|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, May 26, 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 Mark
Culver called the roll.
Members
Present: Chair Dwayne Stenlund; Members Brian Cihacek, Sarah Brodt Lenz,
Joe Wozniak, Duane Seigler, Kody Thurnau, and John Heimerl
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver and Environmental
Specialist Ryan Johnson
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of April 28, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Member Cihacek moved, Member Wozniak
seconded, approval of the April 28, 2015, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 2, Line 56 (Recording Secretary)
Typographical correction: Date
change from “2014” to “2015”
·
Page 6, Lines 238 – 240 (Wozniak)
Delete paragraph in its entirety
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Mr. Culver reviewed project
updates and maintenance activities listed in the staff report and attachments
dated May 26, 2015.
Chair Stenlund questioned the
purpose and design of the Lexington Park hockey rink or stormwater moat,
located diagonally across from SuperAmerica at Lexington and County Road B.
Mr. Culver advised that he would
check into the situation and report back.
Member Seigler questioned the
schedule for streets to be torn up on Roselawn Avenue.
Mr. Culver responded that it was intended to begin pavement milling next
week, with shorter Pavement Management Program (PMP) segments begun first,
with Roselawn Avenue anticipated in mid-June, including replacement of the
water main.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Culver confirmed that installing pedestrian ramps and handicapped curbs
at corners was a continual effort throughout the City, and with the Cleveland
Avenue and Dale Street intersections they would be coordinated with the mill
and overlay project by Ramsey County, as well as others involved in other PMP
projects around the community.
Chair Stenlund asked Mr. Culver
to provide a summary of the recent City Council approval for purchase of
additional land for the Victoria Street wetland and stormwater mitigation
efforts.
Mr. Culver advised that, while
still in final negotiations to purchase the entire parcel, the Watershed
District grant would make up the difference in cost between the needed
easement portion of the parcel, and full purchase price for the parcel. Mr.
Culver noted this additional land would provide additional open space and a
wetland buffer in perpetuity.
Chair Stenlund expressed his
personal appreciation of that outcome.
Chair Stenlund asked Mr. Culver
to explain how residents were or could be notified of normal city
construction versus those of Ramsey County when immediately affecting their
neighborhoods.
Mr. Culver admitted that the City
of Roseville’s written communication efforts, open houses and/or information
meetings for neighborhoods affected by construction set the bar high for
other agency projects. Mr. Culver noted that Ramsey County did not have as
extensive of a notification project as the City tries to maintain; and
usually consists of signage a few weeks prior to a project, and if it
involved only utility work, there may be no notice given at all. Mr. Culver
noted the difficulty in managing a project when primarily consisting of
utility work, given the number of outside vendors performing the work. Other
than the county applying for a right-of-way permit from the City if
applicable, Mr. Culver noted there may be unexpected work, even though staff
attempted to make those occasions as rare as possible.
Chair Stenlund agreed that the
City had significantly improved communication efforts, and the perception by
residents that any project done within Roseville was a City project. Chair
Stenlund thanked City staff for their efforts at informing stakeholders.
At the request of Member Wozniak,
Mr. Culver advised that Ramsey County was scheduled to perform mill and
overlay work on Dale Street from County Road C to Highway 36, probably
consisting of two inches of removal and repaving; tentatively scheduled
sometime over the summer. Clarifying timing for Member Lenz, Mr. Culver
advised that the City of Roseville’s one requirement for that timing was that
it not be done during Rosefest activities (e.g. parade), and other
significant events and/or activities that they are asked to work around if at
all possible. Otherwise, Mr. Culver advised that the timing is based on the
schedule of their contractors.
While recognizing that Dale
Street is under Ramsey County jurisdiction, Member Lenz noted that for over
twenty-five years, she had serious concerns about that segment of Dale Street
between County Road B and Larpenteur Avenue, due to fast traffic, no sidewalk
and other safety issues. With efforts by staff in working cooperatively with
Ramsey County, outreach to residents, and the desire for a more
pedestrian-friendly society, Member Lenz opined that this remains one of the
most dangerous roadway segments in Roseville; with Member Wozniak pointing
out several areas of concern with the adjacent trail. While she had
repeatedly asked in the past, Member Lenz asked that future discussions occur
in how best to address those safety concerns with Ramsey County, as well as
other safety concerns with County roadways throughout the community.
Mr. Culver duly noted this
request; and provided examples of where the City of Roseville had served as
the lead agency for pathway projects along Ramsey County facilities (e.g.
