|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, April 28, 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; Members Brian Cihacek, Sarah Brodt Lenz,
Joe Wozniak, Duane Seigler; and newly-appointed members Kody Thurnau and John
Heimerl
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and City Engineer
Marc Culver
Oath of Office
Chair Stenlund welcomed and
administered the oath of office to newly-appointed PWETC members Kody Thurnau
and John Heimerl.
Roseville University
Chair Stenlund announced the
upcoming Roseville University and invited the public and members of the PWETC
to attend as available, as outlined in the promotional materials included in
the meeting packet.
2.
Election of Officers
With no additional nominations,
Member Lenz moved, Member Wozniak seconded, nomination of Member Stenlund as
Chair of the PWETC.
Member Stenlund accepted the
nomination.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
With no additional nominations,
Member Seigler moved, Member Lenz seconded, nomination of Member Cihacek as
Vice Chair of the PWETC.
Member Cihacek accepted the
nomination.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Chair Stenlund invited each
member of the PWETC and staff present to introduce themselves and share their
areas of interest in the community and on the PWETC.
Chair Stenlund thanked outgoing
Public Works Director Duane Schwartz for his years of service and assistance
to the community and the PWETC over the years.
Current City Engineer/Assistant
Public Works Director and incoming Public Works Director Culver recognized
Mr. Schwartz; noting that he had set the bar high; and expressed his
appreciation for Mr. Schwartz’s direction, guidance and mentorship over the
last few years and for his service during his 32 year tenure with City of
Roseville
3.
Public Comments
None.
4.
Approval of March 24, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Member Cihacek moved, Member
Wozniak seconded, approval of the March 24, 2014, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
Several members submitted
typographical and grammatical errors to staff for incorporation into the
amended meeting minutes.
·
Page 13, Lines 540 – 541 (Cihacek)
Correct statement to be
gender-neutral as applicable.
·
Page 14, Line 591 (Cihacek)
Correct $90 million to $9
million
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
5.
Communication Items
Mr. Culver noted reviewed project
updates and maintenance activities listed in the staff report and attachments
dated April 28, 2015.
Made in Minnesota Solar Grant
Application Update
Mr. Culver advised that the City
had submitted three applications, with all being unsuccessful among the over
300 applications for these grants. Mr. Culver stated that staff would
proceed with updating current proposals for several larger public building
roofs, and retain the smaller roofs for a future Made in Minnesota grant
opportunity. Mr. Culver advised that he anticipated having those new or
additional proposals available for review at the May or June 2015 PWETC
meetings, including financing options for solar installations.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Mr. Culver advised that staff was working with some of the groups having
presented to the PWETC in the past, via an informal Request for Proposals
(RFP) rather than starting the process over. Mr. Culver noted this would
involve working with firms under the CERTS program and larger types of
applications that would provide a quicker payback and tax rebate financing
options.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
While having anticipated
information to share with the PWETC tonight, Mr. Culver advised that it was
not yet available, and would plan a status report at the May 2015 PWETC
meeting.
Annual Joint Meeting of the City
Council and PWETC
Mr. Culver asked Members to mark
their calendars for this June 22, 2015 and plan to attend.
Chair Stenlund concurred,
advising that a brainstorming session was planned at the next PWETC meeting,
listing projects accomplished to-date and those anticipated in the future by
the body.
Sealcoating Update
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Culver advised that the City Council had approved the recommendation of
staff and the PWETC to suspend sealcoating with an annual review to
determine if the suspension was addressing the delamination distresses. Mr.
Culver anticipated a minimum of two years to make a determination; and noted
monies typically allocated for sealcoating would be used for mill and overlay
efforts instead.
Chair Stenlund asked if staff
anticipated any change in the City’s pavement index ranking at this time.
Mr. Culver responded that none was proposed, and any additional monies would
serve to alleviate the annual backlog of streets needing mill and overlay
versus available funding, allowing staff to get to some of those lower-rated
pavements more quickly than normally allowed.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Culver confirmed that the City would continue to perform its annual
indexing and surveys; with additional time spend on minor pothole filling and
crack sealing that would typically be spent on sealcoating efforts.
