7 to 10; a third application in
years 15 to 8; a mill and overlay to a depth of two inches when the condition
index reaches 35-60, with a full depth mill and overlay with any condition
indexes found under 30. Mr. Culver noted that staff did annual crack sand
joint sealing ahead of sea coat projects, and other patching with a goal to
maintain an average condition index of 75. However, Mr. Culver noted that
budget factors often dictated the amount of roadway in miles that could be
addressed in any given year based on available resources. Therefore, Mr.
Culver advised that those budget ramifications and limitations had created a
funding backlog under the current policy and current goals of the average
condition index.
Mr.
Culver advised that another factor and new reality to consider was the
delamination problem being experienced in the area, with distressed pavements
from the top layer peeling off in strips. Mr. Culver noted that this was
being found exclusively on roadways with a seal coat application; and the
current theory in the industry was that moisture is being trapped by the seal
coating and eroding the wear course (top layer of pavement). Since it was a
difficult thing to duplicate in a laboratory setting, Mr. Culver admitted
that the definitive cause and a complete range of pavements affected remain
an unknown at this time, but the biggest issue seen to-date is delamination
in early stages followed by a rapid acceleration at that point. Mr. Culver
noted further research was needed to determine if this issue was exclusive to
Minnesota pavement mixes only, and determining how and where the problem is
in the interaction between the pavement mix and seal coating.
As
background information, staff advised that since 2005, local agencies
including the City began using a different “super pavement” mix versus the
previous low and mid-volume pavement mixes, with the hopes that switching
would eliminate delamination issues. Mr. Culver advised that MnDOT and
Ramsey County had begun using the super mix earlier than local
municipalities; and since most counties as well as MnDOT didn’t do seal
coating, they were not experiencing the same problems but whether or not it
was a seal coating issue or pavement mix was difficult to determine from
their experiences.
Mr.
Culver provided photos taken earlier today of this issue in various areas
throughout the City, as well as a map showing the street segments affected
and showing the City’s potential exposure. Based on the City’s potential
exposure, Mr. Culver reviewed the new reality of a future condition index
curve as the backlog increases from current assumptions as index levels
reduce from 70 to 60 within the 2014 to 2034 timeframe.
Mr.
Culver reviewed the City’s current maintenance budget for seal coating at
$220,000 annually from the General Fund, and an annual budget of $960,000 for
a two inch and/or full depth mill and overlay, with an average $100,000 from
State Aid funds. However, Mr. Culver noted that the budget also needed to
provide for any annual sidewalk or curb & gutter installations, or other
elements that came from that Local Street Maintenance Fund.
Mr.
Culver advised that staff’s recommendation, which they would present to the
City Council at their April 13, 2015 Work session, would be to suspend the
current seal coat program, and shift the current allotted seal coat funds of
$220,000 to the annual mill and overlay program to accelerate this corrective
action, and starting in 2015. Mr. Culver admitted that staff remained unsure
when the City would stop seeing the delamination distress; and clarified that
typically staff remained a strong proponent of the advantages of performing
regular seal coat applications. Mr. Culver advised that it should be known
within one to two years if the delamination was going to stop, but probably
not before then. Mr. Culver noted that typically, the City got a longer life
from seal coating than for this current delamination issue.
Discussion
included staff’s intent to continue crack sealing of lateral cracks forming
due to expansion and contracting of pavement; results by 2016 and/or 2017 for
existing pavements not exhibiting delamination if not seal coated; other
communities experiencing the same issue and taking similar actions to
determine the cause and effect; and an annual review of the seal coating
issue for future funding.
Further
discussion included those other agencies and communities in the same
situation, and the attention of MnDOT and research boards in defining the
problem and recommended changes if beyond the scope proposed.
Beyond
using the super pavement mix, Mr. Culver advised that staff had taken
additional steps for decreasing air voids in current specifications along
with experiences and recommendations gleaned from other agencies.
At
the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver reviewed the information available
from analysis and cost analyses from modeling, with staff firmly believing
that the current seal coating program is hurting more than helping the roads.
Mr.
Schwartz opined that staff may be able to make a connection based on future
pavement index modeling and pavement maintenance practices.