County Road B-2). Mr. Culver noted that there were things that the City can
do; however, he further noted that it often came down to funding. Specific
to the stretch of Dale Street referenced by Member Lenz, Mr. Culver advised
that, due to the considerable grades, that segment was particularly challenging
as far as adding anything off-road due to those grade issues. However, as
referenced by Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver advised that there were some
potential links and staff had looked at alternate routes north to south and
remove pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic from Dale Street. However, given
the lack of funding or anticipated projects in those areas, Mr. Culver
advised that they would mostly likely be long-term plans and required
additional discussion and consideration.
Chair Stenlund asked staff to provide
information to the PWETC on Ramsey County roads scheduled for potential
rehabilitation that could serve as some type of communication for residents;
or some way for residents to gain access to Ramsey County and State of MN
projects that could be overlaid with more specific timing information.
Mr. Culver duly noted this
request, and noted there were existing project maps; with Ramsey County
having available a good interactive map on their website showing pavement
projects throughout the County. Mr. Culver advised that staff would be more
proactive in adding that information to the City’s GIS data and maps in the
future.
5.
Annual Stormwater Meeting
Environmental Specialist Ryan
Johnson summarized the annual report National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System/state Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit in compliance and as required
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for public dissemination.
Mr. Johnson noted that the City’s held a general permit, renewable every five
years, with annual reporting required, to provide information on discharge of
stormwater into state waters. Mr. Johnson noted that the annual report
provided an opportunity for public input and to encourage residents to share
their comments and feedback over the past year as part of the City’s
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). Mr. Johnson noted six
minimum control measures identified in the permit, and provided updates on
each measure based on actions and best management practices undertaken over
the last year.
The Report itself and other
documentation was provided in attachments to the staff report dated May 26,
2015; and consisting of the 2014 Annual Report itself (Attachment A); a copy
of the 2013 – 2018 NPDES Phase II Permit (Attachment B; an inventory of stormwater
Best Management Practices (BMP’s) (attachment C); and an inventory of
stormwater pond/wetlands (Attachment D).
Discussion points during Mr.
Johnson’s presentation included ordinance definition of pervious/impervious
surfaces and applicable regulations and new technologies that may indicate
future code changes or credits for residents for choosing pervious versus
impervious surface materials; and recent proactive versus reactive street
sweeping efforts to address storm drainage, particularly in sensitive areas
near water bodies, before it reaches catch basins.
In response to Chair Stenlund’s
request of how the PWETC could participate daily as residents and in
assisting residents of Roseville in addressing any of the six minimum control
measures identified Mr. Johnson responded that the PWETC could assist with
public education and outreach efforts, on the front lines and with neighbors,
to help spread the word about what should or should not go into storm
sewers. Mr. Johnson noted the City’s current focus on illicit discharges,
and suggested that, when members observed illegal dumping, they alert staff
and/or the MPCA to be able to address those issues early on. Mr. Johnson
admitted that the City’s maintenance staff could not be aware of or observe
everything around the community, so the more eyes the better for everyone.
Member Heimerl noted
weather-related timing issues with the annual Leaf Pickup Program, and
questioned if that worked against the success of stormwater programs.
Mr. Johnson advised that it did work into the stormwater program efforts, and
obviously some seasons are more problematic than others. However, Mr.
Johnson opined that typically it worked well, and went a long way in
addressing the mandates of the MPCA.
On a related note, Mr. Culver
reported that several months ago, the City Council had voted to discontinue
the Leaf Pickup Program after 2015 based on the huge efforts and fees
required for the few residents still participating in the program. Mr.
Culver advised that a vast majority of Roseville residents dealt with their
leaves in other ways; and by staff not performing this work, or hiring
additional seasonal staff, they would have more time and resources available
for sweeping and reduce the number of gaps in that sweeping based on weather
fluctuations.
Mr. Johnson advised that part of
the intended public education outreach would be to provide residents
information on alternative options for their leaves, whether at City or
County facilities, and promoting those options versus leaving leaves on the
grass, especially with the number of mature trees found on many Roseville
lots.
In summarizing changes made to
the permit over the last cycle in minimum control measures (MCM’s), Mr.
Johnson noted that the MPCA was becoming more flexible as it reviewed the
progress made by a jurisdiction in meeting permit requirements rather than
having a standard punch list as in the past. Mr. Johnson noted the increased
education efforts and community recognition of and reporting of illicit
discharges that had already been accomplished. Mr. Johnson further noted the
written procedures now in place for site plan review, receipt of public
input, site inspections, investigation and mitigation. Mr. Johnson noted
that written enforcement response procedures (ERP’s) are also now in place to
enforce and compel compliance with the regulatory mechanism developed and
implemented by the City of Roseville (e.g. City Code revisions and a local
Surface Water Management Plan).
