Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, June 23, 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 Marc Culver called the roll.

Members Present: Chair Dwayne Stenlund; Members Joe Wozniak, Brian Cihacek, Sarah Brodt Lenz, , Duane Seigler, Kody Thurnau, and John Heimerl

Staff Present:          Public Works Director Marc Culver

2.            Public Comments

None.

3.            Approval of May 26, 2015 Meeting Minutes

Member Cihacek moved, Member Heimerl seconded, approval of the May 26, 2015, meeting as amended. 

Corrections:

·         Page 10, Line 441 (Stenlund)

Typographical correction: Change “graft” to “graph”

·         Page 14, Line 595 (Stenlund)

Typographical correction: Change “she” to “he”

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 June 23, 2015.  Mr. Culver highlighted several projects, including the water meter replacement program and improvements made in the process, ensuring residents of the validity of third-party contractors performing the majority of the work; lift station replacement updates using the Best Value Procurement Process providing the opportunity to get the best contractor for the job, not just awarding the work to the lowest bidder; and potential revisions to City Code related to permeable pavements as indicated in the case study (Attachment C) and addressing newer technologies.

Discussion included how and by whom surface area/impervious surface calculations are made as part of the building permit process and determining whether or not a variance is required; variables from one community to another, and differences for lake properties from typical city-wide parcels.

Chair Stenlund supported the City moving forward with any code revisions, as long as a formal, written maintenance plan was put in place to ensure the system would work for any future homeowners inheriting the driveway to keep it functional (e.g. draining) from one owner to another.  Chair Stenlund expressed his interest in this particular case study to determine long-term drainage.  As part of any written maintenance plan, Chair Stenlund suggested ordinance language provide for vacuuming or other methods to ensure the system continued to be permeable, and not become impermeable due to build in the cells.

At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver reviewed options for existing homeowners who may wish to exceed impervious surface coverage under current regulations, by applying to the City for a stormwater management permit for installation of mitigation efforts (e.g. rain barrels, rain gardens, pervious pavements) all reviewed and approved or denied on a case by case basis.  Mr. Culver advised that this was not an option for new construction, as expectations are that calculations will stay under the proscribed percentage allowed versus remodeling or adding onto an existing structure where every available means was undertaken to slow the rate and quality of water.

At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver clarified new construction options and residential stormwater permit processes requiring five year recertification of any device installed, with the City burdened in managing that certification process and added cost to the individual properties to go through that recertification.  At the suggestion of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver agreed that the City could always improve on their educational efforts for homeowners to be aware of and learn how to maintain their systems for successful recertification and to avoid additional costs.

Chair Stenlund opined that new purchasers of those properties should also be made aware of what they’re buying with those systems, as part of the due diligence involved in the purchase.

At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver provided an update on the Lexington Avenue/Highway 36 bridge reconstruction project, with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) currently in the final design stages and planning for an informational meeting yet this fall.  Mr. Culver reported that MnDOT was working around the I-35E construction area, and the School District to accommodate school schedules while still accomplishing the work within one construction season.

At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Culver reviewed proposals received and reviewed as part of the Best Value process versus typical bidding, and variables from one contractor to another.  In the current bidding climate, Mr. Culver reported that contractors are bidding higher to increase their profit and/or employ more workers as they’re busier now than during the economic downturn several years ago.  Mr. Culver reported, unfortunately, that increased costs to the City as well as limiting the number of proposals as some contractors simply didn’t have time to submit a proposal that took more time to do than submitting a bid.  Mr. Culver opined that one solution was to make sure the Request for Proposals (RFP) was very clear as to the project itself.

At the request of Chair Stenlund in the increased number of water meters being installed now compared to when the contractor becomes fully operational, Mr. Culver clarified that he didn’t see any concern with less quality in the work, since those technicians performing the work were very qualified and that was why they could perform the work more efficiently, as well as due to their support staff.  Mr. Culver noted that Ferguson has been performing this type of work for many years, and have up to three technicians working on any given day; and there should be no concern that just because they’re doing more replacements on any given day, the quality of their work was being impacted.  Mr. Culver noted that City staff would continue installing meters as time allowed, but also as they performed their other daily work responsibilities.  Mr. Culver advised that if a homeowner sees any indication of water around the floor by the meter after meter replacement, to be on the safe side, they should call the City or the number left by Ferguson Contractors to double-check the connections. 