At
the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Schwartz advised that $220,000 would apply
to approximately one mile of mill and overlay costs.
Mr.
Culver advised that the City was currently at the point where they were
performing mill and overlay on the roads with the worst condition index, and
if spending $1.1 to $1.5 million annually, could accomplish 4 to 5 miles each
year.
Further
discussion included impacts of second and third seal coating in the
delamination situation; staff’s recommendation for elimination of seal
coating on post-2005 constructed roads pending results.
Mr.
Schwartz noted that a few pavements, done in the early 1980’s or late 1970’s
with 3-4 coats of seal coating were showing no problems, but it started
showing up in the 1990’s when refining processes were changed during that
time as well, but not addressed by the industry as a potential factor as of
yet.
Mr.
Culver concurred, noting that there were constant adjustments being made to
the refining process to squeeze out as much crude oil as possible, with the
resulting byproduct available for residential or other uses.
Additional
discussion included impacts of further delaying maintenance based on past
budget constraints already putting a strain on the pavement management
program (PMP) and potential ramifications as previously reviewed by the PWETC
4-5 years ago; typical depth of seal coating by the time of a third lift of
approximately one inch; and city pavements typically 4 inches in depth with
larger volume roadways of 7 – 10 inches in depth.
Discussion
ensued confirming that neither Ramsey or Hennepin Counties performed
sealcoating; differing pavement conditions from one segment to another
frequently based on jurisdictional ownership of a particular roadway; impacts
of higher traffic volumes on county roadways, but all experiencing the same
climate conditions, and other agencies (e.g. MnDOT and/or Ramsey County)
using different pavement mixes than that used by the City of Roseville.
Mr.
Schwartz noted that those agencies typically plan for mill and overlay in
shorter periods of time (e.g. 15 – 20 years) while the City had not done so
in the past before a road reached a thirty year life cycle.
Further
discussion included experimentation with other types of repair of those
delamination issues, including the Cities of Woodbury and Maple Grove, with
no obvious long-term solutions found to-date either from a thin mill and
overlay or seal coating of delaminated streets; whether preparation of the
roadway before seal coating application was of any impact, with limited
failures observed based on observations on a case by case basis.
Chair
Stenlund noted that many variables, including silt and sand components, and
emulsification of oils used.
Member
Cihacek stated that he had no problem in shifting funds to determine if
staff’s hypothesis is accurate, which should be known within the next three
years; however, he further stated that he would not support a forever shift
in that funding, and asked that staff make the annual review of the situation
a standing communication item on the PWETC agenda as additional information
becomes available to staff.
Chair
Stenlund concurred, asking that staff provide an annual Pavement Condition
Report to the PWETC.
As
a frequent bicycler in the community and area, Member Gjerdingen opined that
it was really great to not have seal coating on roadways in their first 5 – 8
years, but after that roads deteriorated faster, noting that there is a
tradeoff in each situation.
Chair
Stenlund noted that, in the PWETC’s occasional field trips, this would
continue to be a topic of interest during such a tour.
8.
Sewer and Water Utility Lateral Ownership Discussion
Mr.
Schwartz provided a presentation on sewer and water laterals, as a follow-up
to information provided at the last PWETC meeting. In response to questions
raised by the PWETC at that meeting, staff provided the following update:
·
Cleanout
construction cost is estimated at $1,000 per connection, depending on site
conditions.
·
Current
plumbing code requires cleanouts every 100’ and the City could require a
clean out at the property line if the City owned the lateral under the
right-of-way.
·
There
were 45 permits issued for sewer repairs at residential properties in 2014,
which was average.
·
There
was only one permit issued in 2014 for a water lateral repair.
At
the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz advised that the City’s plumbing
code could be changed to make it more relative to setback space, but it
relied on the State’s Plumbing Code requirements.
·
Permit
information is retained in City records, but in various formats from database
to paper, depending on its age and available technologies or data retention
systems in use at that time.
·
Point
of sale requirements could be whatever the City wanted in its code, subject
to existing legal restrictions, but it was very controversial, and needed to
be considered from a standpoint of what was reasonable from that legal
standpoint and in consideration of property owner rights.