Mr. Johnson further summarized
efforts to identify and address total maximum daily loads (TMDL’s) to
impaired waters, through submittal of compliance reports for applicable waste
load allocations to the Como Lake watershed area; and upcoming TMDL efforts
for other water bodies (e.g. Bennett, Little Johanna, Long Lake and Pike
Lake) with the intent to annually demonstrate progress toward meeting each
applicable waste load allocation (WLA).
To-date, Mr. Johnson advised that
the most difficult item to accomplish had been completing the written
procedures and ERP’s. Mr. Johnson noted that the item that will have the
most improvement should be the MCM4 post construction stormwater management
through efforts such as inventorying ponds, and public and/or private BMP’s.
While both have now been accomplished, Mr. Johnson advised that they had both
required significant staff time, with cooperation between the City of
Maplewood and Roseville staff in accomplishing those standard operating
procedures and ERP’s, and tailored specifically to each community. Mr.
Johnson noted that, for any interested members of the PWETC or public, a full
draft was available for review.
Mr. Johnson displayed a map
showing BMP inventory and identifying a schedule for their monitoring and
maintenance that will begin in June of 2015, and the other half completed in
2016.
At the request of Member Wozniak,
Mr. Johnson reviewed examples of public and private BMP’s throughout the
community; those installed individually or as part of a construction
project. Mr. Johnson noted they ranged from simple raingardens to more
elaborate underground storage and infiltration ponds. Mr. Johnson advised
that the map may not be all-inclusive, as staff was only able to track
private BMP’s as stormwater permits were applied for.
Members pointed out some BMP’s
that appeared to be omitted from the map, with staff duly noting the need to
update them in the next iteration (e.g. Ramsey County Library-Roseville
branch; underground flood control structure constructed last year immediately
south of Highway 36 known as the Dellwood project; Target/HarMar Mall area by
Cub Foods; and Corpus Christi Church at County Road B and Fairview Avenue).
Member Lenz suggested this would
be another area for public education to alert the public to options available
and examples of BMP’s already installed.
Mr. Johnson responded that staff
already provided that public education effort annually, especially in the
spring of the year, and advising how residents could benefit their
neighborhoods and area water bodies. Mr. Johnson reiterated that staff often
didn’t know about private BMP’s, but welcomed that information from the
public. At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Johnson clarified that this
effort was performed through a blanket outreach, whether through local fairs
(e.g. Waterfest with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District) or other
watershed district efforts specifically targeted in those districts and focal
areas. Mr. Johnson also clarified for Member Cihacek that the City attempted
to partner with other agencies and watershed districts on those educational
efforts to provide support as needed or within City staff’s area of expertise
and within their purview.
Chair Stenlund asked that, as
some future point, staff code the diversity of BMP’s to better identify
whether private or public, and their type.
Mr. Johnson duly noted that
request, advising that it could be accomplished using GIS mapping software.
Mr. Culver noted a lot of really
innovative BMP’s were being done, opining that he’d learned an immense amount
about stormwater management, and the proactive innovations of the City
to-date. Mr. Culver noted his interest in seeing those projects, and thanked
the partnership offered by area watershed districts in accomplishing those efforts.
Member Heimerl asked how
successful rain barrels were in stormwater management, and asked if staff
intended part of the education program to make them more available and help
the public to understand their benefits.
Mr. Johnson advised that staff’s
information included all BMP options (e.g. raingardens, rain barrels, porous
materials, etc.), with some requiring more management as far as size and/or
cost. Mr. Johnson opined that raingardens provided a dual purpose, while
rain barrels were only as effective as they were managed and drainage of them
between rain events. For instance, Mr. Johnson noted that with rain events
such as those experienced over the last few weeks, since there was such
significant rainfall, the barrels were not emptied so they couldn’t capture
all the water coming off roofs. From a practical sense, Mr. Johnson opined
that rain barrels work as well as owners efficiently use them.
Chair Stenlund opined that the
public should still be encouraged to use rain barrels to capture rainwater
for secondary uses.
Mr. Johnson reviewed the pond
inventory on the displayed map, noting the need for follow-up and monitoring
of at least 250 locations, ranging from larger to smaller bodies of water,
both public and private developments. Mr. Johnson advised that the goal was
to inspect 20% of those outfalls annually and any junctions between and among
other jurisdictions beyond Roseville.
Mr. Johnson specifically
addressed the Como Subwatershed 7 District within the Roseville drainage
area, and previously reviewed by the Capitol Region Watershed District in
2010, identifying the need to reduce phosphorus to 6.8 lbs. per day and
reduce the overall annual amount. As projects came forward within that area,
Mr. Johnson noted the need to focus on that reduction goal.