Sewer Lining Project
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Culver advised that this project is well underway.
Upper Villa Park Stormwater
Update
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Culver advised that this plan was similar to that of the previously
discussed Evergreen Park Project ultimately rejected. While bids opened last
week for this project were somewhat higher than the original engineer’s
estimate, Mr. Culver advised that this program run by the Capitol Region Watershed
District who will award the project, should be under construction later this
fall. Unlike the system proposed for Evergreen Park with two tanks (one for
re-use and one for infiltration), Mr. Culver advised that this Villa Park
system will capture a good portion of what it captures, basically due to
different soils than found at the other park.
Public Works Director Schwartz
suggested this would be a good field trip opportunity this fall if the
project was under construction, as well as that of the BRT along Snelling
Avenue.
Chair Stenlund stated that was a
great idea; and encouraged PWETC members if they had areas of interest they
would like to include for a future van tour that were under the mantle of the
PWETC to bring them to his or staff’s attention.
Victoria Street Project Update
As part of this project and given
existing stormwater issues and treatment options, Mr. Culver advised that it
was proposed to build a 4-bay (pond) on one of the nearby parcels in that
area near Pioneer Park via an easement to install a small pond and mitigate
wetland issues due to installation of the sidewalk. Mr. Culver noted the
approval of the watershed district.
Mr. Culver advised that the
appraisal for only the easement portion of the property was $50,000; and that
staff was currently working with Capitol Region Watershed District on a grant
allowing purchase of the parcel outright based on the property’s total
appraisal of $96,000. Mr. Culver advised that the remaining property would
then be wrapped into the park and provide a protective buffer for the wetland
area, allowing for improved vegetation, connect trails and fill in some of
the missing gaps.
Mr. Culver further advised that
the Planning Commission would be reviewing the parcel at their upcoming May 6,
2015 meeting to make sure it fit with the goals of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan; with subsequent presentation to the City Council at their May 11, 2015
meeting for their consideration for purchase, at which time staff should have
also received confirmation from the watershed district as to whether or not
they will participate in that purchase.
Chair Stenlund asked if that
would take some drainage from the parking and trail access areas.
Mr. Culver responded that, in
order to meet the requirements of a Minnesota State Aid road such as Victoria
Street is, it would be necessary to install curb & gutter throughout the
entire area, with parking proposed along the east side of Victoria, striping
the shoulder and shifting lanes. Mr. Culver noted that the east side was
where people tried to access the trailhead for Reservoir Woods.
Member Thurnau spoke in support
of connecting the two parks and green space, providing a nice thoroughfare
versus the current barrier.
Mr. Culver clarified that there
was currently no funding for the trail itself, and it would need to be added
to the Pathway Master Plan for future funding.
Member Seigler asked if the City
would consider using Eminent Domain if the current private landowner wasn’t
interested in selling the parcel.
Mr. Culver responded that the
City would not use that option even though the parcel was the most desirable option;
there were other methods to meet mitigation and stormwater treatment needs
versus taking that public parcel, since it was necessary to prove a public
good when using Eminent Domain.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Mr. Culver advised that staff had only held preliminary conversations to-date
with the property owner, and would be meeting with them in the near future to
determine their interest.
6.
Eureka Recycling Annual Report
Mr. Chris Goodwin, Communications
Manager at Eureka Recycling, provided a brief history of their firm’s work
with the City of Roseville through providing services and establishing best
practices.
Mr. Goodwin reviewed the metrics
and data requested annually by the City, various trends, and improvements or
changes indicated in the program. Mr. Goodwin noted that 2014 incorporated
major changes in the Roseville collection system through transitioning from
dual to single sort curbside collection via carts, and addressed some of the
lessons learned.
While all information presented
was included in the report, Mr. Goodwin keyed some of the highlights and
major accomplishments, as well as ongoing impacts for this program and in the
industry nationwide, and asked for PWETC feedback during and after his
presentation.