·
While
previous homeowners are subject to disclosure laws, responsibility can be
difficult to prove.
·
Based
on information received from the City’s Finance Director, if the City
implemented an extension of ownership by the City of laterals, the existing
base rates would need to increase by $17.20 per month for water, $11.80 per
month for sewer, or a total of 29.00 per month added to the existing base
rate for all utility payers. By the City needing to absorb that new lateral
liability, the total base rate for a customer would be $36.12 per month for
water, $20.06 per month or sewer; for a total of $56.18 per month total,
nearly double the current rate to absorb that additional risk.
At
the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Schwartz advised that the City’s liability
in taking over laterals from the property line to the main would be very
significant, with the overall estimated liability over $72 million over the
next fifty years, whether borne by the City or by individual property owners
as part of that overall amount.
Mr.
Schwartz further reported that findings were that each property owner was
spending from $4,000 to $10,000 to repair individual laterals as indicated
from those 45 properties identified in 2014. Mr. Schwartz noted that those
repairs were variable due to the time of year (e.g. winter) when repairs were
needed, pavement restoration types and costs. Mr. Schwartz advised that part
of the $72 million could be addressed for both water and sewer projects if
and when economies of scale were available for multiple projects or timing of
lateral repairs as part of larger projects. In additional to other liability
issues for the City, Mr. Schwartz advised that there were other unforeseen
property damages that could be encountered, further adding to those
liabilities, making it more difficult to clearly identify the actual costs.
Discussion
included how to calculate annual assumptions if the City took over lateral
liability; building of the water sewer funds to incorporated any added
liability if the City assumed liability; city versus private property
ownership costs of lateral line replacements/repairs; new construction versus
repairs/replacement of older existing systems; and variables for costs in
private yards from the property to the home depending on landscaping (e.g.
retaining walls, vegetation, etc.).
Member
Cihacek suggested an annual utility fee to build the funds over time,
eventually revising the City’s current policy to take over the lateral lines
once funds were allotted.
Chair
Stenlund stated his issue was in being responsible for the laterals up to the
property line, when he was not the owner of the line up to the main when
located in the City’s right-of-way, yet still having to pay for any problems,
whether due to age, poor connections/construction, or compaction of soils.
Chair Stenlund noted the difficulty in a private property owner being able to
control or address that maintenance until a system failure, since he was not
the property owner of a segment of the line from the property line to the
main, in addition to the variables in location of the main depending on which
side of the street you lived compared to the side the main was located in.
In
response to questions of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz advised that
currently contractors work with property owners with lining technologies for
sanitary sewers during a specific project; however, he clarified that for
economies of cost, they needed 100% participation from homeowners from one
manhole to the next, resulting in an approximate cost for homeowners of
$3,000 for each lateral from the main to the property line using robotic
equipment. Mr. Schwartz estimated that for an additional $1,000, barring
collapsed pipes or other issues, this lining could gain the property owner an
additional 50 plus years in life for their laterals. In comparison to the
expected lifespan of a roadway, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that that was
typically 50 years or more, depending on another set of variables.
If
the goal is to make the sanitary sewer and water laterals last that same
amount of time, Member Gjerdingen opined it was a benefit to do this.
In
response to Chair Stenlund’s concerns with compaction issues and service
lines compromising or creating structural issues with roads compromising
private lines, Mr. Culver advised that generally compaction resulted from
installation of a service line at the time a home was constructed and
connected to the main, or when the sewer line was initially installed. Mr.
Culver advised that the location of the laterals, or determining who was at
fault or error was not always easy to define, since it could be both or
either the City and private contractor working within the right-of-way.
Member
Felice asked if lining of older sewer lines could be offered to homeowners
when the City was going in to redo sewer lines.
Mr.
Schwartz responded that the question also came up at the City Council level,
and clarified that there are two different lining processes for the main and
the laterals, which can be followed one after the other, but typically done
during the same timeframe. Mr. Schwartz advised that typically the main was
lined followed by lining of laterals. However, Mr. Schwartz reiterated that,
under current policy, laterals can only be done when homeowners are
interested in doing so and if the contractor was only doing 1 or 2 from
manhole to manhole, they estimated their cost would escalate to approximately
$8,000 each due to that economy of scale.
