|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Dwayne
Stenlund called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and Public
Works Director Mark Culver called the roll.
Members Present: Chair Dwayne Stenlund; Vice Chair Brian
Cihacek; and Members Joe Wozniak, Sarah Brodt Lenz, John Heimerl, Kody
Thurnau, Duane Seigler
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver and
City Engineer Jesse Freihammer
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of October 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Member Cihacek
moved, Member Seigler seconded, approval of the October 27, 2015 meeting as
amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 11, Line 476 (Wozniak)
Change ??
education.? to ?? notice.?
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works
Director Culver and City Engineer Jesse Freihammer provided additional
comments and a brief review and update on projects and maintenance activities
listed in the staff report dated November 24, 2015.
Discussion
included reports of favorable press received on the Capitol Region Watershed
District Upper Villa Park infiltration system project behind the B-Dale Club,
with Chair Stenlund seeking a more detailed report at a future meeting.
Further
discussion included an update on the water meter replacement project and
finalization of the procedure for those buildings with difficult physical
access for the city to their meters.
Mr. Freihammer
reported that the City?s leaf pick-up program, in its final year in 2015,
served 568 sites; stabilization of sites before winter by Chair Stenlund for
work near the Owasso conversion site, and reporting of the installation of
three new rain guardians or inlet devices to dissipate stormwater and collect
sediment and energy from streets that is proving more successful than rock
filtration efforts.
Mr. Culver
reported on the road crew?s pre-treating for winter events predicted yet this
week.
Transit
Shelter Franchise Discussion
As noted in
communication materials, Mr. Culver briefly reported on the current transit
shelter franchisee, OutFront Media, alerting the City that they would not
pursue extension of their franchise agreement set to expire in 2015. As a
result, Mr. Culver noted that the City is being offered the opportunity to
purchase the existing shelters at $1,000 each ($20,000 total) or the
franchisee will remove the shelters at their cost. Mr. Culver reported that
the City Council would be asked to make a decision on the purchase option at
their November 30, 2015 meeting, and advised that staff was looking for input
on options from the PWETC as part of their decision-making. Mr. Culver noted
that one option was for the City is to purchase only a portion of the
eighteen of twenty currently in place, with two removed from County Road B
and Snelling Avenue and currently stored in the Public Works maintenance yard
Mr. Culver
further reported that Metro Transit was not interesting in undertaking
existing shelters either as they didn?t meet their strict guidelines.
Mr. Culver
displayed a map showing the locations of the shelters, clarifying that the
City owned three shelters as part of their Larpenteur Avenue Streetscape at
Hamline Avenue, Fernwood Street, and Lexington Avenue, currently owned by
OutFront, and intended to stay in place.
Member Cihacek
opined that the City shouldn?t purchase the shelters unless their general
usage or ridership was significant (over 25 riders), based on maintenance
needs of the aging shelters and potential costs involved. Member Cihacek
suggested having the current franchisee remove the shelters at their expense
other than those three city-owned shelters identified by staff.
Member Lenz
sought clarification that the southbound shelter at Snelling Avenue and
County Road B would be replaced in the near future by a Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) station, and questioned if the one in front of McDonald?s near that
location would also be removed as the BRT station is installed.
Mr. Culver
responded that those two would be removed as noted by Member Lenz.
Member Lenz
noted that transit riders wanted amenities and clean shelters, and with the
diminishing return on those existing shelters and their depreciation, opined
that the City should not have to undertake their maintenance. While torn in
providing riders with shelter, Member Lenz stated that in reality the City
could not afford to keep or maintain them.
Member Wozniak
concurred with Members Lenz and Cihacek.
Member Thurnau
asked if staff could provide a sense of the actual boarding at each stop and
differentiate between that ridership between those with and without
shelters. Member Thurnau asked for at a minimum ridership data from 2014 and
if certain shelters warranted further discussion for retaining or installing
a shelter at those intersections currently missing a shelter and having
significant ridership. However, Member Thurnau noted that Metro Transit
probably had already looked into that before providing their response to
acquire them.
Member Cihacek
reiterated his recommendation that the City not purchase shelters.
Member Thurnau
noted three stops meeting the threshold for ridership recognized by Member
Cihacek (25 riders) and suggested purchasing at least those three shelters or
seeing if Metro Transit was amenable to do so in partnership with the City of
Roseville. If Metro Transit was not interested, Member Thurnau agreed with
the recommendation not to purchase shelters.
Member Lenz
noted that Metro Transit doesn?t maintain smaller shelters and expect some
partnership for maintenance.
