|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Acting Chair
Joe Wozniak called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and Public
Works Director Marc Culver called the roll.
Members Present: Members Kody Thurnau, Joe Wozniak, John
Heimerl and Duane Seigler
Members Excused: Chair Dwayne Stenlund; Vice Chair Brian
Cihacek; and Member Sarah Brodt Lenz
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver and
City Engineer Jesse Freihammer
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of August 25, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Acting Chair
Wozniak suggested that, since he was not in attendance at the August meeting
and would abstain from meeting minute approval, action on the August minutes
be deferred until a quorum is available to vote for their approval.
Unless changes
were of a substantive content nature, Public Works Director Culver encouraged
members to submit changes via email to staff outside of and prior to meetings
in an effort to save meeting time.
By consensus
action on the August 25, 2015 meeting minutes was deferred to the October
2015 meeting.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works
Director Culver deferred to City Engineer Jesse Freihammer for a brief review
and update on projects and maintenance activities listed in the staff report
dated September 22, 2015.
Discussion
included the process for water main bursting; questioning by Member Wozniak
of what project was creating the digging up of approximately twelve front
residential lawns along County Road B-2 east between Dale and Western
Streets, with staff offering to follow-up since it wasn?t perceived by staff
as a city project and thought by staff to be an Xcel Energy project as part
of their replacement of gas distribution line services; and observation by
Member Thurnau of the lack of curb & gutter on Victoria Street between
the pathway and street on the segment closest to Larpenteur Avenue, and
concern with the longevity of grass growing in this area given the amount of
runoff coming down the hill.
Mr. Culver
responded specifically to the design of this segment and options considered
balancing the existing rural section and desire of residents to retain that
as well as keeping overall costs down for this type of design rather than the
higher cost for installing storm sewer infrastructure. Mr. Culver advised
that in designing the segment, a minimum boulevard width adjacent to the path
had been challenging, noting that vegetation health varies from one area to
another. Mr. Culver stated that he could not guarantee there would not be
issues with that vegetation in the future, and it had been seeded versus
sodded to enhance that longevity and with all factors considered determined
to be the best option.
5.
Snelling Avenue (A Line) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Update
Mr. Culver
advised that Metro Transit staff were unable to attend tonight?s meeting; and
therefore had provided City staff with an update on the Snelling Avenue BRT
project.
As part of the
presentation, Mr. Culver reviewed construction phasing with service
anticipated by next spring; future provision by Metro Transit or periodic
ridership and data to the City of Roseville for dissemination to the PWETC
and City Council by staff; comparisons with other BRT and LRT lines currently
in operation taking the place of express commuter routes. As this is the
first urban environment, Mr. Culver noted it would be interesting to see how
this compares with traditional bus service along Snelling Avenue and with the
LRT, since this is anticipated to be a more cost-effective option.
Discussion
among Commissioners and staff during the presentation included location of
the Snelling Avenue BRT station at County Road B and its proximity of
northbound and southbound stops with Har Mar Mall and crossing at those
signals; continuation of regular bus service along Snelling Avenue (Route 84)
and routing of connecting bus routes outside the ½ mile radius for regular
bus riders to access the BRT; availability of and general policy for bike
racks on the buses to facilitate bike commuters on the route; and how Metro
Transit intended to monitor and enforce fares on the BRT routes.
Mr. Culver
noted that Metro Transit had their own police force and typically randomly
surveyed riders to ensure compliance with fare payment; with discussion
ensuing on how fare compliance could be improved to avoid additional expense
to the general public as had been realized on LRT lines and creating an
additional police presence and/or payment of fares by all riders.
In conclusion,
Mr. Culver advised that Metro Transit would continue reviewing ridership and
other areas of the operation to ensure effective routing between branch lines
feeding into this BRT system, similar to review of existing green line routes
along University. Mr. Culver noted City staff?s continued advocacy and
monitoring of how to enhance County Road B and Larpenteur Avenue routes to
get more riders to BRT stations; and advised that staff would continue to
periodically update the PWETC if and when Metro Transit made significant
changes or advances in that area.