Mr. Johnson reviewed various
drainage issues involved in just the upcoming Victoria Street project.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Johnson reviewed why phosphorus was bad for lakes, particularly as it
serves as a catalyst for many invasive weeds and algae.
Regarding the permit itself,
Member Seigler asked that future annual reporting include the actual cost to
the City in undertaking each project to address MCM’s, whether required
mandates or voluntary efforts, to identify the specific and total amounts
being expended. As a Roseville resident, Member Seigler noted his interest
in knowing what a taxpayer was paying and whether those efforts were
increasing or decreasing annually as progress was made.
Member Cihacek concurred, citing
an example of costs analyses for those MCM’s, such as training costs.
Mr. Johnson duly noted that
request, offering to look into that data, from a historical and new mandate
perspective. Mr. Johnson opined that education outreach was the least
expensive MCM to accomplish; with obviously underground systems the most
costly. However, Mr. Johnson noted that staff would provide data on the
overall cost benefits as well as part of that analysis.
Chair Stenlund cautioned that the
numbers would be variable and not always very well defined. Chair Stenlund
noted that initiatives, such as factoring the cost of an open house may not
be identifiable.
Member Seigler expressed his
expectation that the numbers may be soft in some instances, and wasn’t seeing
a significant amount of staff time expended to provide the information, and
was only seeking round numbers, and nothing specific. Member Seigler stated
his interest was which of the MCM’s had more requirements and how much was
being spent, which he personally thought probably was considerable.
In general, Mr. Culver reported
that the preliminary 2015 Stormwater Utility Fund, from which most of these
MCM’s were funded, was anticipated to have $1.2 million in expenses. Mr.
Culver clarified this included some staffing, annualized equipment, and other
variables. Mr. Culver noted that the costs would not include less detailed
costs such as the cost for renting a conference room to hold educational or
informational public meetings or open houses specific to stormwater projects;
but general costs were available. Mr. Culver opined that capital costs may
be less identifiable, whether project related of an MS4 cost, or whether a
component of the project may be a requirement or funded in part through partnership
with the applicable watershed district. Mr. Culver offered to review costs
on the staff level to provide some level of information.
Member Cihacek opined, the
purpose of the cost analysis was to determine if the outreach and education
efforts were being successful or not, and what value was being realized.
Member Cihacek recognized that it would be harder with soft categories to
measure those goals.
Specific to general water quality
efforts, Member Cihacek noted the considerable algae growth in Langton Lake,
and lack of residential improvements seen even in this area of high concern.
Member Cihacek questioned how proactive the City could be in education
outreach and working in those areas we know are at risk, and providing more
benefit than other residential areas less at risk. Member Cihacek noted
that, if stormwater runoff preventions were not addressed, everyone would pay
the consequences.
Mr. Johnson responded that
Capitol Region Watershed District was taking the initiative and lead role on
the Como drainage area, and therefore, were also bearing the brunt of those
costs. For Langton Lake which is in the Rice Creek Watershed District, most
contributing water is from the Rosewood neighborhood flowing north. Mr.
Johnson advised that all of the area involved in Rosedale provided a huge
phosphorus contributor due to the extensive impervious asphalt surfaces.
Therefore, Mr. Johnson noted that anything addressing that area through
treating water in the broader area had a big bang for the buck and
represented significant cost benefits. Mr. Johnson noted the major
accomplishments by addressing that compared to smaller efforts with
individual residential properties around Langton Lake that, while removing a
pound or two of phosphorus loading may not prove as beneficial as something
larger at Rosedale that could remove 60 pounds or more.
Mr. Johnson offered to work with
other agencies specifically on efforts surrounding Langton Lake, if so
directed to do so.
Member Cihacek, opining that this
involved passive versus reactive measures, questioned whether it was
beneficial to seek assistance from those agencies; and asked what was
currently being done to address the issues at Rosedale and their
accountability from those educational outreaches versus them continuing to be
a passive player.
Mr. Johnson advised that in the
end, it all came down to cost and the limited resources available.
To that point and somewhat
reactive in nature, Mr. Culver noted that the biggest opportunities were
often triggered by the more stringent stormwater management rules now in
place for any redevelopment or expansion of a site. Mr. Culver noted that
the City often had more stringent triggers in place than even those required
by the watershed districts. Using Rosedale as an example, Mr. Culver advised
that there may be a future opportunity to accomplish something significant
related to stormwater control measures; however, the biggest hurdle was often
land acquisition to accomplish that goal. If the City wants to be proactive,
Mr. Culver opined that it was difficult for the City to expect private
business to do something unless required to do so, such as through
redevelopment when they are mandated to address it. While not always a
guarantee, and often requiring more land or an underground system, Mr. Culver
noted that City Code is more stringent than in the past, and is as proactive
as possible based on those circumstances.