Member Cihacek
noted that it may make sense to only potentially purchase those shelters with
significant daily ridership, it also didn?t make sense to have them near
future BRT stations either. Member Cihacek opined that if splitting out one
shelter at the cost of the other twenty, it was more cost-effective to simply
walk away from purchase of any of them.
Member Seigler
also questioned if they were actually worth $1,000 each; and had obviously
been located at sites having the most advertising impact; but he was not
supportive of the City purchasing any of the shelters.
Member Heimerl
reviewed several routes (#75 and #76) that may drop off as the BRT comes into
play, as well as their being no realistic reason to take route #65 to access
the Green Line Light Rail Transit (LRT), but would typically take another
route to access the LRT.
Member Lenz
suggested taking another look at the potential of shelters as the BRT sorts
itself out and ridership adjusts accordingly.
Member Cihacek
questioned if the City owned the property on which the shelters were located.
Mr. Culver
noted that the City or County owned the rights-of-way on which all of the
shelters were located; and per the agreement with OutFront Media, it would be
their responsibility to restore the rights-of-way to their original condition
(e.g. removing anchor bolts and concrete pads for riders to stand on versus
grass). However, Mr. Culver suggested that the concrete pads be left in
place to facilitate riders.
Chair Stenlund
suggested a potential adopt-a-shelter program as another option, involving
community volunteers for shoveling one or more shelters, noting the location
of shelters #19 and #20 as examples of nice amenities in the community.
However, Chair Stenlund advised that he wasn?t opposed to not purchasing them
either.
Member Cihacek
questioned the ramifications if volunteers didn?t continue their commitment
for maintenance.
Member Lenz
questioned how many of the shelters didn?t currently have sidewalks to access
those shelters.
Mr. Culver
noted that was a good question, and estimated that probably a fair share may
not have sidewalk access. Mr. Culver further noted that Metro Transit had
installed concrete pads last year at several bus stop locations along County
Road B, even those without shelters and some in the middle of the boulevard;
and some having pedestrian ramps leading to the middle of the street. While
not seeming to have much logic for those installations, Mr. Culver reported
that the intent was apparently to make sure of handicapped accessibility from
the paved surface.
Member Lenz
suggested removal of shelters, but leaving the pads and let things marinate
for a few years to decide how to approach transit in Roseville in the future.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver reported that the benches adjacent to some
shelters were owned by another group and they would stay in place at this
time.
Chair Stenlund
suggested removing all shelters as well as the concrete pads and restoring
those areas to grass in accordance with the agreement in place. Chair
Stenlund questioned the legacy OutFront Media was leaving the City of
Roseville in leaving the pads, and the possible future expense for the city
to remove the concrete pads at a later date, noting their removal and
disposal would prove expensive, as well as turf establishment.
Member Cihacek
suggested seeing if the bench vendor would be interested in relocating their
benches to the pad.
Member Lenz
noted that the city would need to negotiate with Metro Transit if there was
no stop anymore, and whether they would provide signage versus a bench or
shelter, and whether it would be grass or concrete pad. Member Lenz noted
there were numerous issues with transit access in the north suburban area,
and reiterated her suggestion that the BRT station situation settle itself
before making any further decisions.
Member Cihacek
questioned when the insurance for OutFront Media expired; with Mr. Culver
responding it ran through the term of the agreement.
Motion
Member Cihacek
moved, Member Wozniak seconded, the PWETC?s recommendation to the City
Council that the City not purchase the shelters; that they authorize
staff to examine the potential removal and related costs of the concrete pads
at a future date; that staff be authorized to consult with the firm(s) having
the bus bench franchise for their interest in movement or replacement of
those benches near or on those pads; and that staff be directed to make
site-specific recommendations on those sites they feel should be maintained
as concrete slabs or natural restoration.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
5.
Skating Center Solar Installation
Mr. Culver
introduced Art Kroll, representative of Sundial Solar to make a short
presentation to the PWETC on the final terms of the project and purchase
options and terms for solar installation at the skating center. A copy of
Mr. Kroll?s presentation is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Kroll?s
presentation included the proposed location and size of the system on the
skating center, panels and inverters as part of the system, and other
considerations of this placement.
Discussion
among PWETC members, Mr. Kroll and staff included the angle and stability of
the tempered glass panels and potential danger to them from hail or snow
loads as well as wintertime penetration and electricity created during
various times of the year; the tempered glass itself serving as self-cleaning
with their element of black background and heat form the glass; and ongoing
monitoring by Sundial Solar of the array at the inverter level
Further
discussion included the reality of the Minnesota latitude for a 10 KW system and
degree of slope to address sun angels, shorter winter days, and degree of
slope for the panels and even without snow, wintertime production averages
only 10% of the annual production, with most production and annual power
during the summer months.