Member
Cihacek noted that an option under a new policy could be for homeowners to
pay upfront in an escrow account or in increments amortized over a certain
timeframe to ensure funding is available. However, Member Cihacek noted one
issue is that the City could not determine which pipes would fail first
without having the information on pipe size and type loaded in its
recordkeeping system.
Mr.
Schwartz reiterated that the information exists, but may be buried depending
on the age of the system, type of materials, but not immediately available
for a city-wide analysis in an efficient manner.
Member
Cihacek opined that the question was whether as a utility customer/homeowner,
would they prefer to pay incrementally for a commodity that they may never
realize any benefit and to support a long-term program with a sinking fund.
Member Cihacek noted that, without the benefit of records and permit, and
code applicability, and only less than 1% of the City’s properties pulling
permits now for this work, it appeared not to be an issue at this time, but
was foreseen to be in the future, even though that remained an unknown.
Member Cihacek expressed appreciation for the information from the Finance
Department, but in order for him to support the City taking on this liability
and increasing water and sewer base rates to fund that liability, he would
need information on the structure and disclosure versus that projected rate increase.
Member Cihacek stated that personally he would accept a rate increase without
that information being available, with the monies raised to be used to
consolidate the current City recordkeeping data.
Member
Seigler opined there were too many scenarios where a homeowner could get the
short end of the stick depending on the location of the main, opining that he
therefore preferred the City assuming liability of the laterals from the
property line to the main.
Member
Cihacek asked Member Seigler if he was willing to accept an additional $20
per month fee for that change in policy.
Member
Seigler responded that he would support building a fund via fees to cover
long-term over the next year, unless the City performed clean-outs on a
wholesale level, otherwise he would support fees increasing sufficiently to
cover costs over the next year and over time grow that fund, with a line item
on utility bills defining that fee to cover the City assuming liability for
lateral lines.
Mr.
Schwartz responded that, if that were to occur, the City would need to
further determine its risk in terms of damage, since this would put the onus
on the City for future failures and sewer backups and other issues if proven
negligent in keeping mains cleaned out. Mr. Schwartz clarified that
currently the City is not typically liable for a lateral line failure
provided it had documented maintenance of the main and the problem was in the
lateral and not the main.
Chair
Stenlund noted that televising the lines can be accomplished, but usually not
all the way into the home due to difficult turns in the lines.
Mr.
Culver noted that it was often difficult to make a determination where the
blockage was at when property damage occurred, making it difficult to prove
where responsibility laid. Mr. Culver questioned the shift for that
responsibility and issues that could arise if the City assumed liability of
laterals, creating more potential for liability and costs.
In
response to Member Seigler, Mr. Schwartz advised that this additional unknown
liability would also need to be built into the fee increases to cover those
potential costs.
In
response to Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the approximate cost
to install a clean-out for a residential property was $1,000 up to the
property line. Member Cihacek calculated that, with 9,000 residents in
Roseville, this would result in $9 million just for that portion alone.
Member Cihacek opined that he saw a series of steps, including first the
installation of clean-outs to help solve liability problems and maintenance
concerns, and asked staff to determine a potential fee per household for
clean-outs as step one, followed by mandated correlating steps in the future
to improve capacity flow for both homeowners and the city.
Member
Seigler questioned if the clean-out would affect the failure ratio.
Chair
Stenlund questioned what the PWETC would recommend for moving forward: to
continue status quo since the city did not have a lot of new road
construction slated for some time, or penalizing those paying one house at a
time versus installing a whole new infrastructure, or moving toward a
completely new model.
Chair
Stenlund suggested continuing the status quo.
Member
Cihacek disagreed with Chair Stenlund, opining that clean-outs should be
installed first, since the City would then know the status of its
infrastructure and current records or liability database may or may not be
accurate at this point. After that, Member Cihacek opined a better
infrastructure database would be developed and could be disclosed with home
ownership and any changes, with liability concerns being upfront allowing a
homeowner to remedy the situation versus an unexpected expense. Member
Cihacek opined that this also allowed the City in the future to target infrastructure
development to move form a just in time solution to a shared ownership.