6.
Sanitary Sewer System Review and Discussion of Sanitary
Services
Acting Chair
Wozniak briefly summarized meeting minutes from the joint meeting of the
PWETC and City Council in June of 2015 listing the interest points and City
Council charge to the PWETC specific to this discussion.
Mr. Culver
introduced the discussion by providing an overview of sanitary sewer services
and components; typical areas for problems to develop within or along those
service lines and mains; and options for residents experiencing problems under
the City?s current ownership policy.
Mc. Culver
presented a graphic synopsis via a Power Point presentation, attached
hereto and made a part hereof; outlining existing city-wide sanitary
sewer and Metropolitan Council trunk interceptor sewer mains and lines
throughout the City. Mr. Culver noted that the vast majority of the sanitary
sewer system in Roseville was installed in the 1960?s, making it now 60 years
old; and also a majority of those lines were of clay piping. Given the age
and deterioration of piping found in the system, Mr. Culver advised that the
City had started an aggressive sewer line televising and lining program; with
approximately 30 miles lined to-date of the total approximate 140 miles of
sanitary sewer pipes in the community. Mr. Culver advised that approximately
6?7 miles of pipe is budgeted for televising and or lining, leaving
approximately 80 miles of clay pipe left to do. Mr. Culver noted that newer
lines installed were constructed of PVC, lined pipe, or iron or concrete pipes.
At the request
of Vice Chair Wozniak, Mr. Culver advised that generally spot pipe
replacements are done if there is a collapse in one segment or if there is an
offset pipe, otherwise lining is being done wherever possible as a less
invasive and costly technique. At the further request of Member Wozniak, Mr.
Culver advised that areas being replaced generally follow the annual Pavement
Management Program (PMP) with the concept of performing maintenance before
repaving a street, with televising pipes the first process to determine if
they?re good candidates for lining, which is being found to be the case.
However, for those pipes that cannot be lined for one reason or another, Mr.
Culver advised that those spots were identified for open cut with the remainder
of the pipe lined. Mr. Culver noted that often televising found problem
areas outside the PMP, with those lines becoming a higher priority due to
inflow or water seepage or root issues in the lines, accelerating repair or
replacement of those lines.
Specific to sanitary
sewer connections, Mr. Culver displayed various types of connections found in
the Roseville system, with a typical 4? sewer line traversing from the home
into the street and tying into the sewer main using a Wye connection, with
the property line variable (Attachment A). Mr. Culver noted that Roseville
has 10,186 sewer service connections ? residential and commercial ? with most
of those constructed of vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and at variable depths,
locations, and some with complicated connections to accommodate the gravity
flow system. Again, Mr. Culver advised that any new connections are
constructed of PVC pipe. Mr. Culver reviewed connections in more detail,
including saddle connections used for repairs; length of life of those
connections estimated at approximately 50 years and well outlasting clay
pipes, but depending on their type of soils with sandier versus clay soils
providing better longevity. For new homes or businesses connecting to
existing systems, Mr. Culver advised that the entire segment of pipe was cut
out and refit, called ?in line connections? but are more intrusive.
Mr. Culver
provided pictures of typical individual sanitary sewer line connections from
private properties into the City?s sanitary sewer mains, and displayed
problems encountered including water flow, offset joints, settling of some
joints, and other areas of pipe that may not be good candidates for lining.
Mr. Culver noted that a very common problem with mains and service lines is
root intrusion into the pipe with roots seeking nutrients (e.g. sewage) with
very small roots finding the joints or cracks and then larger roots growing
in and clogging those pipes, ultimately compromising the integrity of the
pipe and joint and reducing capacity. With a newly lined pipe, Mr. Culver
noted capacity and flow are much better through that smooth surface.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver advised that once the lining product is set it
becomes cured, hard plastic and roots would have difficulty getting through
it without a joint or crack to access.