Even with public improvement
projects, Mr. Culver advised that the City had been very aggressive to-date
in finding opportunities for linear stormwater treatment, using the Victoria
Street project as another great example in addressing problems as they come
forward.
Regarding new construction,
Member Cihacek asked if other municipalities were equally strict, or how
Roseville’s requirements compared to them (e.g. the recent Wal-Mart
development).
Specific to the Wal-Mart
development as an example, Mr. Culver advised that they actually built their
stormwater management system to a higher level than required, and thereby
earned extra credits. Mr. Culver stated he was unsure how Roseville’s
requirements compared to other jurisdictions or if they were on an average
level.
Mr. Johnson duly noted the
requested information, and offered to research that and report back to the
PWETC.
Chair Stenlund noted his
amazement at what some churches are doing in the community to address
stormwater management. Since this is a voluntary program when no permit is
required for retrofitting, Chair Stenlund suggested alerting the public to
the options available beyond raingardens or rain barrels. Using one church
and their installation of an interception system before any requirements,
Chair Stenlund noted that they had done so voluntarily. Chair Stenlund
opined that people don’t necessarily know what they can do, and the options
available to them, such as addressing issues along Langton Lake that may be
simple but still make a huge impact.
Mr. Johnson noted the proposed
additional educational efforts identifying those available options.
Member Cihacek agreed with a
general outreach as well as more concentrated efforts for higher risk
properties and subsequent water quality impacts. Member Cihacek suggested
including educational pieces allowing the public to see the larger or broader
benefits in their efforts to address those higher risk areas.
Mr. Johnson duly noted that
request as well.
Chair Stenlund suggested that,
for next year’s annual report, staff didn’t need to provide a copy of the
permit itself, only a link to it on the City’s website. However, Chair
Stenlund asked that staff provide specific information on each MCM (example:
BMP No. 2 related to spring clean-up efforts) comparing from one year to the
next to identify those areas on which progress was being made and those
failing or losing ground. Chair Stenlund opined that this would provide a
trending point of view with several years of data available during the actual
permit period.
Mr. Johnson duly noted that
request.
Member Seigler requested a graph
showing trending for phosphorus as well; and Chair Stenlund requested
trending in reducing TMDL’s.
Chair Stenlund thanked Mr.
Johnson for his informative annual report.
6.
Neighborhood Organized Trash Collection Guide
Mr.
Culver briefly reviewed the history of this request by the City Council at
their April 20, 2015 meeting, and directing staff to bring forward a
residential trash organization kit/process model for their review and
potential adoption. As detailed in the staff report, Mr. Culver advised that
staff provided several models and had drafted a Roseville Neighborhood
Organized Trash Collection Guide (Attachment A). Mr. Culver advised that
several additional minor changes had been made to the draft since
distribution of the agenda packet; but noted the intent of the document was
simply to provide a factual and simple guide for residential neighborhoods
interested in organized trash collection to pursue that initiative.
While
there were some references in the models used that discussed potential benefits,
which were debatable of themselves by many, such as wear and tear of trash
vehicles on pavement lifecycles, Mr. Culver stated that, from an engineering
perspective, the Roseville Public Works Department could not prove that those
had a significant impact on the lifecycle of a street. Mr. Culver opined
that staff thought pavement lifecycles had more to do with environmental and
climate issues; and therefore, removed any and all opinion items and
attempted to only present facts going forward. Mr. Culver also clarified
that this was not intended as any type of formal city program, but only
intended to serve as a guide to provide citizens a matrix and sample letter
they could use to draft their own program and accumulate data and disseminate
it to neighbors for their own decisions. Mr. Culver sought feedback and
comment from the PWETC, advising that it was staff’s intent to present those
findings and a revised draft to the City Council at their scheduled joint
meeting with the PWETC on June 22, 2015. However, Mr. Culver advised that it
was also his preference to provide the draft and feedback to the City Council
prior to their meeting, and post the draft on the website if so authorized.
At
the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver opined that since this was a
residential or neighborhood guide, there was no process required under public
procurement laws; and only serves for residents who may choose to shop for
these services in the future.
Member
Cihacek opined that each resident in a specific neighborhood considering this
would need to agree and a proposed contract and price would need to be redone
by a hauler for each household for pricing even though they were not
guaranteed the sale and were providing that information to the public and
their competitors. Member Cihacek questioned if there should be required
language in the guide related to those individual contract and a non-binding
clause regarding the pricing, depending on the number of residents signing up
for that service.
Mr.