Mr. Kroll
reviewed the latest iteration of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and
highlighted the changes made since their firm?s last presentation to the
PWETC, including PV production based on current Xcel Energy rates the city
was receiving for the skating center; the PPA rate and cash flow; and
different investor proposal than originally presented and rationale in
recommending this investor.
Mr. Kroll
noted that the original intent was to install an east/west array based on
size versus production available on the skating center roof until further
research was done on the complex rate structure with Xcel Energy for the OVAL
and skating center. Mr. Kroll anticipated this PPA would benefit economics
for more production and face completely sough and maximize KWh versus
pursuing the solar credit benefits, and would be a 300 KWh array versus the
original specifications planned for a 375 KWh system, even though he
predicted the economics realized will be equal to or greater than those
original projections by going to standby service recognizing solar credits
and their value in this model, especially with the OVAL and its interesting
usage curve.
Mr. Kroll
advised that he still needed to further vet out the OVAL and capacity
schedule with Xcel Energy and reconciliation of those credits by blending
rates. Mr. Kroll reviewed anticipated annual generated revenue and cash
flow, still pending finalization.
At the request
of Mr. Culver, Mr. Kroll reviewed the PPA and how the money changed hands,
what the city could anticipate and the amount paid to the developer and by
whom.
Mr. Kroll
advised that the city would be charged for usage to-date, then receive
production credits against those KWh for the production portion of the system
not being charged for, as a separate line item showing the credit attained
from the KWh level, and another line item showing the capacity credit
received from the percentage of solar capacity credits, or what the city was
paying for the solar PPA and extra monies as their reconciliation.
At the request
of Mr. Culver, Mr. Kroll reviewed how the city would get invoiced, pending
the negotiated PPA, from Xcel invoices based on monitoring and production and
supplemental invoice from the investor and differentials between the two.
Additional discussion
included some months with no credit and others with a huge credit, with
annual reconciliation based on that monthly ebb and flow, some of which would
be addressed in the PPA, such as if the city chose a 6-month annualization
payment to avoid more disparity and allow for easier management; and lower
wintertime output at highest point of usage and how that impacted the overall
cost.
As an example
of credit reconciliation, Mr. Kroll reviewed advised that the OVAL energy
rate was calculated on the size of the system, not how much it produced that
would remain the same every month. Mr. Kroll advised that for ten months,
the City would receive a credit, and could choose which two months of the
year they set as their ?demand holiday? to receive a discount on the full
demand load. Since the OVAL has very high usage in the winter time, in a
traditional scenario, Mr. Kroll suggested the city could strategize to set
its demand holiday for the highest usage months to receive money off the
entire demand load and establish standby service. However, Mr. Kroll advised
he was still checking with Xcel Energy to determine their flexibility with
that and to make sure the reality of that option would actually play out,
with more research to be completed on his part to finalize numbers as
accurately as possible.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Kroll responded that if the solar system produced more
energy than it consumed, it would be sold on the grid and metered
accordingly. However, Mr. Kroll opined it would be unlikely that the city
would ever reach that limitation for receiving a credit back. Mr. Kroll
advised that their design engineers were conscious of the need to design it
based on constraints of the demand charges and usage to best maximize what
the city received and use the rest for the arena. Mr. Kroll noted that the
arena used way more energy than balanced on the system, but the goal was to
maximize the overall profitability of the system between the two meters as
much as possible and utilize the available space on the roof. Mr. Kroll
noted that the size and design of the system would allow more detailed
finalized numbers to determine performance curves and profitability as would
be detailed on the PPA schedules.
Further
discussion ensued on the purchase options in this scenario; how the actual
formula and credits were determined; language of the standby tariff as
written and requirements for Xcel Energy to at a minimum allow the city with
a limited amount of credits on a certain percentage of KWh or negotiated
limitation on the system size to demand profile depending on how Mr. Kroll
was able to vet that out with Xcel before finalizing the PPA for review and
consideration by the PWETC and City Council.
Mr. Kroll
advised that the next step was 1) to receive the go-ahead from the city for
the project; and 2) for lawyers on both sides to review contract language of
the PPA after which they could begin the design process of working with Xcel
Energy to design the system for the city to compare with cash flows prior to
signing the contracts. Once signed, Mr. Kroll advised that their firm would
then begin the actual engineering specifications available for the system.
Due to the expense of the engineering and design process, Mr. Kroll noted
that that work was done after contracts were signed.