At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Culver advised that the Victoria Street Project was a little behind schedule due to the land acquisition just approved by the City Council last week.  Mr. Culver noted that this slowed down the contractor’s ability to excavate the pond for the stormwater system until the property had been legally acquired.  However, Mr. Culver advised they were still well within the specified timeline requirements.

5.            Community Solar Update and Discussion

Mr. Culver introduced Trevor Drake from Great Plains Institute, also a representative from the Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs) to provide an update on the options for community solar garden participation.

Mr. Drake provided a summary of the eighteen-year-old Great Plains Institute and their mission to transform the way energy is produced, distributed and consumed for economic and environmental sustainability.  Mr. Drake noted the four organizations partnering in the CERT’s, one of seven regions across the State of MN.

Mr. Drake sought the experience of the PWETC related to solar gardens to-date, with Chair Stenlund and Vice Chair Cihacek providing a recap of past presentations, and the continued interest by Roseville residents in energy choices, whether through partnering or making investments; and the full support of the PWETC toward those efforts.  Reports also included submission by the City for grants to place solar arrays on City rooftops and those of community schools as well; along with a roof-mounted photovoltaic assembly (PVA) for the City itself to purchase through a phased, city-shared system; and several church groups in the community making it part of their organizational efforts as well.

For the benefit of newer commissioners, Mr. Drake provided a basic overview of solar gardens, potential players involved in a solar garden project, how it worked with Xcel Energy Programs and a third party operator primarily running the solar garden with the utility approving the garden, tracking energy production and providing credit for subscribers.

Mr. Drake reviewed drivers behind solar gardens; 2013 policy enabling Xcel Energy’s community solar garden, federal investment tax credits available at 30% through 2016 and then falling to 10% in 2017 and impacting subscription rates, and customer/community member demand potential.  Mr. Drake advised that no projects had yet been approved in Minnesota, with a hearing scheduled in the next few days at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), with one of the engineering questions being how much solar the energy grid can handle, and once the limit was reached, latecomers would be stuck with the cost to upgrade the grid, with those costs very unrealistic for most participants.

Discussion included how many and the varying sizes of projects and project partners involved.

Mr. Drake offered the option for the City to participate in a joint solicitation for the RFP process as part of a subscriber collaborative, with the Metropolitan Council publishing the RFP for solar garden subscriptions, and Hennepin County’s legal team drafting and approving the document, thereby creating a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for any governmental agency to sign on to and buy off that Metropolitan Council process.   Mr. Drake noted that the City of Minneapolis and Ramsey County provided the technical expertise, and CERT’s role is to manage the process itself. 

Mr. Drake further reviewed advantages in such a collaborative procurement process for the RFP, providing better subscription pricing due to larger scale and pools highest quality subscribers; faster entry into the solar garden market; reduced staff time with a standard subscription agreement to developers for easier comparison; and creating opportunities for local governments of all sizes and increased community impacts with a twenty-five year contract. 

Mr. Drake outlined phases of the project, with the City of Roseville having the ability to sign a Non-Binding Letter of Intent by July 24, 2015 to participate.  Phases are as listed below:

1)    Non-Binding Letter of Intent (LOI) and Optional Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) Participation;

2)    Developer selection through a lottery process for the first-right-of-refusal on a garden, at which time a subscription agreement would be executed, and then would become binding;

3)    Solar garden(s) approved by Xcel Energy, garden construction, energy production, bill credits received.

Additional information available at: mncerts.org/solargardens/collaborative

Discussion included the payback period for a subscription; credits as soon as constructed lowering energy costs versus an asset to pay off; no money upfront to purchase solar panels; other financing options available versus this pay-as-you-go option for the developer to be paid the dollar amount for each kilowatt hour for each garden subscription seen as a credit on the Xcel Energy billing, with the City not owning the garden, just subscribing.  Mr. Drake noted that the City would pay a set amount with an escalator increasing that percentage to developers as part of this standard subscription agreement, and developers would not increase that amount as established. 

With the cost of solar continuing to come down, Mr. Drake advised that solar industry experts predict that incentives will have some effect on prices, but the soft cost of solar may actually get better over time and as technologies continue to improve, even though the whole solar garden (not solar rooftop panel) process remains brand new in Minnesota.