Culver clarified that the language was specific for individual homeowners and
would not be a collective contract unless through a homeowner’s association
or other legal entity, as per draft language.
Member
Cihacek opined that, from his perspective, the draft language sounded very
contractual if it was intended only as an informational piece; and also noted
that there was no right of cancellation clause included, and questioned if
this was intended as an organization and free representation.
Member
Wozniak stated that, it was his understanding that this voluntary
neighborhood collection effort would essentially provide that some haulers
would create a contract through a business relationship with an entire block
and/or neighborhood as applicable.
Member
Cihacek opined that, while the volume per route increases, pricing was not
binding, and for informational purposes, he found language important to avoid
potential deceptive interpretation, and therefore changing language to be
more representative of information versus the contractual language in this
current draft guide. Since this is only supposed to provide a guide for the
process or BMP’s and the City wasn’t contracting for anything, Member Cihacek
opined that he found the language complex as currently written.
Member
Wozniak agreed with the complexity of the draft language, but also suggesting
backing up further, opining that he didn’t anticipate many haulers responding
to a written letter as proposed that was seeking specific price information.
Members
Seigler and Cihacek both opined that the response from haulers may be
surprising.
Member
Wozniak opined that rather than a letter, it may be easier for residents
looking for information to simply make some phone calls and do an interest
survey to determine what’s most important to those specific residents related
to garbage service.
Mr.
Culver responded that, without turning this guide into an even larger
document, it was the intent to make this guide available as a word document
for editing purpose; and encouraging them to do so and based on their
specific interest. Mr. Culver reiterated that this guide is intended simply
as a recommendation, and different residents will have different opinions as
to their desired benefits, and therefore, it was up to them to put together a
specific survey letter for their neighborhood, adding language as desired.
As to the earlier point raised, addressing contacting haulers (Attachment A,
suggested ideas for the process – Item #4), Mr. Culver suggesting a phone
call versus letter or e-mail if the neighborhood felt this may provide more
incentive for a hauler to respond; and opined that it may also make a
difference depending on the hauler.
However,
while agreeing it may be prudent to simplify current legalese in the current
guide, Mr. Culver expressed concern in how much language to include making
sure this remained clear for residents. Mr. Culver reiterated that the City
had no skin in this game, and was not accountable, as none of the municipal
requirements or restrictions applied to this process. Mr. Culver reiterated
that any arrangement made was strictly between the hauler of choice and
residents; and they would need to work out their own collective terms,
guarantees and how binding it ended up being. Mr. Culver opined that he
anticipated it would not be binding on either side under this scenario and as
it was initially a pilot program for an interested neighborhood and their
hauler of choice to pursue.
Member
Cihacek suggested negotiations would be done as a group, and therefore spoke
in support of removing that language.
Member
Seigler suggested posting it on the City’s website after deleting that
specific language.
Member
Wozniak opined that the point of tonight’s discussion was to offer ways to
make the process as easy as possible for residents, and that included
non-inflammatory language as he had previously offered his preferences and
concerns. However, Member Wozniak opined that, if residents actually knew
and were concerned with where their garbage ended up, it may negate many of
the items addressed in the draft guide.
Chair
Stenlund noted the need to ensure that residents and haulers are clearly
aware that the City is not involved in any way at all; and opined that he
thought the interest may be found to be only about choice, and not cost.
Chair Stenlund opined that this included not having the City of Roseville
tell them which hauler to use. Chair Stenlund asked staff to verify the
actual number of licensed haulers in Roseville, opining that it was actually
eight haulers. Chair Stenlund spoke in support of the survey idea and
language.
Chair
Stenlund stated that he found the number of pages in the draft guide to be a
reasonable number, but opined there may be a lack of clarity on how to change
haulers, since it may not be easy depending on the fine print in current
individual residential contracts. As an example, Chair Stenlund questioned
why he continued to be charged a fuel surcharge; and questioned if changing
haulers could be done with a simple phone call, and how long the transfer
process may take from one hauler to another.
Member
Lenz noted a past experience in her neighborhood when their road was
reconstructed and the neighborhood got together to choose mailboxes for a
coordinated look, which didn’t work out well.
Member
Seigler opined this may prove a good option for a cul-de-sac, since this
would create the need for only one versus many trucks.
Member
Heimerl, having not realistically understood or agreed with the potential
benefits, expressed his appreciation that they were now removed. Member
Heimerl opined that anything posted as a guide should be as generic as
possible, and if proven successful in other communities, word would spread.
Member Heimerl noted that the City was proposing to post something that may
be an untried procedure and in the end, they may not be able to organize
their neighbors, and therefore anything posted by the City needed to remain
generic. Member Heimerl suggested the initial language should include
wording that this is something other communities have used, and residents are
welcome to try it, but the City was not promoting or endorsing one way or the
other.