At the request
of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Kroll reviewed the pros and cons of the system to
ensure it was a win-win-win for Roseville. Mr. Kroll advised that Sundial
Solar had to guarantee the investor a certain amount of production to get
their bottom line and noted that Sundial was contracted by them to monitor
and maintain the system accordingly. Mr. Kroll assured the PWETC that the
investor won based on a minimum amount of production and it remained intact
in the form of energy savings guaranteed to the city as long as the minimum
amount of production was there; and the city would win through a minimum
annual cash flow amount of $7,000 plus depending on final credit
calculations; and as the escalator goes up annually and Xcel Energy approves
the blended rate as allowed by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Mr.
Kroll reported that historical averages for Xcel over the last 15 years were
positive and the savings would be spread out to increase each year for the solar
array as designed.
At the request
of Member Cihacek, Mr. Kroll reviewed the operating and maintenance plan by
Sundial for web-based solar monitoring 24/7 that would be included in the
PPA, and advised that if and should their firm no longer be around, or sold
to or merged with another, their maintenance rates were standard
across-the-board from one company to another and maintenance also fairly
standard for a solar array system. Mr. Kroll opined that, if the city ever
had to go to the market on a needs-only basis for maintenance, they would
probably get a better rate than the investor would receive in the PPA, but as
long as the PPA remained in effect, noted this would never be a concern of
the city, since the problem is the investor?s responsibility as owner of the
system. If the City chose a buy-out option, Mr. Kroll advised that the
operation and maintenance would then become their concern to contract out.
Mr. Kroll advised that Sundial Solar prided itself on making sure, if
anything like their demise should ever occur and their clients fell to a
successor that the successor would pick up Sundial?s responsibilities
At the request
of Member Cihacek, Mr. Kroll summarized the buy-out option available to the
City after the first six years, per Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
requirements that the investor had to retain the system for the first five
years and could not exit the arrangement. If the city then opted to purchase
the system they could have it appraised, in accordance with PPA language, by
a third party for the city?s purchase and discontinue the twenty-year
agreement, with the investor required to return the roof as found or the city
purchasing the system. Given the IRS requirements beyond seven years, Mr.
Kroll advised that the buyout system was almost negligible at the end of the
twenty-year term. Under the structure he proposed in his presentation, Mr.
Kroll advised that the city could obtain a 3% financing option from a variety
of sources if it decided to gain ownership of the system in year 7, and then
become responsible for the value of the system and any operating and
maintenance. Based on the difference with city ownership, Mr. Kroll advised
that the major difference in the buy-out structure he had originally
presented a few months ago with the anticipated original investor he
presented was that this is an, industry-standard rate and structure with no
creative loopholes of the tax credit system. Mr. Kroll advised that his
reason for changing recommendations to this investor structure was that the
initial investor could not get an IRS letter of ruling for that previous
option and required purchase of the array by the city, thereby making him
uncomfortable continuing with that recommendation for the city. Since that
would have prevented an investor from participating in the charitable
donation requirement, the option to purchase was removed; while in this
scenario if the city remains satisfied with the PPA arrangements, it didn?t
have to buy the system or could choose to do so at any time. Under the
original scenario, Mr. Kroll noted that tax credits would expire before a
charitable donor was found, causing the entire deal to evaporate and numbers
revert to a typical finance situation.
Mr. Kroll
expressed his personal disappointment that the first creative investment
model he presented could not work; but stated his preference that he could
fully vet an investor, and until he received that Letter of Intent and was
able to fully review the initial investor?s numbers, he had not been able to
determine that they were not lining up as well as initially projected and
leaving considerable obscurity. Therefore, Mr. Kroll advised that he wasn?t
comfortable presenting it to the city, and this latest scenario was the best
traditional financing option he could find, and would still provide the city
with 18-20% power savings from what they?re currently paying to Xcel Energy
now versus leveraging their cash flow. Mr. Kroll noted that this investor
had a national presence with a solid history and long-term foundation of
investment assets.
Contingent
upon the City Attorney?s review of the contract, Member Cihacek stated his
support for the financial basis and positive cash flow in year-one as
presented; and also stated he was more comfortable with the risk in this
relationship, as well as a longer lifespan and stronger representation of the
purchase price to overall savings. Member Cihacek suggested the city retain
the PPA agreement until its end and then get rid of the system.
Motion
Member
Cihacek moved, Member Wozniak seconded, directing staff and legal counsel to
proceed with negotiations with Sundial Solar for a Power Purchase Agreement (as
drafted in Attachment A) with Sundial Solar, with the final terms and
conditions of that contract brought back to the PWETC for their review and
final recommendation to the City Council.