Mr. Culver
reviewed typical sanitary sewer problems encountered by property owners and
data researched by staff from available city records, including the
following:
·
From permit records, it appears about 50 ?repair/alteration?
permits are issued per year for sanitary sewer service-related issues
·
The typical repair cost is not listed on permits but in all
likelihood probably averages around $5,000 each (depending on street
restoration expenses)
·
Options for repair include open cut (usually for spot repairs
or total replacement) and lining of service lines
·
The cost to line a sanitary sewer service line is about $100
per linear foot
Mr. Culver
noted that permit records would not include the number of property owners
having their sewer lines jetted to clear roots or clogs, as no permit is
required; as well as records not always available for thawing lines, with
permits only needed if replacing those lines.
While
clarifying that the value of average sanitary sewer repairs is not shown on
permits retained by the City, Mr. Culver advised that the $5,000 average
shown above is what he had researched with local contractors performing that
work, and would vary by contractor and how significant the repair work
required. Mr. Culver noted that typically a property owner is not proactive
with this type of situation until an emergency occurs and usually at a higher
cost and creating more inconvenience versus the more cost-effective benefit
of addressing potential or ongoing minor issues before they occur.
Acting Chair
Wozniak suggested that if he thought there was a problem with his sanitary
sewer lateral service line, the first step would be to televise it to
determine the nature of the problem; and asked how access to the line would
be achieved.
Mr. Culver
advised that all homes or structures with a sewer line connection had a
cleanout access point, which may be located in various spots depending on its
age and type of construction (e.g. main stacks in multi-story homes
connecting floor drains in the basement) and providing a clean out point. At
the further request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver confirmed that the
televising and lining usually fell within that previously quoted price of
$100/linear foot, and would be a beneficial investigative issue for property
owners similar to diagnostics performed for vehicle problems and repairs, and
depending on the contractor or mechanic?s policy may or may not be applied to
the cost of repair.
Mr. Culver
displayed a warranty program he had found on the Internet through the
National League of Cities entitled Utility Service Partners, a national
private company offering this specific and specialized type of insurance
coverage in partnership with cities as an option for residential property
owners within their municipal jurisdiction. Mr. Culver admitted he had been
skeptical when first finding this option online, but noted it sounded
interesting based on the promotional materials he?d received after contacting
the firm. Mr. Culver advised that a representative of the firm had offered
to attend a future PWETC meeting to provide more information on their
services. From his initial contact, Mr. Culver advised that their coverage
appears to provide protection for homeowners via a monthly premium to repair
protection for leaking, clogged or broken water and sewer lines form the
point of utility connection to the home?s exterior. Mr. Culver reported that
this coverage included:
·
Educating homeowners about their service line responsibilities
·
Up to $4,000 coverage per repair incident ? with no
apparent annual cap
·
Additional allowance for public street and sidewalk cutting
·
No annual or lifetime limits
·
No deductibles, service fees, forms or paperwork
·
24/7/365 availability
·
Repairs made only by licensed, local area contractors
·
Affordable rates and multiple payment methods
Mr. Culver
further reported that premium rates covered both sanitary sewer and water
service lines, with separate premiums for each, totaling approximately
$14/month. Mr. Culver noted that the company also provided homeowners ? for
an additional premium ? in-home coverage of their indoor plumbing.
Mr. Culver
suggested further investigation by the PWETC if they were interested, and
listed other communities in the State of Minnesota that this firm works with,
including the City of St. Louis Park who ?offers? this premium coverage option.
During his initial look, Mr. Culver clarified that the City?s ?partnership?
would basically involve the city sanctioning them, with the city having no
apparent liability if called by a resident, with the city referring the
caller to the company; and beyond that, it would be like any other permitted
improvement for a homeowner, with contractors needing to pull a permit and be
subject to applicable city inspections. Mr. Culver noted that, even if the
PWETC found this option viable, the City Council would have the final say,
and need to maintain scrutiny of the firm and follow-up with residents for
individual customer satisfaction based on their experience if the city listed
this company on its website and promoted it, it would want to ensure it was
working for residents. Mr. Culver reported that his phone call with a
representative of the firm indicated their coverage offered in 200 cities at
this time; and emphasized that this would be voluntary on the part of a
residential property owner for coverage. While not providing commercial
coverage, Mr. Culver further reported that the firm apparently provided
coverage for multi-family buildings of up to 8 units, noting that coverage
for larger buildings would create more complexities due to most having larger
service lines.