In
preparation for this discussion, Member Wozniak advised that he had spoken
with a colleague of his at Ramsey County, serving as a health educator with
the County’s Environmental Health Department, working specifically with
cities on garbage issues. Member Wozniak reported that he expressed interest
in working with staff to draft something for the June 22, 2015 joint meeting
of the PWETC and City Council. Member Wozniak recognized his sense that
Chair Stenlund and other PWETC Members may have listened to past organized
collection discussions and seen information about haulers of choice. Member
Wozniak expressed his personal interest in organized collection; however, he
also expressed his lack of interest in forcing anyone down that road,
especially with an instrument such as this draft. Member Wozniak opined that
the general benefit should be for anyone interested in the single hauler and
organized method, which he felt would be eventually beneficial to the entire
community no matter which hauler was used, and volunteered his efforts to
help make that happen.
Mr.
Culver asked Member Wozniak how the process and document version he suggested
would differ from this guide.
Member
Wozniak opined that it would vary little, but may provide plainer language as
suggested by Member Cihacek.
Chair
Stenlund questioned if this wouldn’t provide a perception that this was a recommendation
from Ramsey County.
Member
Wozniak responded that he did not feel it would, and he didn’t think the City
Council would appreciate such a view point either.
With
Chair Stenlund asking if it was a City of Roseville or Ramsey County effort for
neighborhoods to organize, Member Seigler responded that neighborhoods could
organize without this guide.
Member
Wozniak stated that he was simply suggesting that the County take over,
allowing the City to step out.
Chair
Stenlund sought to ensure that Member Wozniak didn’t get into an ethical
dilemma or was compromised for him personally based on his employment with
Ramsey County and service on the PWETC as a citizen advisory commissioner.
Member
Lenz opined that this process and guide needed to remain municipally driven,
using recent issues with St. Paul District Council 7 and trash haulers.
Member
Cihacek suggested engaging Ramsey County from an educational standpoint,
suggesting they provide information to Mr. Culver to consolidate information
for the guide and provide a recommendation for staff to work with those
available resources.
Member
Seigler suggesting posting this draft document as is and if interest was
generated, efforts could then be taken to improve it; otherwise, no further
efforts were needed.
Since
the suggested revisions were not major, Member Cihacek noted the difficulty
in changing a document once posted versus before. Member Cihacek opined that
whatever was posted needed to be the final tool or staff time would only be
increased accordingly.
Member
Seigler sought clarification from staff as to whether they wanted changes now
or for individual members to provide them to staff for presentation to the
City Council for the joint meeting.
Mr.
Culver clarified that it was staff’s intent to bring forward a consensus of
the PWETC with minor modifications as indicated as part of tonight’s
discussion; and then present the revised draft document at the June 22 joint
meeting. If the consensus of the PWETC was for Member Wozniak and Ramsey
County staff to offer some suggestions, Mr. Culver offered to redraft the
document, and simply legalize that he could provide as a revised document to
the PWETC for their feedback prior to presentation to the City Council.
However, if the PWETC found major issues, Mr. Culver suggested presentation
to the City Council be delayed to allow further review and consideration
before making a recommendation.
Member
Wozniak encouraged all PWETC members to provide suggestions, and clarified
that it was not his intent to come at this from the perspective as an
employee of Ramsey County; but only offered to consult with his colleague on
preferable communication styles.
Mr.
Culver expressed staff’s appreciation of any revised language; offering to
incorporate them into a modified document; redistributing that to the PWETC
before the June 22, 2015 joint meeting. In order to meet pre-packet
deadlines for distribution, Mr. Culver advised that he would need that
information by June 9, 2015 for final PWEC comments.
Consensus
of the PWETC was for staff to proceed as noted.
7.
Discussion Topics for June 22, 2015 Joint Meeting with City
Council
Chair
Stenlund encouraged participation and attendance by the entire commission at
the joint meeting.
As
provided in Attachment A, Mr. Culver reviewed last year’s agenda, and
reviewed the status of those items at this time.