Discussion
ensued on next steps intended in the motion, including legal review by the
City Attorney, engineering to establish final numbers, and more discussion
with Xcel Energy to gain a true understanding of the current rate structure
for the OVAL.
Mr. Kroll
noted that he had spoken to the City?s Environmental Engineer Ryan Johnson
about the current rate schedule the city has with Xcel for the OVAL and them
not currently being met. Mr. Kroll advised that if the city did not meet
those rate considerations in the next 6-9 month period at demand load limits,
the discount currently being received by the city would expire of its own
accord. Without that being a condition, Mr. Kroll advised that the rate
structure versus capacity credit for solar would mean that the total dollar
amount would be greater on the capacity credit side versus that of the
current rate structure. Mr. Kroll noted that this was based on his
preliminary discussions with Xcel to-date.
As a point of
information, Member Wozniak noted that earlier in the summer of 2015, the
city heard two proposals for solar array installation, and had chosen Sundial
based on the lucrative option for the city to buy the system or have it
gifted to the city after 5-6 years.
Mr. Culver
clarified that there were two elements involved. Mr. Culver noted that the
other proposer required upfront financing by the City, anticipated at
$200,000 to $250,000 as part of their PPA, and only a portion of the system
would be installed under that PPA, with the other half of the system
purchased upfront by the city. Under that option, Mr. Culver advised that
the cash flow beyond a potential net positive in year one was not as
favorable, especially when requiring upfront financing.
At the request
of the PWETC as to timing in final approval, Mr. Kroll advised that the only
time constraint was the expiration of the tax credits at the end of 2016.
However, if he was able to obtain the necessary information to bring back a
final contract for review at the PWETC?s January 2016 meeting, Mr. Kroll
anticipated timing would still be okay. Mr. Kroll advised that he planned to
meet with the investor mid-December and offered to set up the PWETC meeting him
if they so wished to do so.
For the
purpose of the PWETC, Chair Stenlund and Member Cihacek clarified the purpose
of the proposed motion was to obtain final numbers for the PWETC to respond
to and then recommending approval of the PPA to the City Council to allow the
process to move to design engineering.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
At the request
of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Kroll reviewed his credentials and background in this
business, as well as that of Sundial Solar. Mr. Kroll advised that he had
worked with Sundial and Mr. John Cramer, its owner, since 1999, with the
company having a national presence beyond Minnesota, having done over 200
installations to-date.
In addition,
Mr. Kroll advised that Sundial had about two dozen contracts under
maintenance at this time, one of which is the IKEA building in Bloomington,
MN, their largest standard panel technology rooftop installation in the State
of MN to-date. Mr. Kroll advised that Sundial prided itself on being the top
maintenance company in the state and focused on operations and maintenance,
and served as a troubleshooter for other cities in the metropolitan area in
cleaning up technical difficulties from earlier generation solar unit
installations.
Mr. Kroll
advised that he had been involved with Sundial since 2010, moving from
installation and sales to his current process of being certified for solar
design. Mr. Kroll advised that all of the company?s larger standard panel
designs were contracted out to specialized design engineers for labor
partnerships.
Chair Stenlund
thanked Mr. Kroll for his time and presentation.
6.
Continuation of Sewer and Water Private Services Discussion
As a follow-up to previous service
line warranty program discussions, Mr. Culver provided historical information
and references he?d pursued from other communities using this service; with
all providing positive reviewed with the exception of one.
Mr. Culver introduced Ms. Shiwarski
with Utility Service Partners in Pittsburgh, PA, for a short presentation to
the PWETC and available to answer any questions of the PWETC afterward.
Ashley
Shiwarski, Inside Sales Manager with Utility Service Partners, Inc.,
administrator of the service line warranty program through the National
League of Cities
Ms. Shiwarski provided more detailed
information than available in tonight?s agenda packet as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Ms. Shiwarski reviewed their
program, including the educational aspects; typical listing by cities of
available plumbers to perform work as needed through their firm?s own
research or by allowing the city to be as involved as they chose to be; and
the three separate programs offered to customers by their firm: external
water lines, external sewer lines, and internal plumbing.
Specific to Roseville with residents
responsible for maintenance of their laterals up to the city main, as part of
their premium, Ms. Shiwarski noted that Roseville residents would receive up
to $4,000 per repair incident, with no annual, calendar, or lifetime limits,
a separation between their firm and others offering this service. Ms.
Shiwarski noted there was also up to $4,000 available toward each public
street repair and $500 for each sidewalk repair incident, with no deductibles
or service fees.