Mr. Culver
noted that the intent for the October PWETC meeting was to have a similar
overview and initial discussion on the water system, the group may wish to
have a representative of this firm attend that meeting.
By consensus,
the PWETC asked staff to contact the company to arrange their attendance and
brief presentation of their services at the October PWETC meeting if
available.
Between now and then, Mr. Culver advised that he would follow-up with cities
currently using this service and their experience with resident claims and
other components of this coverage.
Specific to
water lines and for the PWETC?s information, Mr. Culver reported that he
asked the firm?s representative if they covered frozen service lines. Mr.
Culver advised that the representative stated that until a few years ago,
they didn?t cover thawing of frozen services, but do so now. Mr. Culver
questioned how that could work for the firm if experiencing a winter similar
to that 2 years ago and the number of frozen service lines, but noted it
would be up to the firm to arrange for contractors for those residents, and
could prove beneficial for all if there was ever a repeat of that type of
situation.
Mr. Culver
provided his initial understanding of the coverage if the city were to
endorse this service in Roseville, with a resident able to pay the premium
and get coverage within 3 working days. However, Mr. Culver admitted he saw
some flaws in the program related to coverage and premiums, with no minimum
contract; but if missing one month?s premium, you no longer had coverage.
Mr. Culver advised that the representative stated they paid 97% of their
claims, and the vast majority of the 3% of claims not paid were due to those
customers not being current with their premiums. Mr. Culver noted there was
apparently an option for annual payment of premiums. However, Mr. Culver
clarified for the benefit of the public that the City is not currently
endorsing this option, and only researching it as a potentially interesting
option that may be available.
Acting Chair
Wozniak opined that he found it an interesting proposal that he had not been
aware of before. However, on the surface, Member Wozniak further opined that
it didn?t seem like a good business plan for this firm, and admitted that he
had a number of questions to ask of the representative when they attend the
PWETC meeting. Member Wozniak noted that this coverage didn?t apparently
provide for lateral problems that may affect service on an intermittent basis
and only paid if a failure occurred.
Mr. Culver
noted that, apparently if you have a backup or clog consisting of roots, the
firm would pay for cleaning out those roots, but clarified the firm was not
offering coverage for preventative maintenance (e.g. lining services), which
may cause repeat problems in the future. While not being proactive about
lining services, Mr. Culver advised that the only time the firm would make a
physical repair was if a structural issue was found with the line. Since
most residents aren?t aware of the condition of their service lines, Mr.
Culver opined that, like any other insurance program, the intent was to get
as many subscribers as possible for the offered coverage.
While
recognizing that PWETC Member Cihacek has been strongly advocating that the
city change its policy and require clean-outs at the property line for
sanitary sewer lines, from the city?s perspective, Mr. Culver said that the
city would most likely not agree or staff recommend that this be done. Mr.
Culver advised that on average the typical clean-out cost is $1,000; and that
staff would most likely recommend and advocate that ownership be limited to
service lines for sanitary sewer lines, even if requiring clean outs due to
long-term clean-out scenarios for most properties in Roseville.
To clarify,
Acting Chair Wozniak stated that staff wouldn?t recommend that the city
change its current approach with the lateral owned by the property owner up
to the line, even if clean-out is required, just due to the time lag.
Mr. Culver
concurred, noting that at the time a larger percentage of properties actually
have a clean-out, it would make more sense to change that policy, even though
there remained an issue if a clog happened between the home and main. If
something happens in the service line, Mr. Culver noted that it was more than
likely created by something the homeowner had put down the line unless caused
by a root. However, once the item reached the main, Mr. Culver questioned
how to identify its source; while it was more obvious if occurring between
the home and the main.