Mr. Culver thanked Mr. Drake for his summary, and reviewed the PWETC’s recommendation to and subsequent action by the City Council to explore the possibilities and requirements of hosting a community solar installation.  Due to size and administration costs, Mr. Culver stated that the consensus was that it would benefit all Roseville residents and spread reduced energy and operating costs to consider the City purchasing community garden shares.  Mr. Culver noted that only so much can be done on a given roof, and energy consumption for City buildings is higher than could be produced, therefore, staff is recommending further discussion by the PWETC and City Council to purchase community garden shares to further offset operating costs for the City and benefit taxpayers.

Mr. Culver advised that proposals would be going out in a few days to solar developers for that rooftop system and future PWETC meetings (potentially in July) would finalize a recommendation to the City Council in August to move toward awarding a developer or entering into a developer agreement with a solar developer.

Mr. Culver suggested the PWETC, at a minimum, recommend submission of a non-binding Letter of Intent to participate in this RFP process to see what happens since it is intended for public agencies and the collaboration effort should prove beneficial versus the private sector competition in other options.  Mr. Culver advised that the City of Roseville’s Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson had met with Mr. Drake and attended an informational meeting at the City of Falcon Heights to discuss this process, and prompting tonight’s presentation and update.  For the benefit of PWETC members, Mr. Culver clarified that the City would not enter into any binding agreement without knowing the final costs involved, and with the approval of the City Council.

By consensus, the PWETC recommended to the City Council entering into a non-binding Letter of Intent to participate in this collaborative RFP process.

At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Drake reviewed the potential timeline for the lottery process for random selection of five tickets per garden, and fifteen days to opt in or not respond; and no commitment until the City signed a subscription agreement and agreed to those particular terms. 

At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Drake provided a synopsis of how CERT’s is funded by the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources, with that funding provided by two foundations: the McKnight and Carolyn Foundations.

6.            Update on Resource Recovery Facility (Member Wozniak)

Chair Stenlund invited Ramsey County staff person and PWETC member Joe Wozniak to provide an update on Ramsey-Washington County efforts to purchase the Newport Resource Recovery Facility.  Mr. Wozniak noted more detailed information was available at: .

The presentation included a history of these collaborative efforts by Washington and Ramsey Counties in response to state goals for recycling and trash management; a review of the many players involved (e.g. cities, haulers, recyclers, and everyone producing waste); current issues with the private facility and intent of a public jurisdictional purchase to reduce expenses in diverting trash from landfills.  Mr. Wozniak noted trash is currently trucked to the Newport facility, with a fee per load, and then may be further transported to one of the two burners in Redwing and Mankato, MN.

With new technologies available, Mr. Wozniak reviewed those emerging trends, higher recycling goals, expiration at the end of 2015 of the existing agreement between the two counties and the current owner of the Newport facility; and the purchase option allowing improvement to the facility and sorting system to become more economically and environmentally feasible.  Mr. Wozniak noted there were policy issues also driving decision-makers, and a critical shift in policy thinking and new technologies for protecting the environment and keeping jobs more local.

Mr. Wozniak advised that the intent would be to build a recycling facility at Newport to sort materials and organics and then evaluate the need for more extensive equipment, its logic and financing as creating a market for recyclables versus the cost of getting rid of those materials, and ultimately reducing overall costs.  Mr. Wozniak noted the guiding principles included a plan for the next 20-30 years, building on the current system, while allowing changes to emerge over time by assuring flexibility, managing risks, and revising the viewpoint from “waste,” to “resources.” 

Discussion included capacity issues at the local, Minneapolis burner; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements; mixed waste process (MWP); and the benefits and reduced costs if everyone recycled and sorted materials at their source (e.g. residence or business) rather than additional handling at a facility.

Regarding current organic recycling efforts, Mr. Wozniak noted Ramsey County’s intent to make money available to cities in Ramsey County to expand their organics programs; and current lack of a Roseville yard waste site and ability to accept organics, with the closest site located in Arden Hills and their opting out of organic collections.

Member Cihacek clarified the advantages of the potential rebates to haulers to the Newport facility if operated publically versus privately eliminating the current subsidy paid trash vendors to use that site but addressing the higher cost of processing waste at Newport versus landfilling it.  Member Cihacek noted, if the County took over ownership, they could dictate costs and require all haulers to use that facility, allowing the potential creation of secondary markets for materials; and noting current profit margins at the Newport Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT) facility as a private entity.

