|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, August 25, 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; Vice Chair Brian
Cihacek; and Members Kody Thurnau, John Heimerl, Sarah Brodt Lenz; with
Member Duane Seigler arriving at approximately 6:48 p.m.
Members Excused: Member Joe Wozniak
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver and
City Engineer Jesse Freihammer
2.
Public Comments
3.
Approval of July 28, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Member Cihacek
moved, Member Heimerl seconded, approval of the July 28, 2015, meeting as
presented.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works
Director Culver and City Engineer Jesse Freihammer reviewed project updates
and maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated August 25, 2015.
At the request
of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver reported that with the I-35W and Cleveland
Interchange Project coming in under bid, it would simply mean use of fewer
tax increment financing (TIF) funds, since those are restricted to certain
infrastructure uses, but noted that the additional $200,000 from the lower
bid may be available for some of the smaller elements as alternates or
options while work is being done in the area. On a related note, Mr. Culver
reported that the City Council had elected to bond for funds within that TIF
District 17 allowing other projects eligible for funding rather than the
District expiring and losing that funding option.
Member Cihacek
asked if the additional funds could provide an opportunity for furthering the
efforts of the Master Pathway Plan in that section.
Mr. Culver
responded that was a good point and question, noting that sidewalk was
already installed adjacent to Walmart, and will be extended as part of any
new developments on the north side. However, depending on the boundaries of
TIF District 17, Mr. Culver suggested that may provide an opportunity to
extend the sidewalk further than anticipated at this time, which he offered
to look into. Mr. Culver noted this would allow for linking pathways along
Twin Lakes Parkway as part of this project, especially into Langton Lake Park
if TIF funding eligible since park expenses are not typically TIF eligible.
At the request
of Chair Stenlund, Engineer Freihammer reviewed specifics of Pavement
Maintenance Program (PMP) projects in more detail.
Member Lenz
noted the need for better communication by Ramsey County with private
citizens in timing their projects.
In response,
Mr. Culver advised that the County and City attempted to coordinate their
projects; however, he also noted the various efforts involved. Mr. Culver
noted that the City was not thrilled that Ramsey County?s Dale Street project
was occurring during the Minnesota State Fair, since it may have full
closures at times. With several weddings also scheduled at Central Park
during the project, Mr. Culver noted the considerable coordination between
Ramsey County and the City of Roseville Parks & Recreation Department to
limit impacts to that event, in addition to scheduled events at the Harriet
Alexander Nature Center (HANC) during that time as well. Mr. Culver
sympathized with the concerns and frustration expressed by Member Lenz, but
noted as with many projects it depended somewhat on whether a project was
done in-house or by an outside contractor given a window of work and
completion date deadlines. Mr. Culver further noted the current busy
contractor climate, requiring the need to provide some flexibility to avoid
excess costs and allow coordination of work among contractors and
subcontractors.
Mr. Culver
reported that unfortunately it would be a similar situation in 2016 with work
on the I-35W and Cleveland Interchange and Twin Lakes Parkway projects, with
several contractors working in the same general area, creating ongoing
challenges to be monitored and coordinated.
Chair Stenlund
reminded PWETC members of opportunities for their involvement and leadership
in volunteering for various Parks & Recreation Commission projects,
encouraging members to help spread the word about citizen involvement in the
community.
Mr. Culver
announced an upcoming Roseville University session scheduled on October 8.
2015 at 6:30 p.m. that will focus on sewer maintenance and connections, in
addition to roadway maintenance, encouraging Members to attend as well as
alerting interested neighbors and citizens.
Member Seigler arrived at this
time, approximately 6:48 p.m.
5.