At the request of Chari Stenlund,
Ms. Shiwarski advised that their firm based their premiums on a standard
across the United States, with 90% of their claims falling within that range
cap of $4,000. By request of current city partners, Ms. Shiwarski advised
that their firm had tested out the option of providing in-home plumbing for
several years before offering that option, initiated last year, and
representing their newest offering by their firm after the point of entry of
the laterals.
Ms. Shiwarski noted this could
provide another small revenue stream, as their firm provided a 50 cents/month
revenue sharing plan to the municipality for each contract they received from
individual homeowners as a form of royalty allotted to the city every
January. Ms. Shiwarski advised that cities did a variety of things with that
revenue, with the most common thing to develop a fund to assist low-income
families with their utility bills or for those experiencing a high water bill
due to a leak, and used to offset some of the cost for that resident. Ms.
Shiwarski noted other municipalities chose to put that revenue back into the
public infrastructure program.
Specific to marketing their warranty
program, Ms. Shiwarski reported that they do not do any door-to-door
solicitation, but plan three separate campaigns in the spring, fall and
winter to market each of their three products separately to limit confusion
for residents. Ms. Shiwarski advised that residents could choose all three
warranty programs, or any combination of the three. Ms. Shiwarski further
reported that their firm did not send out any mailing to residents in a
community without prior city review and approval of the marketing letter
itself and envelope in which it will be sent. Ms. Shiwarski advised that
this procedure was followed for each and every campaign, even if previously
mailings had been approved by the municipality, allowing the city to have
input on the mailing itself and the exact mailing dates. Ms. Shiwarski
advised that their firm worked with each municipality on tools to limit calls
to the city for the initial campaign, and to customize press releases for the
media of the city?s choice. Ms. Shiwarski advised that this typically
involved a letter offering the city partnership and their firm?s contact
information, a customized web banner for the city website featuring a live
chat for residents to visit with a customer service agent at their
preference.
Once their firm partners with a
municipality, Ms. Shiwarski reported that each city partner had access to
their firm?s online partner portal for city access and up-to-date resident
enrollment for each product and a list of the number of claims and accruing
royalty for the municipality. Ms. Shiwarski noted that each resident was
surveyed to determine their satisfaction and to immediately address any
problem areas.
Of their 290 municipal partners
across the United States, Ms. Shiwarski noted there were seven in the State
of MN as listed in the information provided to the PWETC tonight, including
the City of St. Louis Park.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Ms. Shiwarski reviewed standard pricing for water, sewer and in-home plumbing
averaging $6.765, $7.75 and $6.99 respectively. Ms. Shiwarski noted that a
resident could cancel at any time, and receive a refund of remaining premiums
submitted.
At the further request of Member
Cihacek, Ms. Shiwarski addressed how their firm maintained premium rates
based on infrastructure prices nationally moving forward by basing their
standard pricing on cities under 50,000 households and transferring that risk
across the United States. Ms. Shiwarski noted that one city or year may
result in a lot of claims, and others not, but by transferring those risks
they were able to maintain that standard pricing to-date.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Ms. Shiwarski advised that their firm had not seen a significant price
escalation over the last two years, and not typically with their current
customer base. Ms. Shiwarski advised that their first client had been in
West Virginia and their rates had been grandfathered in, with newer partners
providing an opportunity to adjust rates accordingly to address risk.
Chair Stenlund asked if the rates
escalated if using the service a lot.
Ms. Shiwarski responded that they
did not, with every resident in a community paying the same rate no matter if
or how often they used the warranty service. Ms. Shiwarski admitted there
was no way to get around those who consistently abused the system, but
reported that when the majority of their customers discovered what a repair
could have cost compared to their premium, they were well satisfied and
stayed with the warranty program.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Ms. Shiwarski advised that their firm didn?t need to legally get the city?s
approval before marketing its residents, but stated that their firm chose not
to do so without city approval. By partnering with the city, Ms. Shiwarski
noted that they were able to reach a greater amount of people and more
generous coverage through that partnership with the National League of Cities
than they could accomplish without that partnership; and therefore had chosen
not to market independent of that partnership.
At the request of Member Lenz, Ms.
Ashley confirmed that this warranty program was only available to
single-family homes, unless a duplex had a single service line they could
cover; but clarified it was not yet available to commercial properties.
If the city allows marketing of this
program, Member Heimerl asked if it was accepting any additional legal risk
or financial obligation for the city in endorsing this group.
Ms. Shiwarski advised that their
agreement held the city harmless; with Mr. Culver noting that the City
Attorney would need to review and report to the City Council providing
assurances there was no city liability.