At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Wozniak stated that the RRT was not really interested in selling the facility, but Ramsey and Washington Counties have expressed an interest in purchasing the facility, and hold the right-of-first-refusal to purchase it, with a purchase prices negotiated and arbitrated, with an additional cost for upgrades still being negotiated for the thirty-year old facility.  By purchasing the facility, Mr. Wozniak noted the Counties would have more flexibility in materials received and how they’re process, more predictable costs with no subsidy required due to the potential authority to direct trash from landfills into recycling or energy production.

Mr. Wozniak advised he would keep the PWETC updated as the negotiations continued until the August 27, 2015 Project Board meeting.

Chair Stenlund referenced a recent Minneapolis Star/Tribune newspaper article addressing the difficult markets for recyclables at this time due to the China market.  Chair Stenlund noted this may be important as the PWETC looks to update their RFP process and begin negotiations in 2016 as the contract with Eureka Recycling expires, and as those market issues continue to evolve.

Mr. Culver noted that, as heard at the recent annual report from Eureka, they had already addressed reduced revenues being seen and fewer revenue share dollars to the City, which would in turn impact the City’s recycling fee in 2016 to its residents due to that reduced market for plastics, colored/sorted glass.  Mr. Culver admitted this is disappointing given past history and anticipation of how the contract would work when entering into the agreement with Eureka.  Mr. Culver advised that staff was in the early stages of discussing the next RFP for that service contract, which would come before the PWETC for review and recommendation to the City Council.  Mr. Culver stated that, depending on how the market plays out, either positive changes will be seen as the market rebounds, or it will be a rude awakening as a new contract is pursued.

Since the City of St. Paul is beginning their RFP process for an organics and recycling vendor(s), Member Wozniak opined that their decision on a vendor could impact the City of Roseville’s choice of vendors as well, since Eureka also serves that City, and may go in similar directions.

For the benefit of new commissioners, Chair Stenlund noted the PWETC’s development of an RFP that uses a Best Value Procurement process to obtain the best environmental services possible for residents and the City; with a scaled system to rank and weight proposals, reflecting Roseville values.  Chair Stenlund noted the honesty and upfront nature of Eureka as a vendor.

Chair Stenlund asked staff to include a discussion of organic recycling and “blue bags” on a future PWETC agenda.

7.            Review of Joint Meeting with the City Council

Chair Stenlund reviewed topics discussed at the joint meeting and thanked members for their attendance and participation.  Chair Stenlund reviewed individual Councilmember comments; and consensus items for the PWETC to revisit and make recommendation to the City Council.

An excerpt from the June 22, 2015 DRAFT City Council Meeting Minutes

Joint Meeting with Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) Parks and Recreation Commission

Mayor welcomed members of the PWETC Commission, represented by Chair Dwayne Stenlund; Vice Chair Brian Cihacek; and Members Sarah Brodt-Lenz, Joe Wozniak, John Heimerl, and Kody Thurnau…

As part of tonight’s meeting materials, Chair Stenlund noted the PWETC’s submission of a neighborhood organized trash collection guide (Attachment A to the RCA) for City Council consideration for the community. Chair Stenlund briefly reviewed the activities and accomplishments of the Commission since last meeting jointly with the City Council, and as detailed in the RCA dated June 22, 2015.  Chair Stenlund sought City Council feedback on proposed work plan items for the upcoming year, as well as presenting questions to the City Council and hearing their concerns as part of tonight’s discussion as follows.

Stormwater Management

Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in infiltration barrier curbs, other curbs, and swales as streets are replaced; noting her preference for ribbon curbs in parking areas to water vegetation in island parking areas.

Chair Stenlund opined that, to-date the City had done a marvelous job installing ribbon curbs, pervious pavers, and landscaping to treat rainwater where it fell.  From a civil engineering versus lay person’s perspective, Chair Stenlund spoke to the City’s efforts, using the recent land acquisition as part of the Victoria Street Project as an example of securing sufficient land to address stormwater management issues.    Chair Stenlund opined that he found the City to be quite advanced and doing a wonderful job looking at alternatives and considering future trending.

Sanitary and/or Water Service Line Laterals

Councilmember McGehee suggested a minimum notification of options available to residents when the City undertakes a sewer or water main lining project, allowing them to consider having their laterals lined at the same time.  Councilmember McGehee expressed interest in a possible cost-sharing effort between the City and residents to get those stub lines done and address leakages currently occurring and no longer remaining a vulnerable part of the system.

Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in the PWEC’s review and subsequent recommendation to the City Council regarding the various water/sewer service lateral issues before the next cold weather season.