Leaf Disposal Outreach and Education Discussion
Mr. Culver
noted that, in addition to the newsletter article copy included in the agenda
materials and a U of MN information sheet on leaf disposal options that he
thought provided a good narrative on options for residents, he was
distributing four additional bench handouts, attached hereto and made a
part hereof. Those included: ?City of Roseville Leaf Pickup
Program,? providing residents with alternatives for the program after this
year and disposal sites and potential vendors for hauling intended as a
utility bill insert; ?2015 City of Roseville Residential Leaf Pickup
Authorization? card along with on-line registration for residents wishing to
take part in this year?s program; ?2015 Roseville Residential Leaf Pickup
Program October 28 ? November 13,? alerting residents that 2015 will be the
final year for this city-coordinated program and the tentative pickup schedule;
and ?another handout providing alternatives for removal. Mr. Culver advised
that staff continues to gather information on private vendors with the intent
to post it this fall and in 2016 online regarding options; and a website
section detailing many options and an updated contractor list similar to
?Angie?s List,? that will provide vendor options, not recommendations.
At the request
of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver advised that staff had not intended to provide
a targeted outreach of current customers of the leaf pickup program to let
them know the program would not be offered in 2016; with Member Cihacek
suggested that be done. Member Cihacek opined those customers would be the
most highly impacted versus those not currently using the program; and should
reduce future communication costs.
At the request
of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver confirmed that Eureka Recycling did not
currently offer yard waste as part of their program.
Member Cihacek
further suggested timing communication efforts and leaf disposal options for
next spring and summer by cell within the community the purchase of
composting barrels and rain barrels for purchase by residents, including
in-house workshops on composting, mulching and other options. Member Cihacek
noted the U of MN Extension Service provided an excellent resource for this
education/communication effort.
Member Cihacek
asked if rain barrels were offered at contractor rates to residents.
Mr. Culver
advised that they were generally offered in the spring ? both composting bins
and rail barrels ? as a pass-through by the City with no mark-up in cost.
Member Cihacek
suggested having the contractor offer savings to the City for multiple
purchases.
Mr. Culver
responded that the cost is minimal, estimated at $50 each, and while staff
could look into bulk purchasing the bins and barrels, the problem was that
the City had no place to store the excess.
Member Cihacek
suggested structuring the contract for delivery on an as-needed basis, or
available for local purchase (e.g. Home Depot, etc.) or a cooperative
purchase with other communities. Member Cihacek opined that this would allow
for support from a customer basis and cost benefit, as well as encouraging
the option. Member Cihacek further opined that, if the City could offer a
one-year specialized discount in 2016 to encourage residents to pursue that
option and help them transition into this non-leaf pickup program, it would
serve to benefit the entire community and water quality efforts.
Chair Stenlund
provided his research from the Internet, that he had entitled ?Compost 101,?
that could serve to offer educational components on composting blades for
lawnmowers and explain how a mulching mower worked. Chair Stenlund noted
that both items could be found at local hardware stores, and noted by
promoting this for local Roseville businesses that rent or stock this type of
equipment, it would be a win/win for that business and residents. Chair
Stenlund also noted the local and regional companies he?d researched online
that provided those items, and recommended that information as well as how to
compost and the science behind it, be included as part of the
educational/informational efforts initiated by staff.
Customer basis
supported, cost benefit, encourage project ? if we can offer one-year
specialized discount next year to encourage people to pursue that option and
help residents transition into this non-leaf program service
Chair Stenlund
suggested providing information to Roseville residents, and for consideration
of facilitating private/public service efforts through the School District as
potential fundraising programs for high school students who could potentially
bring leaf grinders directly to the yards of elderly citizens. Chair
Stenlund suggested a pilot ?Mulch Saturday,? for youth and/or civic groups to
offer en educational component as well as information, and offer savings and
help for lawn care. Chair Stenlund opined there wouldn?t be too many
residents remaining uninformed with these various efforts; although he anticipated
several homes placing their leaves curbside expecting them to be picked up.
Member Lenz
spoke in support of the ?Compost 101? concept; and suggested Eagle Service
projects as an option as well.
Mr. Culver
advised that staff tries to be diligent in determining which customers were
receiving services and had paid for them versus those taking advantage of the
service and not paying the annual fee for pickup. However, Mr. Culver agreed
that he expected to find a situation with some leaves still placed curbside
for pickup by the City due to lack of attention or simply out of habit.
Chair Stenlund
noted this would be a great opportunity to provide related information on why
no seeds or lawn clippings should be considered debris in discharge
locations, no matter a resident?s opinion of government, in an effort to
protect and/or improve water quality for all. Chair Stenlund noted this
review could serve as a quantifiable in the City?s MS4 annual report as well.