City Engineer Jesse
Freihammer further noted that, given the smaller diameter of the pipe between
the home and main, if the item made it through to the main, there should be
no problem with it clogging the system given the larger diameter of the main.
Mr. Culver
concurred, noting that many interesting stories and photos of what actually
ended up in sanitary sewer lines.
From a cost
standpoint based on staff?s financial analysis, Mr. Culver noted the
difficulty in determining the city?s total or potential exposure in taking on
more ownership of sewer lines, without knowing the full spectrum and annual
exposure. However, Mr. Culver reported that by making assumptions and
spreading a projected cost over 10,000 homes or base fees, and average permit
experience cost of $5,000 per repair, it could cost the city a potential of
$250,000 annually. Again, without having more data available, Mr. Culver
admitted it was difficult to project with the sanitary sewer system, since it
was an unknown of how many potential problems already existed in addition to
future exposure. Mr. Culver noted that refining this information would take
considerable time and involve a significant amount of staff time and cost to further
analyze that potential.
However, on
the water service side, Mr. Culver noted it would be much easier to define,
since all water services had a curb stop; but clarified that the city wanted
to be the only ones having access to that curb stop, and therefore making it
easy to separate ownership. Mr. Culver noted that water lines from the curb
stop to the main usually ran underneath the street and/or sidewalk, with
those costs therefore making more sense for the city to bear. However, Mr.
Culver noted that it would still mean cost implications for the city and
adjusting base water fees to cover those costs to make more sense for the
broader community in the future versus the homeowner covering those costs as
is the current practice. Mr. Culver noted that this also created a fairness
or equity issue for homeowners, who over the last 50 years have already
fielded these costs on their own, and if the city shifts their policy for
future events to be covered by the city, they were in reality paying twice.
Acting Chair
Wozniak noted that lateral ownership came up at the joint meeting of the
PWETC and City Council, with the City Council encouraging discussion of
laterals from various perspectives. With three of the PWETC members missing
from tonight?s meeting, Member Wozniak expressed his interest in hearing
their input as well as from those present tonight; opining that this was not
the end of the discussion and would need to continue. In his review of the
minutes of that joint meeting, Member Wozniak noted the strong direction from
the City Council on how to educate residents about this issue and sewer and
water line infrastructure to create a more proactive situation to alert them
to what can go wrong and the cost of repairs, as well as what repair service options
are available to them, and available insurance options. In terms of costs,
Member Wozniak asked if there were cost-sharing opportunities to bring unit
costs down for residents within that construction area if the city was
planning a PMP, and replacement of the main line, if the resident could have
their service laterals lined or replaced based on economy of scale rather
than the city participating or contributing to that private work.
Mr. Culver
advised that this was offered to homeowners now when a street reconstruction
project is planned, with contractors given a line item for bidding on sewer
service repairs or replacements. Depending on the project, Mr. Culver noted
that sometimes this consisted of individual bids from contractors, but in those
cases, residents are provided an option to have repairs or replacements made
while the street is open at the city?s expense versus the potential that they
may have to pay to do so on their own if a problem develops after the city?s
construction project.
At the request
of Acting Chair Wozniak, Mr. Culver clarified that the City made residents in
a work area well aware of that during initial informational meetings and
pre-construction meetings. Mr. Culver admitted staff could maybe be more
aggressive in outlining potential costs for property owners and advantages of
participating now versus later.
Member Thurnau
suggested that could be part of the enhanced educational and outreach efforts
desired by the City Council, to outline for residents how to take advantage
of the construction situation.
In addition to
those efforts during construction Acting Chair Wozniak suggested a broader
and separate outreach campaign for the city to inform residents of what was
happening underground in the utility infrastructure system that could cost
them money.