Mr. Goodwin’s presentation
included the transition in February of 2014 to carts and from dual to single
sort, and educational efforts required for that transition, including
surveying participants on the cart size to accommodate storage based on
Roseville City ordinances. As part of the City’s suggestion for more focus,
education and participation at multi-family units, Mr. Goodwin addressed some
of those efforts, including providing property managers access to educational
materials in various languages as needed.
Discussion among members and Mr.
Goodwin included tonnage comparisons since 2006 for multi-family properties
and the reason for some of those variables (e.g. vacancies and/or turnover of
units, changes in on-site property managers, education of new tenants,
renovations during some of that time); need for landlords to provide
motivation and education to their tenants to increase awareness and use of
the program; higher and lower income property findings for multi-family
properties and various languages involved; and lack of financial incentives
for tenants who pay the same rent whether or not they recycle compared to the
financial incentives found for single-family homes.
Further discussion included
variables in commercial recycling scenarios (multi-family rental properties);
need to consider a discount program or some incentive to encourage more
recycling to reduce garbage; the unique program for Roseville and Eureka
Recycling for including multi-family properties in their residential hauling
program; and the need to make sure education and information is available to
support those efforts.
Mr. Goodwin reviewed the
reductions experienced in revenue sharing based on the composition of
materials, and the actual commodity market in selling those materials.
Member Wozniak asked that Eureka
continue to compute and show revenue sharing and separate composition of
materials, using established indices calculated for revenues generated
minimum handling costs. Member Wozniak also requested that Eureka at a
minimum show the running average on their chart, and whether greater or lower
than average, especially if the size of the chart requires them to drop the
year 2006 to incorporated the year 2015 in their next presentation.
Mr. Goodwin advised that their
report editors could provide some type of graph commodity by commodity
similar to that used for revenues.
Chair Stenlund noted, with so
much data tracked and available, it was interesting to see the actual trends.
Mr. Goodwin concurred, and
reviewed in detail how the residual rate was achieved; commending the City
for their retaining their low rate typically well below 2%, and even when
moving from dual to single sort, staying well below the national average of
5-10% by remaining at 2.5%. Even though the residual rate increased
minimally, Mr. Goodwin noted that the Eureka residual rate remained the envy
of other single-sort facilities across the country.
Unfortunately, Mr. Goodwin noted
that the revenue share continued to trend down and reviewed how and why
materials are worth less than they were three years ago, based on
commodities, their market prices, and impacts to those commodities.
As the PWETC considered options
for future fieldtrips, Mr. Goodwin encouraged them to visit Eureka’s MRF or
glass separation facilities.
At the request of Member Wozniak,
Mr. Goodwin reviewed how their firm was able to measure total tonnage at
routes and lists of stops at single-family and/or multi-family properties,
based on the number of carts tipped at each site, cart weights and amounts as
distributed among buildings.
While multi-family properties are
unique, Mr. Goodwin reviewed how the driver measured those carts before tipping
them, monitoring each building, and continued to seek more efficient ways to
track that tonnage beyond current practices. However, Mr. Goodwin noted how
essential this type of information was as a tool to provide historical
information on collections and properties from the previous year.
Chair Stenlund suggested some
type of contest for multi-family properties to incentivize them to recycle,
especially those showing significant drops from the previous year.
Mr. Goodwin concurred with such
an incentive program; noting the need to find out how and why trends are
fluctuating at specific buildings to address those needs.
Chair Stenlund noted his previous
request to address a way to provide recycling at construction site for
materials (e.g. water bottles from workers); with Mr. Goodwin remembering
that request, but recognizing the unfortunate logistical issues involved in
such a system.
Mr. Goodwin noted Eureka’s
observation of last year’s Rosefest to monitor events and their plan to work
with Rotary in 2015 to make this large city event a zero waste event,
providing another example to Roseville residents and others of the intent of
the City of Roseville to lead recycling efforts.
Member Cihacek noted dramatic
drops indicated in municipal buildings in Roseville (e.g. fire station) and
asked if there was some variable that accounted for that; and why the City’s
policy about recycling at the city level was not tracking as well as
residential recycling.