Mr. Culver
advised that staff would incorporated this additional educational material
and/or links on the City?s website. Mr. Culver reported that he expected
this to be an annual educational effort in the September newsletters starting
in 2016.
Member Thurnau
suggested starting the educational efforts earlier in the spring and
throughout summer/fall to address lawn care basics and how that affected the
environment with practices on our private property as much as public
properties (e.g. streets).
Member Cihacek
concurred, suggesting the educational component may prove interesting; and
asked if there were capacity concerns at available lawn waste sites.
Mr. Culver
advised that, historically the City dropped leaves picked up curbside to
those sites, while other times they were delivered to other locations,
depending on the time of the year and their volume. Mr. Culver noted that
one problem was with contractors sometimes bringing their leaves to a site
and ongoing challenges in verifying Roseville leaves are going into the
Roseville compost site. With the demand for compost throughout the year, Mr.
Culver advised that using it was not problematic, but allowing time for
processing it and room to move and turn the piles often became a challenge in
some years. Due to those issues, Mr. Culver advised that the City had found
some partnership opportunities with other firms using that material for some
of their own soil blending for organics. Mr. Culver noted that there was
more contamination in yard waste compost than in the City?s leaf pickup program,
with some timing issues for marketing the compost. Mr. Culver opined that
staff didn?t anticipate a lot more leaves coming to the sites when
discontinuing the pickup program; but noted it would prove interesting to see
where contractor leaves showed up, which would create a challenge for them as
well.
At the request
of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Culver reviewed current Ramsey County Yard Waste sites
(Highway 96, Dale Street, Pierce Butler, etc.) and offered to provide a map
online of their locations similar to that of Ramsey County?s hazardous waste
sites.
Chair Stenlund
stated, from his perspective, it may be more problematic for a resident ? if
not mulching or composting ? to transport the leaves without having their own
trailer for transport or hiring a contractor to haul them. Chair Stenlund
asked how that situation could be addressed for residents, especially those
unable to pay for those services or unable to haul it off-site themselves.
Noting recent discussions about organized and community-based garbage
collection, Chair Stenlund suggested a ?community trailer? for someone to use
and/or interact with their neighbors. While this would be infrequently used,
Chair Stenlund noted opined that it would foster community level involvement
and get leaves hauled to a mapped location.
Member Seigler
noted that he simply put the leaves in trash bags and hauled them in his
truck; opining it wasn?t the City?s job to move people?s leaves, with
indications that 95% had already figured it out and only 5% remained.
With Member
Cihacek noted the option proposed for haulers providing the service on the
City?s website, Member Seigler clarified that Chair Stenlund was looking for
a free transport service for those elderly or unable to pay for a hauler or
having access to a trailer.
Member Cihacek
suggested the community needed to come together for a contract versus the
City, or neighbors getting together on a hauler and price, but putting the
burden on them, as long as the City provides the information for them.
Member Thurnau
noted several neighborhood associations in Roseville, as well as the work of
the Community Engagement Commission (CEC) working on what associations would
look like, suggesting this may be an option for them, to organize certain
areas or neighborhoods as logical sectors to work on pickup management.
Member Heimerl
suggested educational opportunities during National Night Out or during that
time period, to present this information to block captains and get neighbors
talking to one another at which time they could coordinate trailers and
needs, with block coordination to help the remaining percentage get leaves
off their property for the benefit of the entire neighborhood. Member
Heimerl also noted the potential to push community fundraising opportunities,
with donations for pickup for school organizations or school sports team or
faith-based organizations, where students living in a particular neighborhood
or spread throughout the neighborhood could work cooperatively to provide the
service and reap the benefits. Even if donation based, Member Heimerl opined
that there would be more money in raking and transporting leaves versus
bagging groceries for a fundraising effort. Member Heimerl opined that the
City was doing a good job in getting the information out and educating the
public, but opportunities may be available to encourage community-based
services until private industry stepped up in the future.
Chair Stenlund
stated his anticipation of a one-year problem as this change occurs, but not thereafter.