In referencing the three mailings by
this firm, Member Wozniak asked if their focus was on educating the public by
explaining their responsibility to maintain these utilities or simply aimed
at selling them a policy. Member Wozniak opined that educating residents, as
previously addressed by the PWETC, sounded attractive to help residents
understand their responsibilities and cost liabilities for catastrophic
failure of their service lines.
Ms. Shiwarski offered to provide Mr.
Culver with a copy of their standard letter that started out stating the
educational aspects for dissemination to the PWETC; but noted each
municipality had input in that language as well and could customize it for their
community and infrastructure situation.
At the request of Mr. Culver, Ms.
Shiwarski confirmed that their firm typically sent out the letter to
residents on city logo and including a co-signature by a city official,
designated staff person or the city as a whole, at the preference of each
municipality.
Mr. Culver reported that, during his
research with another Minnesota community using the warranty program, some of
its residents had become annoyed with the letter they were receiving after
already subscribing to the warranty program but still receiving continued
mailings. Mr. Culver sought clarification from Ms. Shiwarski as to whether a
resident would continue being solicited once they subscribed to the program.
Ms. Shiwarski advised that they
would not receive additional solicitations for any service to which they
subscribed, but may receive them for those services they had initially chosen
not to receive. However, Ms. Shiwarski noted that all a resident had to do
was call their firm and ask to be removed from future mailings. Ms.
Shiwarski advised that their firm used their own mailing list by using their
own mapping software, and not one provided by the city?s utility company.
Ms. Shiwarski advised that this way a city could state they were introducing
this warranty program and assure their residents that the city wasn?t giving
out their personal utility information.
Chair Stenlund asked, without doing
a community survey, if the city could seek interest of the community via an
educational input, and receive their input to alert the public that this
warranty program was being considered and seeking public comment and interest
for such a program.
Mr. Culver suggested the Speak Up!
Roseville website as another potential option.
If Roseville is interested, Ms.
Shiwarski offered the services of their marketing team to help put that
information out there.
Members agreed that there may be
some concern among residents of another area of government intervention that
they would prefer to avoid.
Member Cihacek opined that, as he
heard the program described, he wasn?t sure if that argument would hold
weight for him, since residents had the option of accepting or opting out.
Member Lenz opined she found this
fascinating, admitting before appointment to the PWETC, she had been unaware
of her responsibilities as a homeowner for this infrastructure.
Member Seigler opined he was ready
to sign up now.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Ms. Shiwarski advised the agreement between their warranty firm and a
municipality was three years, with a 90-day opt out for either party.
Mr. Culver asked, if the city
decided for whatever reason to discontinue the program after initially
approving it, what would happen to those residents enrolled in the warranty
program or whether they would be automatically removed from the program.
Ms. Shiwarski advised that any
current customers would continue their service provided they continued their
monthly premium payment; but no new customers would be enrolled.
Motion
Member Cihacek moved,
Member Lenz seconded, recommending to the City Council that they pursue a
potential agreement for this warranty opportunity with Utility Service
Partners.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Culver reported that he saw many positives for this warranty program and
the only staff concern or negative he was aware of to-date was removing any
incentive for residents to think long-term and consider proactive maintenance
of their system. Mr. Culver opined that any resident subscribing to this
warranty program would see no need to spend money on their line to protect
against any current or future problems (e.g. root invasion).
Chair Stenlund concurred, noting
that lack of interest would also be evident when a street construction
project in area provided a good opportunity for that proactive maintenance or
line replacement.
Mr. Stenlund advised that
participation in this program would come into play with the City?s I & I
issues and requirements of the city by the Metropolitan Council to respond to
and reduce that sanitary infiltration and inflow. If residents were not
incented to be proactive in lining their sanitary lines, those cracked lines
would continue to seep into the groundwater. However, Mr. Culver noted that
the issue could still be resolved by implementing a point-of-sale requirement
such as done by the City of Golden Valley and other municipalities. Mr.
Culver advised that the city could work toward that even with this program in
place and provide a financial savings to residents as well as easing their
peace of mind. As Ms. Shiwarski stated, Mr. Culver agreed that the city was
the first call made by a resident. Mr. Culver expressed his interest in
taking this recommendation from the PWETC to the City Council to get their
initial feedback.
Chair Stenlund reiterated his opinion
that this would take away any incentive for residents to address their aging
lateral infrastructure issues.
Ms. Shiwarski offered to provide Mr.
Culver a report with information from various cities on I & I issues, showing
residents are actually more proactive when having this warranty coverage.