Councilmember Laliberte agreed that more work was needed from the PWETC on water/sewer service laterals; and expressed her eagerness to see the commission’s recommendations.

Councilmember Etten agreed with Councilmember McGehee, opining he would love to have cost-sharing as an option in lining his service lateral before it fails.

Regarding sanitary sewer laterals, Member Cihacek sought clarification on what the City Council desired as a goal or solution.  Member Cihacek questioned if the intent was for recommendation or a series of recommendations from the PWETC or what would be most beneficial for the end product for this complex and multi-faceted issue.  Member Cihacek opined there may not be only one solution, and sought more guidance for the PWETC in order to provide sufficient information to the City Council in their policy decision-making and for the PWETC to perform their research better and provide the best possible recommendations.

Since the PWETC’s work as a body flows to the City Council, Councilmember Willmus opined that the PWETC did not necessarily need to present a unified approach, as he often found dissent from their discussions helpful as well.

Mayor Roe clarified that the main issue involved the choice to leave lateral ownership as is with property owners responsible for anything up to the main and including the laterals; or to change that defined ownership to something else.

Councilmember Willmus agreed with those choices; stated he was not going to direct the PWETC one way or the other, as he wanted to review their discussion and subsequent recommendations.

Councilmember McGehee stated she saw it as a multi-faceted issue and used the example of residents able to negotiate with a contractor performing work for the City to have their private driveways replaced.  Based on her past research of other metropolitan communities as part of her work with the League of Minnesota Cities, Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus that the PWETC provide options.  Councilmember McGehee expressed confidence in the PWETC performing their typical thorough research and coming forward with a well-thought out recommendation or recommendations.

Councilmember Laliberte noted the variables with certain situations treated differently in Roseville, based on the jurisdictional ownership of the road, as well as which side of the road on which the main was located.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested a comparison with other communities of the same or similar age to Roseville, and comparison of their policies compared to that currently in Roseville.  Councilmember Laliberte noted, when the HRA had recently met with the City Council, the availability of loan funds, and questioned if assistance to property owners may be considered as part of one of their loan programs.

Member Cihacek suggested the PWETC also look at other circumstances beyond ownership, including bid format, financial impacts, unfunded liability issues, options and other considerations that would prove productive and forward thinking in an effort to provide the best guidance for the City Council,.

Mayor Roe opined that a key part along with those other considerations would be the educational component, since most residents were unaware of the ownership of those connections until they developed a problem, at which time they became intimately aware of them.  Mayor Roe opined that, if upfront education can be provided, the better for all.

Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Mayor Roe, opining that preventative measures were an important component to alert homeowners.

Councilmember McGehee concurred, noting the educational efforts provided in the past by the City related to backflow preventers for sewer lines.  As an additional part of the educational efforts for this issue, Councilmember McGehee noted the disparity among homeowners in the City and lack of awareness as to the location of mains on one side of the street or the other.  Councilmember McGehee opined this was not something one even typically thought about when purchasing a home, or the potential variables in cost, nor was it part of their normal due diligence in that purchase.

Regarding City liability and costs, Chair Stenlund asked if it would be of value to the City Council for the PWETC to make recommendations on a potential ceiling for the cost of rehabilitation of the laterals, capping the cost for homeowners and the point the City should or could step in to share those costs.

By consensus, City Councilmember supported that suggested option.

Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation already for this additional perspective from the PWETC, particularly preventative measures.  Councilmember Willmus suggested additional consideration should be discussed about potential steps the City can take as laterals are repaired to make sure City inspectors are reviewing and monitoring those new lines from a basic perspective to ensure the longevity of laterals, and avoid added future expenses as part of preventative efforts.

Pavement Management Plan (PMP)/Delamination of Streets/Sealcoating/Mill and Overlay/Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ratings

Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope that any future PWETC fieldtrip would include monitoring and following-up on the delamination issue and research on the latest thoughts and/or technologies to address that issue.

Mayor Roe agreed with concerns of the PWETC on potential impacts to streets with delamination and deferral of sealcoating that may have long-term effects on the PCI.  Mayor Roe suggested different index standards may be needed in the future to address those correlated costs, while maintaining a balance.  As part of that review by the PWETC and future recommendation to the City Council, Mayor Roe suggested their review of the City’s current assessment policy based on those funding challenges going forward and whether changes were needed in that policy  that may include revised cost-sharing calculations for those benefitting from street improvements. 