Mr. Goodwin stated that it was
hard to describe the why, as each building was unique; but suggested the
downtrend at the fire station was perhaps due to it only being open during a
portion of the year. As far as City Hall trending, Mr. Goodwin note that in
some years, they performed massive file purging while in other years, they
did not. Similar to multi-family properties with new property managers
and/or renovations, Mr. Goodwin noted there may be reasons for reduced
recycling in some years.
For those multi-family properties
not wishing to participate, Mr. Goodwin advised that they then got City staff
involved in working with them to encourage their participation.
Member Heimerl stated that he
felt good about the education efforts by Eureka, and asked how much they were
working with the School District and if so, whether or not their programs
were proving successful.
Mr. Goodwin responded that
outreach to schools was being used more and more, especially with individual
teachers using environmental or sustainable curriculum. Mr. Goodwin noted
that it was only natural for kids to want to prove themselves smarter than
adults, and therefore provided a good source to alert those adults to new
materials now being recycled (e.g. milk cartons and linens) and encouraged
continuing to get kids excited about it. Mr. Goodwin advised that part of
those educational efforts included visits to the MRF to provide the
eye-opening event when you could visibly see the situations and problem
materials and their impact in the process (e.g. plastic bags tangled in
equipment and rationale in not using black plastics due to unreadable resin
codes).
Member Lenz asked Mr. Goodwin to
review their educational flyer and list of materials for easier reading and
only one-sided for posting purposes.
Mr. Goodwin duly noted that
request and advised that he would review the materials prior to their next
printing; but asked that Member Lenz send him a copy of her list for
reference when redesigning the flyer to ensure it was updated and feedback
incorporated.
Member Wozniak noted the report
showing some municipal parks were not recycling and others were.
Mr. Goodwin advised that multiple
parks may have materials going to one central location, or recycling
canisters may not be available in all parks as Ramsey County was providing
those containers to municipal parks. Mr. Goodwin cautioned that there were a
number of places where Eureka may tip but were not representative of parks
having service.
Mr. Culver concurred, advising
that City staff continued to work with Ramsey County to increase recycling
participation in parks. However, Mr. Culver noted that there some logistical
issues. While ideally recycling bins are located next to every trash bin,
Mr. Culver noted that with the miles of paths, this often became logistically
difficult for collection. Mr. Culver advised that the largest item of waste
was that from animals, and often people deposited that waste in bins without
separating it, creating a significant issue when attempting to separate
materials. Mr. Culver advised that, while the City continued to try to make
it easy to recycle at municipal parks, sometimes collecting from those parks,
or how to locate carts or bins remained challenging. Mr. Culver advised that
the Parks & Recreation Department and Public Works Departments had ideas
and goals, and continued to seek cost participation with Ramsey County in
meeting those goals.
Member Wozniak advised that he
was not directly involved in that aspect of the program in his work with
Ramsey County; however he noted his awareness of comments regarding issues
getting recycling in Roseville parks.
Chair Stenlund recognized the
ongoing and ever-improving efforts at the Skating Center.
Chair Stenlund asked Mr. Goodwin
to address seasonal activities and increased materials (e.g. Christmas
material) and frustrations by Eureka drivers with materials put in carts that
are not recyclable.
Mr. Goodwin responded that if
customers were experiencing any anger coming from Eureka personnel, whether
drivers or others, he wanted to know about those experiences to address
them. Mr. Goodwin clarified that Eureka recognized that there may be extra
materials placed on the side of the cart as a result of special events, and
considered it acceptable. However, if it was not an exception and more of a
typical overflow situation, Mr. Goodwin advised that a larger cart was
indicated. Mr. Goodwin advised that an occasional or seasonal overage of
material should not be problem for Eureka even though it caused the driver to
stop to put that material in the cart and tip it again to ensure tonnage was
accurate and the materials were picked up.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Goodwin addressed future organics collection and results of their
piloting efforts and processing since 2001, allowing Eureka to find several
best practice models on how best to roll out residential organic recycling.