Chair Stenlund
and Member Cihacek asked staff for an update as a future communications
highlight.
Solar
Installation Update
While not
originally planned for this month, Mr. Culver provided an update based on
City Council action in approving a nonbinding Letter of Intent with Sundial
Solar, and next steps as Sundial began shopping for tax equity partners.
Member Lenz
expressed the difficulty she was having in understanding financing for this
solar option, and asked staff to provide a future ?Solar Financing 101?
report.
Member Seigler
also asked for very brief information presented by staff in the near future
on the absolute worst case scenario in six years and associated risks, both
initial risks and risks over time at the 6 or 7 year mark.
Mr. Culver
recognized the complexities involved and sympathized with areas of confusion
for PWETC members, and advised staff would prepare a synopsis for a future
meeting. Under the Sundial proposal, Mr. Culver did report preliminarily
that there was no upfront cost to the city at year 6 or 7, at which time
there would be a 5% payback of fair market value for purchase by the City
with the remainder a 95% charitable donation from Sundial investors to the
City. Mr. Culver advised that the overall savings remained an unknown
depending on the various programs available now and at the end of the term,
and dependent on Xcel and solar capacity credits and whether those programs
remain active in continuing that credit. Mr. Culver noted that not only are
the components complex, but will also be subject to change over time, with
future energy costs dictating actual savings to be realized. Mr. Culver
advised that staff would provide this much more detailed analysis to the
PWETC as requested and hopefully make the proposal clearer.
Member Seigler
reiterated his request for an overview of the City?s risk.
Mr. Culver
reported that, based on the City Council?s review and Letter of Intent,
Sundial Solar showed an approximate cost of $7,000 ? $8,000 in annual
maintenance costs for the system, or the actual service they would provide if
something went wrong and as they consistently monitor the energy used, they
receive an alert for any problem on the system, with troubleshooting and
labor included by Sundial and the City only responsible for the cost of any
new equipment as an option after the 6th year. Mr. Culver advised
that for the first six years, the maintenance costs would be wrapped into the
financing terms as negotiated.
At the request
of Member Lenz, Mr. Culver confirmed that the City was not prohibited in
having only one contract, and could easily solicit proposals for other roofs
(e.g. fire station, public works maintenance garage), with the Skating Center
roof chosen as the first and largest rooftop and without existing accessories
on the roof, one area of concern with the public works maintenance garage
having more skylights, HVAC systems, etc. At the request of Member Lenz, Mr.
Culver advised that the City could seek different sized systems and layer
onto them as long as the Made in Minnesota Program offers continued to
apply. Mr. Culver opined that he saw the City coming up with a long-term
plan for solar system on all city-owned building rooftops; and coupled with
that he intended to recommend seeking solar community shares to offset the
City?s energy consumption. Mr. Culver clarified that he was still not
proposing that the City served as a host, but shares would be good for the
City and its residents in offsetting energy costs.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver confirmed that the City?s application in the
lottery system through its Letter of Intent, with word anticipated yet this
fall as to that success of that application.
As an
administrator of that lottery program, Member Cihacek reported that proposals
are due August 31, 2015 at which time they would each be evaluated and scored
according to an established process; then proceed into the lottery system.
Member Cihacek anticipated knowing those results by the September 2015 PWETC
meeting and recommendation as to contract award or not, for final
recommendation ? if successful ? for the October or November 2015 City
Council meetings for their review and approval as applicable.
At the request
of Mr. Culver, Member Cihacek reported that approximately 30 communities
expressed interest in the lottery program, representing 350 megawatts of
demand. Member Cihacek noted it was a complex process with the lottery
system and expressed his hope that it went quickly.
6.
Items for September Agenda
·
Solar
Installation Update at St. Christopher?s Church off TH 36 and Hamline Avenue
(Stenlund)
Chair Stenlund
expressed his personal interest and for the benefit of the community in
hearing from representatives of the church about this solar installation, the
concept itself, lessons learned, etc.
Mr. Culver noted
the project highlighted at the recent Living Green program, advising that
this project was the first to take advantage of financing through the St.