Pathway Master Plan Implementation

Councilmember Willmus noted apparent issues among individual PWETC members during their last ranking of the Pathway Master Plan, and no standard criteria in their individual scoring exercises.  Councilmember Willmus suggested that the PWETC’s first step be to develop such a common set of scoring criteria for their next review and ranking exercise, opining that would be most beneficial to the commission and the community.

Councilmember Laliberte reported on her research of potential grant monies for sidewalks through the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP).  Since the City Council continued to hear from residents in their desire for more connectivity, and those sidewalks and pathways were expensive to fund and prioritize accordingly, Councilmember Laliberte suggested additional research on grant funds that may be available to accomplish those efforts.

Mayor Roe suggested the PWETC, in their review of the pathway system again, make it a priority to consider connections between multi-family residential buildings and transit, as well as connecting with schools.  Mayor Roe provided several examples he and Councilmember Etten had discussed in their neighborhood in observing bus riders having to walk on the grass or on the street to get to a bus stop because there was no available pathway. Mayor Roe opined that making those short connections would certainly improve the quality of life for those needing to use transit.

Solar Power Discussions

Councilmember Willmus expressed his desire for the PWETC and City Council to continue their work on community solar and solar garden options, including the ability to write grants as applicable.  Councilmember Willmus suggested one aspect should be recommending if the PWETC feels an outside grant writer is needed to assist with those efforts in a timely manner.

Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten spoke in support of continued solar power resources and more involvement.

Transportation

Councilmember Laliberte advised that she had spoken earlier today with a Ramsey County Commissioner serving on the Ramsey County Transit Advisory Board (TAB) who questioned why the City of Roseville did not apply for more grants.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that the Commissioner noted, as a newer member of the TAB, money was frequently going elsewhere as there were no applications being received from the communities she represented.  While the commissioner noted her feedback on the cumbersome nature of those grant application processes, she suggested such feedback would prove helpful going forward.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested further research by staff and the PWETC of particular grants that may be available for City participation.

Leaf Pickup Program Outreach/Education

Councilmember Laliberte agreed that options were needed for those residents who needed to replace the leaf pickup program after discontinuation in 2015.  While there are many services available to perform raking and removal for residents, Councilmember Laliberte noted the need for an option for residents choosing to rake and pile leaves on the curb for pick-up.  Councilmember McGehee noted several questions she’d received to-date from residents seeking an option that would be comparable to the fee-based service they previously received from the City.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP)/Role of the PWEC for Equipment Replacement

Councilmember Laliberte encouraged the PWETC to work with staff to identify acceptable standards and capital improvement program (CIP) funding for street improvement projects (e.g. suggestions for those accepted standards, timelines, and funding) toward matching those efforts on a consistent basis.

Regarding the role of the PWETC in equipment replacement, Councilmember Etten suggested that staff may already have a cycle in place based on industry standards, but agreed that the PWETC may wish to review that schedule of replacement while recognizing staff’s rationale in the cycle for replacement.  However, Councilmember Etten suggested the PWETC’s recommendations in addressing the PMP schedule, and PCI cost issues long-term would be beneficial to the City Council.

Draft Neighborhood Organized Trash Collection Guide

Mayor Roe noted he had seen the original draft in the PWETC meeting packet, and noted the revisions and improvements made to it, which he found to be on the right track.  Mayor Roe sought input from his colleagues as to their preference for the next step: whether to seek public feedback at this time or bring it forward for action.

Councilmember Laliberte stated her understanding was that this version was made available by the PWETC for discussion tonight; and noted there had no public comment up to this point.  If the item was placed on a future City Council agenda item for potential action, Councilmember Laliberte opined that it would provide for public comment at that point.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she had several minor technical items that she would review with the PWETC or Public Works Director Marc Culver.

At the request of Mayor Roe, Chair Stenlund confirmed that, from the PWETC’s perspective, the guide was ready for submission to the City Council.

If the items mentioned by Councilmember Laliberte were policy related, Mayor Roe suggested it wait for City Council discussion and consideration.

General Individual Comments

As part of their field trips and from an operational standpoint, Councilmember McGehee suggested the PWETC recommend ways to beautify public boulevards, open spaces and rights-of-way that didn’t require such intensive care (e.g. hand moving) by installing more natural areas where applicable.

Chair Stenlund noted some favorable comments the PWETC had received from residents regarding reduced road speed to improve safety on one section involving a City project.