While it may be a slow leak and fear a large bill for repairs, Ms. Shiwarski
noted the warranty program provided them with protection in place without
deductible or service fees in addition to that coverage.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
Given this action, Mr. Culver asked
if the PWETC wished to continue their discussion of lateral line ownership
yet tonight. If this program is made available for residents, Mr. Culver
noted it removed the risk of where that ownership ends. Mr. Culver noted
Member Seigler?s previous suggestion to cap costs to take care of the far
side and near side issues through setting a cap at a certain limit or
slightly above it and still provide some protection to residents. Mr. Culver
noted this would require a cost for the city and impact utility rates
accordingly to offer such a cap. While it wouldn?t cover the total costs of
such a program, Mr. Culver suggested municipal revenue royalties from such an
insurance program could serve to offset those costs.
Chair Stenlund stated he was not
prepared to talk about an inspection cap at the property line any more at
this time.
Member Cihacek stated that he
remained interested in pursuing potential bid alternatives in neighborhoods
under construction for those residents desiring such an option, and for new
construction moving forward but not old residences. With this program,
Member Cihacek stated he was less concerned, as clean-up could be taken care
of over time; but agreed to tabling further conversation on it until February
or March of 2016 to review this program first to determine how well it would
perform. However, Member Cihacek opined it provided a good solution for many
of Roseville?s residents and the aging infrastructure throughout the
community.
7.
Review January 2016 Agenda
·
Request
for Proposals (RFP) for Recycling Services for 2017 and Beyond (current
contract ends year-end 2016)
Chair Stenlund
shared how much he valued the criteria and ranking values applied to the last
RFP in seeking education and other values, opining he thought the Best Value
Procurement process had been a marvelous experience.
Mr. Culver noted
that the option for revenue sharing had been a profitable area for most of
the contract term until current market trends for recycling products had
taken a downturn.
Discussion ensued
related to impacts of the City of St. Paul?s contract process; anticipated
release of the City of Roseville?s RFP in March or April of 2016 after St.
Paul bidders provide competitive and comparative value information;
separation of organic collection from the main contract terms for the City of
St. Paul.
Mr. Culver advised
that staff planned to bring forward the current Eureka Recycling contract to
the PWETC in January of 2016; seek input from the PWETC on drafting the new
RFP based on their experiences and desired options; and how the previous
criteria had worked out in hindsight.
·
Skating
Center Solar Project Update
Mr. Culver reported
that staff hoped to have updated information available for the next PWETC
meeting.
·
2016
Work Plan
Member Heimerl
asked if the PWETC was tracking well with the charges of the City Council
made at their last joint meeting.
In briefly
reviewing some of those required issues under the purview of the PWETC, Mr.
Culver noted that annual MS4 public hearing, Pavement Management Plan (PMP)
update, watermain replacements, sanitary sewer lining, stormwater projects
for approval in 2016 before presentation to the City Council as examples of
projects going into 2016.
Member Cihacek
expressed interest in any captured savings from 2015 going into 2016 (e.g.
PMP, sealcoating, etc.).
Mr. Culver reported
that funds originally set aside for annual sealcoating had been incorporated
into the PMP for additional segments during the sealcoating moratorium and
awaiting results of delamination research. Mr. Culver advised there were
probably some savings, but also additional work performed for stormwater and
water maintenance projects this year. Mr. Culver advised that he would look
into that and provide further information.
Chair Stenlund
asked for a follow-up with the 500 plus residents previously using the leaf
collection program, and marketing optional programs for them. Chair Stenlund
asked that staff prepare a flyer or handout for PWETC review.
Mr. Culver
suggesting waiting until late spring/early summer leading into the fall of
2016 so it would be fresh in the minds of residents that this city service
would no longer be available to them.
At the request of
Member Seigler specific to the pavement delamination issue, Mr. Culver
advised that research may take up to five years until a point was reached
based on pavement applications.
Specific to the
Pathway Master Plan and follow-up on priority areas requested by Member
Wozniak, Mr. Culver reported on a conversation he had earlier today by
Community Development Director Paul Bilotta. Mr. Culver advised that Mr.
Bilotta suggested submitting a discussion item on the Speak Up! Roseville
forum to receive public input on where sidewalks or segments may be needed
from their personal perspective. However, Mr. Culver advised that he
anticipated a deliberate and serious conversation about the Pathway Master
Plan as the city approached its ten-year Comprehensive Plan Update starting
next year, and make that part of the information presented and the public
input process used.
Chair Stenlund
noted the need to update criteria used by the PWETC several years ago that
needed relevancy and an informed discussion to make sure it was consistent.
6.
Adjourn
Member Cihacek
moved, Member Heimerl seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately
8:43 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|