Discussion
on the 2015 report and discussion included:
Activities
and accomplishments
·
Introduced
solar discussions in general creating a tremendous amount of public
engagement
·
Pathway
discussions, also creating a tremendous amount of public engagement
·
Recommended
termination of leaf program based on cost benefit analysis
·
Annual
Storm water meeting
·
Pavement
Management Program status and issues
·
Snelling
Avenue BRT
·
Single
sort recycling conversion
·
REMOVE
expansion of committee
·
Recommended
code changes – sump pumps and plumbing ordinances
Work
plan items for the upcoming year
·
Railroad
transportation issues (Chair Stenlund)
·
Revised
permit requirements needing focus
·
Delamination
continuing
·
Review
pedestrian infrastructure, particularly around schools
·
Continued
solar discussions
·
Sanitary
and water services
·
Delamination
stress and impacts to sealcoating program and roadways
·
Working
with Public Works Department on communication plan/outreach and education as
part of the options beyond the leaf pick-up program (Member Wozniak)
Questions
or areas of concerns for the City Council
·
Pathway
Master Plan
·
Role
of PWETC for equipment replacement
·
Transportation
disparity: how and when the City Council wishes to have the PWETC weigh in to
addressing and/or leading transit options to optimize options for Roseville
citizens
·
The
role of the Commission in addressing and reviewing pavement delamination and
future costs and evaluation of the condition index for roadways
·
Insurance
options for end-of-life service lines for homeowners
·
As
you delay sealcoating, is it possible there may be other significant
increases, and how/if the City Council wants the PWETC to look at them over
the next five years related to reconstruction and pavement surface management
·
Freezing
of water pipes during winter (Member Seigler) and role for the PWETC with the
small number of households (estimated at 120) typically affected in Roseville
or whether the City should seek a remedy once and for all
Mr. Culver suggested discussing staff’s response during the winter of 2014
and have the PWETC review the issue and that response at a future PWETC
meeting.
·
The
PWETC’s role in continuing solar power discussions
·
The
PWETC’s role in continuing sanitary sewer discussions
·
Weather
impacts on operations (e.g. salt use) and infrastructure needs and processes
·
Nutrient
loading from leaf pick-up and whether to continue exploring weather related
and risk management based on historical and weather-related issues
·
Work
to make sure students get to RAHS safely as the Highway 36 and Lexington
Avenue bridge process starts – a livable community issue – and any other
pedestrian infrastructure needs, especially around schools in the community
(Chair Stenlund)
·
The
role of the PWETC’s role in water main testing and/or sump pump inspections –
I & I process (Chair Stenlund)
Member Cihacek opined this may be
covered as part of the sanitary sewer discussion.
Mr. Culver suggested a general discussion
item for sanitary and water services.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Culver reported that, as part of the remaining 5,000 plus replacements
for water meters scheduled this year, the vendor would be doing a cursory
inspection of sump pump connections and whether any are connected to the
sanitary sewer system. Mr. Culver advised that the inspection would only be
to collect data, allowing the City to make a subsequent determination as to
how sever the problem actually is and then what to do with that information.
Mr. Culver advised that this may mean a City Code modification for
enforcement purposes to provide initiative for residents to discontinue that
practice and make the change on their own. Mr. Culver advised that
information should be available by year-end or soon thereafter, and
anticipated a meeting in the spring of the PWETC for additional discussion on
water/sewer and make recommendations to the City Council.
·
Partnering
opportunities with other advisory commissions on the Pathway Master Plan for
re-ranking priorities based on a more uniform ranking system to identify
highest and lowest priorities, whether funding is available of not for a
particular segment (Chair Stenlund)
Member Lenz suggested partnering
with the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Mr. Culver reminded the PWETC that
this had been discussed at a previous meeting and concluded that the Pathway
Master Plan be part of the larger Comprehensive Plan update scheduled to
start in 2017, and allowing for an intense amount of public input as part of
that process. Mr. Culver opined that as a component of that update, it would
allow focus for public prioritization.
However, Mr. Culver suggested this
would be a good discussion point for the joint meeting to seek the City Council’s
input.
·
Allocations
for public works equipment in the budget process as equipment wears out
(Chair Stenlund and Member Cihacek) and the PWETC’s role in purchasing
appropriate equipment to best serve the needs of the community and its
taxpayers
Mr.
Culver suggested Members arrive at the meeting at 6:00 pm or shortly
thereafter, depending on other agenda items and the speed of the meeting; and
reminded Commissioners that this was their joint meeting with the City
Council, and staff would be available but not at the table with them, and
under the leading of Chair Stenlund in representing the PWETC.
8.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – June 23, 2015
·
Review
joint meeting with City Council and set 2015 focus items for the PWETC
·
Update
on City Campus solar project RFP’s
·
Permeable
pavers
·
Solar
update
·
Update
on Resource Recovery negotiations (Member Wozniak)
Member Cihacek sought to clarify
that Member Wozniak would be presenting as a member of the PWETC versus as a
Ramsey County staff person assigned to the Resource Recovery process; and
only speaking of upcoming issues of which he was aware.
9.
Adjourn
Cihacek moved, Seigler seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|