Member Cihacek stated that steps could be taken now to move away from the
status quo without the city assuming ownership and full liability at this
time.
Mr.
Schwartz responded that this was still a monumental task, and if ownership of
a property changed during clean-out installation, it would need to be
addressed within the confines of State Statute, and could be a significant
task.
Member
Wozniak asked if the City could consider a pilot approach for different
segments of the city to draw conclusions about how and when the lines were
constructed, and their current condition to use as a basis to model
expectations, while not doing the whole city but selecting only several areas
that were representative.
Mr.
Schwartz responded that it could done, but again required significant staff
time reviewing records, doing research and other duties, even though that
approach would certainly be less daunting.
Member
Seigler opined that, given the traditional Roseville housing stock and its
age and probably coming to the end of life for infrastructure systems,
perhaps a cap should be placed on the cost a homeowner or customer would need
to bear versus the city taking on the liability. Member Seigler used an
example of the city bringing in a contractor to perform the work, and
absorbing costs after that capped number, but absorbing no ownership, while
yet protecting the homeowners and limiting overages for the city and
resident.
At
the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Culver clarified that the Twin Lakes
Parkway extension was a commercial area and would include clean-outs as part
of any new construction.
Mr.
Schwartz suggested, at a minimum, the PWETC might want to consider recommending
enactment of a policy that laterals for any new homes would be constructed to
the City’s standards and defining ownership and liability at that time, even
though that would still requiring managing two different types of laterals,
those existing and those newly constructed.
At
the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz advised that typically there was
a total of 10-15 new homes constructed annually in Roseville, unless a larger
development project was involved.
Member
Cihacek opined that he thought the current code should be revised, but
recognized that most of the City’s aging housing stock is likely to hit at
any time in the near future, causing his concern that something needed to be
put in place soon to seriously look at those code changes, while also
providing some type of remedy for those lines needing replacement in the
meantime. Member Cihacek noted that $1,000 can be generated much faster by a
property owner if there was a maintenance incentive, and then phasing in
other options as secondary issues to better target and communicate issues.
Based on projected costs and their relative overall value, Member Cihacek
stated that he would be interested in seeing the feasibility of clean-out
phasing and reduced maintenance costs to provide additional life to existing
laterals; and to have more accessible infrastructure data available to
determine pipes for information to homeowners to allow them to plan ahead.
Chair
Stenlund recognized the reason the City of Golden Valley had instituted such
an aggressive stance with their water and sewer system requirements.
Additional
information requested of staff for further and future discussion:
·
Cost
variables for private contractors and a mass city project from the property
line to city main as well as cost from the property line to the residence
·
Lateral
insurance available for private parties; would the City want to be in
competition; and how costly would that be to administer
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – April 28, 2015
·
Eureka
Recycling Annual Report (Schwartz)
Mr. Schwartz advised that this
would be the firms’ first report since implementation of the single sort
system, as well as feature planning ahead.
·
Swearing
of New Members/Election of Officers (Stenlund)
·
Recap
of the Service of Mr. Schwartz (Stenlund)
·
I-35W
Interchange Project Update (Culver)
·
Refresher
on the Parkway Plan and the PWETC’s interaction with the Parks &
Recreation Commission (Lenz)
Member Gjerdingen questioned who
maintained the institutional knowledge of the pathway plan with current
staffing plans and retirement.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
information was available on the City’s GIS and database data.
·
Impacts
of Mandating Clean-outs for New Construction (Cihacek)
·
Parking
Lots (Cihacek)
·
Twin
Lakes Redevelopment Area Developer Interest (Seigler)
While some of that information is
confidential at this point, Mr. Culver offered to provide information on
those developers already having submitted applications.
Member Cihacek asked for an update
on the Twin Lakes Parkway: funding sources; etc.
·
MN
Built Solar Grant Status (Stenlund)
Mr. Culver advised that staff
should know by early April, and would provide that update to the PWETC. Mr.
Culver noted that three times the number of typical applications had been
submitted, reducing the City’s odds for an award.
10.
Adjourn
Chair
Stenlund reminded members of upcoming ethics training and encouraged
participation.
Member Cihacek moved, Member Lenz
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:38 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|