Chair Stenlund asked if the City Council was interested in maintenance-free landscaping that interested butterflies and served as pollinators, as many communities were looking into.

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of that suggestion.

Mayor Roe spoke in support of maintenance-free landscaping efforts, provided the options were not cost-prohibitive.

Mayor Roe thanked commissioners for their report, their ongoing work, and their attendance tonight, opining that there was no better advertisement for residents to apply for future PWETC vacancies than tonight’s discussion.  Mayor Roe expressed the City Council’s and community’s appreciation of the work of the PWETC and looked forward to the next joint meeting.

In reviewing the joint meeting, areas of focus were discussed and highlighted as follows:

·      Continue pursuit of solar energy options

·      Revisit the Pathways Master Plan with a clear ranking system

·      Sanitary sewer/water lateral ownership options; potential cap for homeowner expense such as used for sewer back-ups with a “buffet” of options to address the complex issues, including but not limited to location of laterals to the main, depth, lining options, consideration of using HRA loan program; available grant programs

·      Integration of Transit options with infrastructure components and projects; safety and capacity improvements and funding available

·      Develop educational components and options for residents beyond the City’s leaf pick-up program when it expires in 2015

·      Sustainability of the Pavement Management Program (PMP) following recent review by the Finance Commission at the request of the City Council, should the pavement condition index (PCI) target of 75 be lowered; and what that meant to the sustainability of the fund and potential increased maintenance.

Mr. Culver suggested the PMP be revisited during the winter months, as well as pathways, then recycling leading up to a new RFP for recycling services.

Member Seigler mentioned the Walmart roundabout and trees making it dangerous and difficult to see around them. 

Mr. Culver responded that is an intentional part of their design to slow traffic and better address lines of sight.

Members noted the City Council’s apparent acceptance of the organized collection guide for residents/neighborhoods for consideration at an upcoming City Council meeting, depending on their schedule and allowing for public feedback before adoption.

Allowing for staff to provide some research, Mr. Culver suggested the PWETC consider water/sewer services as part of their October/November timeframe; with August serving to address educational efforts and communication to residents on options for the leaf pickup program, with Member Wozniak suggesting organic collection be part of that discussion as well.

Chair Stenlund noted solar updates would continue on a monthly basis.

8.            Possible Items for Next Meeting – July 28, 2015

·         Review of Proposals and Staff Recommendation for City Campus Solar Installation

As a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, Mr. Culver noted staff’s receipt of a notice for a “Living Streets and Recycling Workshop” geared to City Environmental Commissions, scheduled for Tuesday, July 28 from 6 to 9:00 p.m.  Since this is a regularly-scheduled meeting date for the PWETC, Mr. Culver sought consensus and interest from them in using that workshop to be held at Roseville City Hall as their meeting, with a brief business meeting as needed immediately prior to the workshop (e.g. 6:00 p.m.)  Recognizing the agenda of the PWETC, Mr. Culver suggested this may be beneficial to the actual issues coming before the PWETC over the next year, allow them to network with other communities, and hear their experiences and presentations as well. 

Discussion ensued regarding timing and items to be addressed as part of the business meeting; open meeting law implications and notice requirements; location of the PWETC business meeting and this workshop; or meeting on an alternate day, which was not supported by the majority of members.

Member Cihacek moved, Member Lenz seconded, rescheduling the July 28, 2015 PWETC meeting to 6:00 p.m. for a brief business meeting; with the workshop standing in for the remainder of the meeting.

Mr. Culver duly noted the change; and advised staff would address the logistics of both meetings.

Ayes: 7

Nays: 0

Motion carried.

Since losing the July meeting agenda, Member Cihacek suggested that at the August meeting, the PWETC address the community survey update, and develop an educational process for leaf collection/organics; with Pathways and the PMP revisited in October.

Chair Stenlund noted the need to schedule water/sewer lateral discussions in September and October.

Member Cihacek offered to bring a proposed vision for water/sewer laterals and a schedule with him in September and October for PWETC consideration, and allowing staff time to perform their research as well. 

Member Cihacek suggested future winter discussions on considering worm composting at leaf collection sites as a tactic to improve the quality of compost and perhaps derive some revenue from the use of the worms.  Member Cihacek also suggested discussing a potential code change to mandate sanitary sewer clean-outs for new construction.

9.            Adjourn

Lenz moved, Seigler seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:46p.m.

Ayes: 7

Nays: 0

Motion carried.