With organic recycling anticipated for Ramsey County, Mr. Goodwin reviewed
how smaller trucks were used at tipping points and then materials moved to a
larger truck to transport materials to a larger facility out-of-town (e.g.
Shakopee or Rosemount), which created cost barriers for such a curbside
collection program as proposed.
Mr. Goodwin noted that the City
of Minneapolis and Hennepin County as an example had a much shorter distance
to access those out-of-town facilities and also had systems in place to
subsidize tipping fees. Mr. Goodwin opined that having a facility within
reach for smaller trucks would be a way to accomplish the program, either
operated by Ramsey County or a private entity, but need to be permitted by
the MPCA and probably subsidized to some degree by Ramsey County for that
market development to happen with a closer transfer station. Mr. Goodwin
recognized the growing interest in organic recycling in Ramsey County.
Member Cihacek suggested using
the compost drop offs across Ramsey County, and while not to scale for
city-wide collection, questioned if was a possible solution.
Mr. Goodwin, with concurrence by
Member Wozniak, noted that those sites were fairly small and often embedded
in neighborhoods, creating some difficulties or desirability in a larger
scale operation being permitted within an area of residential backyards.
Member Cihacek suggested that
residents could drop off organics with their leaves and other materials at
those sites.
Mr. Goodwin questioned the
percentage of residents willing to haul those materials themselves, and how
participation could be improved upon, advising that organics represented 30%
or more of current garbage tonnage.
Chair Stenlund thanked Mr.
Goodwin for his annual update, and asked for his opinion in trending for 2015
related to revenue.
Mr. Goodwin opined that, at this
time, he foresaw no turnaround in areas experiencing downward pressures at least
in the short- or median-term given market impacts. Mr. Goodwin continued to
express his confidence in continuing education for multi-family buildings
through specific communication efforts in removing higher problem materials
called bulkies (e.g. toys, kitty litter pails, etc.).
Chair Stenlund asked that Eureka
create an app for smart phones allowing instant information on items
recyclable or not, and additional information based on symbols on materials.
Mr. Goodwin duly noted that
request, advising that Eureka was currently revamping their website to make
it more usable for other applications, including I-pads, and sought further
feedback once that website was launched.
7.
I-35W Interchange Project
Mr.
Culver provided a brief update on the I-35W Interchange Project and
anticipated reconstruction at I-35W Northbound at Cleveland Avenue and as it
intersects with Twin Lakes Parkway. Mr. Culver reviewed the plan sheet as
displayed and bidding process, and subsequent financing as well as timelines.
Discussion
included timelines for construction; limited storm water work required as
part of the project; current state bid climate; separated process for signal
work; and traffic volume projections as the area continues to expand; and
current ratings of those intersections.
Additional
discussion included funding already identified for the Wal-Mart Development
for this project; and past and updated traffic studies supporting the project
to support further development in the area, originally identified in 2001 and
continually updated.
8.
Review Path Master Plan Status
Mr.
Culver provide a brief review of the Pathway Master Plan as detailed in the
staff report, first developed in 1975 and updated several times over time,
including most recently by the PWETC in 2013 as they developed a priority and
ranking system based on their individual and corporate perspectives. Mr.
Culver noted the variables in this ranking compared to that of the Parks
& Recreation Commission.
Chair
Stenlund noted the difficulty in ranking the paths based on individual
interpretations and funding sources available, often succumbing to political
discussions on that funding as well as community interest and feedback.
Mr.
Culver advised that he was providing this essentially as a reference for the
PWETC and subsequent to the City Council’s review of and feedback on the
PWETC ranking. Mr. Culver noted the City Council’s concern in how the PWETC
ranking system was laid out and addressed and their perceived lack of
consistency between PWETC members in criteria used and how ranked. Mr.
Culver advised that the City Council suggested the PWETC develop an ultimate
ranking system if funding was actually available, providing a more consistent
ranking system and more public input on that ranking upon its completion.