As an example,
Mr. Freihammer noted that this year?s PMP project resulted in only 3
residents signing up for private lateral work, with all 3 having experienced
problems and therefore not proactive interest. At the request of Acting
Chair Wozniak, Mr. Freihammer reported that in each case, the homeowners had
experienced a recent back-up.
Related to the
educational component, Member Thurnau reported on his personal experience and
clog due to roots in the sewer lateral line going into his home, making him
aware that if a construction project occurred on his street, he?d be much
more proactive in having the line replaced to avoid future occurrences.
As part of the
education/outreach program, Acting Chair Wozniak asked if the city could
consider offering discounted televising of service laterals in advance of the
city?s main replacement or PMP, again to garner economies of scale for
replacements that could start with televising. Since people are so visual,
Member Wozniak opined that showing them a picture would gain better
participation than simply telling them.
From his
initial consideration, Mr. Culver suggested something could perhaps be done
prior to a contract or signing up a contractor, clarifying that those the city
used for street/utility work were not the same ones working on home service
lines. As an example, Mr. Culver noted this would involve the city working
with a local plumber to offer televised services, if the City Council agreed
to the process, with participation being voluntary for residents, with a
potential financial incentive for them to participate. Mr. Culver admitted
that was an interesting concept, and depending on the number of homes
involved in a PMP project area, more than one contractor may be needed
depending on the response of residents.
Mr. Freihammer
noted that it may involve considerable coordination for timing if a clean-out
isn?t outside a home, requiring access to the inside by the contractor and
working that out with a homeowner, thereby potentially requiring 2 weeks to
accomplish televising in one area.
Mr. Culver
noted that Councilmember McGehee had asked staff several times why the city
didn?t offer residents an opportunity to line their service lines when the
city lined their mains since work was being done in the street anyway. Mr.
Culver advised that staff had looked into that, and since the diameter of
laterals was smaller than the main, the same contractor would not be used for
both lining projects. Mr. Culver noted that often lining of the laterals is
done from the clean-out found inside the home, with a different product used
for those laterals. To bring in a subcontractor for lining service laterals,
Mr. Culver advised would require a minimum number of interested residents
within a certain project area. Mr. Culver clarified that this didn?t
indicate a lack of interest by the city or its staff, but simply providing
some of the challenges and commitment needed based on staff?s preliminary
conversations with contractors performing the work, who have indicated it
would be very difficult to coordinate lateral linings with sewer main lining
projects.
Acting Chair
Wozniak noted one councilmember suggesting comparisons with another
metropolitan community with similarly-aged infrastructure to Roseville.
Mr. Culver
admitted he had not completed a thorough survey, but was unaware of any
agencies or jurisdictions with sewer service ownership options different than
the City of Roseville?s; but advised he would continue to perform more
detailed research in a broader area.
Mr. Culver
advised that water services had more variables due to the curb stop, with
several agencies taking ownership to the curb stop, while many had a policy
similar to the City of Roseville with St. Paul Regional Water Services taking
ownership up to the main given the multitude of customers involved, but to
his knowledge no municipalities or jurisdictions taking ownership up to the
house.
With Acting
Chair Wozniak noting this discussion would continue at the October PWETC
meeting, Mr. Culver advised that staff would introduce the water service side
similar to tonight?s sewer service presentation, of much shorter content due
to fewer complexities. Mr. Culver anticipated further discussion, given
PWETC Member Cihacek?s previously-expressed interest, along with the
potential attendance of the insurance provider.
Other
Discussion
Roof Solar
Project Update
At the request
of Acting Chair Wozniak, Mr. Culver advised that an update on the solar
project was pending with the contractor, and if available offered to mail it
out prior to the October PWETC meeting if the contractor provided the
information. Mr. Culver noted that the weather and season would impact the
solar roof project, but anticipated having draft agreement available for the
PWETC?s review by the November meeting for installation in the spring of
2016.
December
PWETC Meeting
Mr. Culver
noted the need for the PWETC to give thought to cancelling the December
meeting, given that it falls so close to the holidays.