Paul Port Authority (SPAA), authorized by the City of Roseville to guarantee
collection if the church defaulted on this financing by assessing their
property the amount of the loan. Mr. Culver expressed interest in seeing if
this prompted any other interested parties in Roseville in doing so. Mr.
Culver opined the SPAA was a great program and anticipated more panels
popping throughout Roseville as more interest and incentives are made
available.
·
Water/Sewer
Service Review as charged by the City Council (Culver)
Mr. Culver
referenced multiple solutions presented by staff previously for the PWETC?s
research and review, in addition to the liability caps proposed as an option
by Member Seigler as a starting discussion point. Mr. Culver noted the need
for more information as well as financial analyses.
Member Seigler
expressed interest in learning of any insurance companies covering water line
damage/freezing, similar to those offering supplemental coverage for sanitary
sewer backups; and suggested an expert in the field could be asked to provide
an overview or present more information to the PWETC.
Mr. Culver reported
that the City?s insurance partner, League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
(LMCIT), could present that information.
Member Cihacek
expressed interest in a program for the water utility, such as done with
sanitary sewer, in capping the cost for the City with some funding provided;
but at what point it can or should be provided; requesting an update from
staff on the process if the information is not currently available.
Mr. Culver advised
that staff would begin its analysis, including adjustments needed for
existing rates as an option for funding that prospect.
Member Cihacek
suggested one option may be a self-insurance fund, with additional
information needed in how such a fund could be structured and how to ensure
it would remain solvent over time; and what funds could or could not be used
for that, including repairs and/or secondary costs.
Also, Chair
Stenlund expressed interest in defining if and when construction projects or
maintenance efforts provided a view of those lateral ports on the City side
versus their connection to the main; and how and when a clean-out maintenance
program could be implemented.
Member Lenz asked
for a graphic explanation and brief summary of how to better understand the
how and where of those connections, etc.
Mr. Culver offered
to start with that ?Sewer 101? overview at the September meeting as a good
starting point. With this topic part of a Roseville University session
scheduled one to two weeks after the September PWETC meeting, Mr. Culver
noted it would provide an incentive to get those materials prepared sooner
rather than later.
Mr. Culver asked if
September?s PWETC meeting was focusing on sewer issues, should the October meeting
focus on the water service.
Member Cihacek
suggested a ?Water 101? and ?Sewer 101?presentation and discussion to make
sure everyone was on the same page; however, he questioned if water issues
were the same as those of sewer based on age and longevity, and suggested a
specific review of the problems for each of those utilities. Based on prior
discussions, Member Cihacek noted the need to determine whether or not the
City knew the condition of its infrastructure and how that data is tracked.
Therefore, Member Cihacek suggested the sewer liability and insurance
discussion in September followed by the water system in October, with ongoing
discussions of affiliated issues continued into the winter PWETC meetings.
·
Sump
Pump Update (Seigler)
Member Seigler
asked if sufficient information was available as to the number of sump pumps
flowing into the sanitary sewer mains, or if the PWETC should wait until the
program was finalized.
Mr. Culver advised
that 75% to 80% of Ferguson installations should be done by October.
However, Mr. Culver clarified that until installations done in May and June,
sump pump inspections were not being done, and therefore the data would not
be complete other than some random sampling data that may suffice. Mr.
Culver suggested waiting until the December PWETC meeting once a fuller
picture was available, offering a great discussion about next steps and
recommendations to the City Council.
·
Salt/Chloride
Use During Winter for Ice Control (Seigler)
Member Seigler
sought an update from staff on ongoing issues with use of salt for de-icing
efforts.
Mr. Culver advised
that chloride entering the public water system continued to be a growing
concern, especially with the possibility of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) implementing Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDL) and associated
reporting requirements and regulations. Mr. Culver noted that obviously the
easiest target was public agencies ? the state, counties and cities ? and
potential future restrictions limiting their use. While this was difficult to
mandate on the private sector side, Mr. Culver noted it was a valid
discussion for public entities as more information became available on those
regulatory mandates.
·
Snelling
Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Update (after Minnesota State Fair)
·
Revisit
Master Pathway Program and Rescoring Protocols (Stenlund)
Chair Stenlund
clarified that he wasn?t suggesting it be redone from a public works
perspective, but seeking consistency in the scoring as part of an overall
review of priorities.