While
there is currently no talk of establishing a dedicated funding source for
pathways at this point, Mr. Culver advised that staff is looking at updating
the Pathway Master Plan as part of the city-wide Comprehensive Plan Update
efforts in 2017, and as part of the other elements and overall transportation
plan. Therefore, Mr. Culver suggested the PWETC reconsider the Master Plan
at that same time and within that same process; and wrap it into other
elements to seek more public input at the time the Comprehensive Plan Update
is being processes.
Mr.
Culver advised that his rationale in bringing this forward tonight is to
recognize the progress made in the Master Plan since 2013; and to introduce
newly-appointed PWETC members to it.
At
the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver clarified that the umbrella term
“pathway” is frequently used; but typically a trail indicates an 8’ wide or
more bituminous surface, while a sidewalk was considered 6’ wide and
constructed with a concrete surface.
Discussion
ensued regarding various bike lanes, existing trails, areas identified
off-road versus bike lanes on-road depending on the actual segment and based
on previous feedback received to-date; criteria used in determining which is
appropriate based on traffic volumes and/or conditions or limited
rights-of-way available; differences in areas with a dedicated funding source
and others worked into road projects as available.
Chair
Stenlund noted his difficulty in determining ranking based on whether there
was dedicated funding in place or anticipated; whether or not to take larger
or smaller segments; and how to rank them accordingly if tied to other
projects with a funding source. If revisiting his ranking, Chair Stenlund
admitted that he may not rank it the same again; and noted other individual
PWETC members had different agendas as well, making it difficult to come to a
consensus on the ranking.
Mr.
Culver encouraged individual members to go to the City’s website and search
for the Master Plan, as adopted in 2008, to begin their review of what went
into the background of the Plan and how priorities were established. Mr.
Culver noted current development (e.g. motels being developed in the Twin
Lakes area that will incorporated a sidewalk along Cleveland Avenue) that
will help the City achieve its goals.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – May 26, 2015
·
Chair
Stenlund noted the annual NPDES/MS4 Report at the May meeting
·
Solar
Update (Cihacek)
·
BRT
Project (Cihacek)
·
Parking
Lot Paving (Cihacek)
Member Cihacek suggested this may
be an appropriate topic for the PWETC’s joint work session with the City
Council
·
Transit
Accessibility (Lenz)
Member Lenz suggested an overview
of this issue, citing Lexington Avenue buses to the Central Corridor line,
and current difficulties in getting from Roseville to St. Paul, even though
getting from Roseville to Minneapolis wasn’t problematic. Member Lenz noted
this seemed to be a west versus east metro issue for transit funding, and
sought an update and general overview.
Member Thurnau opined that this
seemed to be more of a regional equity issue related to density and service
issues dictated by ridership numbers.
Member Lenz opined that if routes
was more convenient, there would be more ridership, and reiterated her interest
in hearing about that equity
Member Cihacek opined that major
road closures along transit routes also were problematic and suggested having
a conversation about Roseville and how they intended to handle that issue.
Member Thurnau concurred, opining
the BRT needed to address how it planned to improve and adjust those local
routes.
Mr. Culver noted the need to make
adjustments to local feeders to get riders to the BRT as it was implemented,
Member Seigler noted this was
basically addressing the 84 route.
·
Joint
Meeting Topics for the June 22 City Council meeting (Wozniak)
Member Wozniak, noting the
decision ratified again by the City Council meeting last week regarding them
not pursuing organized collection at this point, noted this would not be on
the PWETC’s work list.
However, Member Wozniak noted the
City Council’s charge to the PWETC to review the Cities of Chaska and
Chanhassen models of residential collection kits and process and create a
Roseville model to recommend to the City Council for residents to organize
collection on their blocks. Member Wozniak expressed his concern about
whether those model kits may not apply to Roseville based on knowledge of
resource recovery as it impacted organized collection. Member Wozniak
expressed his concern that the kits may not provide all the answers or
information sufficient for residents to make an informed decision. Therefore,
Member Wozniak opined that the PWETC carefully review the information before
making it available to Roseville residents.
Mr. Culver concurred that it was
certainly a necessary step to ensure the kits were Roseville-specific.
10.
Adjourn
Cihacek moved, Heimerl seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:47 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|