Organized
Trash Collection
Acting Chair
Wozniak reported on recent action of the City Council approving the PWETC?s
recommended educational guides and suggested format and process for
neighborhoods to consider organized trash collection, with that information
available on the City?s website and a brief note about its availability in
the next issue of the City News newsletter.
Ramsey-Washington
County Recycling Energy Board
Acting Chair
Wozniak reported on the purchase, effective January 1, 2016, of the Newport
Resource & Recovery Facility, creating a publically owned waste
processing facility. Member Wozniak reviewed the benefits to the public
ensuring where their waste ended up outside of a landfill; with contracts to
be renegotiated with recyclers, landfills, and union operators currently
employed at the facility over the next three months.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Member Wozniak stated that he didn?t anticipate any rate
reduction for taxpayers, but over the next 25 years, it should result in
public/private ownership rates much lower than projected at the facility
under private ownership. At this time, Member Wozniak noted that the
counties are subsidizing haulers to deliver to the facility via a rebate,
rather than to a landfill, but opined that it was too early to determine the
effects on pricing. With counties owning/operating the facility, Member
Wozniak opined that they would eventually have the authority to direct waste
to the facility, probably not before 2018 until ordinance revisions and MPCA
plan approval are finalized.
7.
Review October Agenda
·
Proposed
2016 Utility Rates
Mr. Culver advised that the City?s
Finance Director Chris Miller will be present to review proposed rates.
·
Sanitary
Sewer Discussion Continuation
·
Water
Distribution System: Discussion of overall system and private ownership and
maintenance policies
Eureka Recycling
Contract
Discussion ensued
regarding the timing for review of the current Eureka Recycling contract
expiring the end of 2016, and preparation of the request for proposals (RFP)
for that contract. Mr. Culver advised that staff was initiating preliminary
work, and as a starting point would be meeting with consulting staff from
Ramsey County on how to incorporate upcoming county mandates into the new RFP
(e.g. organics). Mr. Culver anticipated feedback from the PWETC, as well as
public input after that, to determine what was working with the current
provider and any changes that were needed to guide the next RFP.
Walkability/Pedestrian
and Bicycle Access
Member Seigler
suggested a broader discussion on the community?s walkability and an overall
plan or blueprint to encourage Roseville residents to get more active.
Acting Chair
Wozniak noted that many of those components were provided under Ramsey
County?s ?Active Living? umbrella.
Mr. Culver noted
the existence of the Pathway Master Plan that previous members of the PWETC
had discussed and updated addressing some of those issues, but mostly
focusing on pathways and sidewalks; with some remaining gaps still obvious
the current system. While some areas were re-prioritized by the PWETC in
their review, Mr. Culver noted there was no dedicated funding, with priority
established as other project came forward and leveraging funds from Ramsey
County or grant opportunities.
Mr. Culver
suggested the Pathway Master Plan be incorporated into the broader
Comprehensive Plan update that would start in 2017, allowing the PWETC to tap
into the public engagement process for discussions related to land use, transportation
networks, and other elements that the City Council was required to update
every ten years, and receiving considerable public input throughout that
process.
While there are
many sidewalks now, Member Seigler suggested showcasing improvements made in
that system around elementary schools and residential areas to emphasize what
we have versus what we need. Member Seigler suggested utilizing the GIS
software to see where holes remain and focus more specifically on those
smaller segments or problem areas that have more challenges.
Member Thurnau
noted it could be an ongoing planning workshop showing the current inventory
and what was still missing; with Member Wozniak concurring, noting that the
discussion could be brought down to a neighborhood level.
Member Seigler
noted the improvements made in the pathway system from Har Mar Mall to
Rosedale Center.
Mr. Culver spoke in
support of that area of focus to accentuate the positives, noting the
additional development occurring in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area that
would further fill in some of those gaps.
Member Seigler
opined that by showcasing the improvements made over the last few years, it
would refocus the community and address Green Cities efforts as well.
8.
Adjourn
Seigler moved,
Thurnau seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:13 p.m.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|