Member Cihacek
opined it was good to look at the program in light of current future
construction goals to determine if that information or infrastructure has
changed since the last review.
Chair Stenlund also
expressed interest in hearing public comment on how the County Road B system
is working for residents, as well as speed adjustments made as part of that
improvement.
Generally speaking,
Mr. Culver expressed interest in the follow-up concept including that for
other recent sidewalk installation areas. While not hearing a lot of
comments to-date, and presuming that meant ?no news is good news,? Mr. Culver
agreed that an update would be prudent, since he had fielded no complaints
from residents over the summer on prevailing speeds now and any speed issues,
with the reduction in speed form 40 mph to 35 mph along that segment of
County Road B.
·
Miscellaneous
Mr. Culver reported
that there would be no follow-up necessary based on the PWETC?s recent
community tour, other than to add future conditions and information available
to the map.
Member Cihacek
noted the potential and fairly significant expansion project at Rosedale
Center and asked for a staff update as part of their communication items at
the next meeting.
Mr. Culver advised
that the initial conversation would occur at next week?s Planning Commission
meeting for a proposed new anchor, increasing the mall?s square footage
significantly and including a proposed parking structure as the new retail
space would be located where current parking is located. Mr. Culver reported
that a traffic study was already under discussion, and between the Planning
Commission and City Council future mitigation efforts required of the
applicants would be defined including any additional studies. Mr. Culver
advised that at a minimum additional stormwater mitigation for such a large
increase in square footage would need review and mitigation recommendations
by the watershed district and City. Mr. Culver stated that the City may opt
to partner with Rosedale Center and the watershed district to expand the
proposed stormwater system to address a broader area, one which already
experiences existing capacity issues north of Fairview Avenue. Mr. Culver
noted that any added flow from Rosedale flowing north up to County Road C
would indicate additional mitigation for the regional system. Mr. Culver
advised that staff would be working on those issues over the next few months,
and would keep the PWETC updated as applicable.
Member Cihacek
noted now would be the time for the PWETC to make any recommended improvements,
and asked if that discussion should be flagged as part of the December
2015/January 2016 PWETC meetings.
Mr. Culver advised
that, at this point, he was unsure of the timeline until final plat approval
was granted at which time the City?s ability to provide suggestions or input
would conclude. Mr. Culver suggested that be part of staff?s communication
item updates as applicable; and encouraged PWETC members to follow the
Planning Commission and City Council agenda for that specific item, with
staff bringing forward updates in future PWETC meeting packets as well.
·
Future
Tour Options
Chair Stenlund
suggested future PWETC tours could include the solar array at St.
Christopher?s, and the Eureka Recycling Plant (MERF).
Chair Stenlund
noted the Eureka Recycling Contract was coming up soon, and the need for
reviewing and refining criteria for a new request for proposals (RFP) for a
best value recycling contract would be needed, asking that staff allow
sufficient time for a thoughtful process in developing that criteria based on
today?s recycling market.
Mr. Culver duly
noted that request, advising that it may actually supersede some of the other
items listed as the PWETC started assembling pieces for the next round of
proposals for recommendation to the City Council, with the current contract
set to expire the end of 2016. Mr. Culver noted that part of that updated
criteria included whether or not organic recycling was possible under Ramsey
County?s mandate; and advised that the Eureka contract expiration coincided
with that of the City of St. Paul as well, which may impact requests for
proposals and any future contract negotiations and pricing. Mr. Culver noted
that the City would be seeking assistance from Ramsey County for that
process; but admitted it was a good idea to revisit the past proposal and
identify the last two years of experience and items to add, change or remove
for the next RFP. Mr. Culver suggested this initial discussion occur before
the end of 2015.
Mr. Culver advised that with a these
good topics to cover in the coming months, staff would work through them
accordingly for a timely order to consider and implement into future agendas,
and provide updates from staff as needed.
7.
Adjourn
Cihacek moved,
Thurnau seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 7:57 p.m.
Cihacek not at
October meeting ? work related
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|