|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, February 23, 2016 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, John Heimerl, Kody Thurnau, and Duane Seigler
Members
Absent: Member Sarah Brodt Lenz, having announced her unavailability
at last month’s meeting.
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver, City Engineer Jesse
Freihammer, and Environmental Engineer Ryan Johnson
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of January 26, 2016 Meeting Minutes
Member Cihacek moved, Member Wozniak seconded, approval of
the January 26, 2016 meeting minutes as presented.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
City Engineer Jesse Freihammer and Public Works Director
Culver provided additional comments and a brief review and update on projects
and maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated February 23,
2016.
Discussion included no anticipated delay in use of ball
fields due to the St. Croix stormwater lift station upgrade currently in
process; report on stormwater pond clean-up at Byerly’s & Valley Park
with the majority of the sediment removed not needing land filled due to
contamination; pending decision by transit bench owners regarding their
potential relocation to the sites of former shelters; report by staff of four
watermain breaks over the last month; and attendance by staff at the recent
meeting of the St. Paul Regional Water Services for its external customers.
Further discussion included the City’s utility base rate
structure being the envy of other metropolitan communities and intended to
provide for future capital improvement program (CIP) planning for
infrastructure updates and needs; and a future staff report to the PWETC on
how and where tree trimmings end up.
Specific to PWETC questions related to the City of
Roseville’s purchase of water from St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS),
Mr. Culver advised that SPRWS’s rate structure would be facing challenges to
pay for improvements to their treatment facility and distribution system.
Mr. Culver reported that the trend is for less water sales, and without a
base rate, not as much may be sold as anticipated. Mr. Culver noted that the
SPRWS’s intent is to implement a base rate in the future that would
theoretically build those treatment costs into it. While Roseville
maintained its own infrastructure, that rate change may convolute the rate
structure for Roseville; but he did anticipate future rate increases, but
hoped they wouldn’t be too excessive and impactful for Roseville residents.
Mr. Culver noted that Roseville’s water rates had not increased this year,
while other customers had experienced increases.
5.
Private Sewer Services Lining Options
Mr. Culver introduced Paul Pasko, Project Engineer
and-Principal at S.E.H., Inc. and his credentials as someone considered in
the industry as an experienced expert with lining technologies and practices
in the Midwest area. Mr. Culver reported that Mr. Pasko had recently
provided a presentation at a recent city engineer’s conference based on his
experience with watermain linings in the City of Hastings, MN. As a result
of that very informative presentation, Mr. Culver advised that he had invited
Mr. Pasko to share that presentation with the PWETC to outline options and
what other metropolitan communities were doing to respond to this and similar
issues.
Mr. Culver briefly reiterated, for background purposes,
previous discussions of the PWETC about ownership of service laterals and the
City Council’s charge to the commission to recommend if any changes were
evident. Mr. Culver reported that the City Council continued to question if
there was more the City could do since it was pursuing an aggressive lining
program for its aging sewer lines and in conjunction with that address some
of those older laterals for which residents were responsible and to better
protect those residents. As part of that consideration, Mr. Culver noted the
yet-to-be-determined impact of inflow and infiltration (I & I) that the
City of Roseville was undertaking as a mandate from the Metropolitan Council.
Mr. Pasko introduced his associate, Jen Schueman, in the
audience, who worked with him on projects throughout Iowa, Wisconsin and
Minnesota in addition to other Midwest areas.
Mr. Pasko noted that his presentation would essentially
ask and provide information on the following items:
·
Why rehabilitate laterals?
·
Administratively, how do other communities do it?
·
What tools are they using?
·
How much do the tools cost to use?
Mr. Pasko reviewed some points to consider, including
those communities where I & I were drivers and the various options used
in communities for rehabilitation of those laterals up to street reconstruction
lines via assessment, including some of that work done by the City’s
contractor or a private owner’s contractor, but still allowed to be applied
as an assessment to property taxes.
Mr. Pasko reviewed the variables in the upper and lower
laterals and options and challenges in both. If I & I is the driver, and
the attempt is to hit the upper lateral, Mr. Pasko advised that many East
Coast communities in the United States insist they have a right to make sure
those lines are in compliance with code and that private property owners meet
that code.
Mr. Pasko noted that care was needed to ensure clear
ordinance language that protected a citizen’s Fourth Amendment Rights as it
relates to unjust or arbitrary inspections of private property, frequently
debated by courts, but able to be sufficiently addressed with a comprehensive
ordinance in place prior to inspections and to protect municipalities. Mr.
Pasko noted that this involved access to private property and parameters for
that access, since there was obviously a potential liability for the city
accessing private property and/or laterals (considered private property)
through main manholes, especially when dealing with mishaps in using
robotics. Mr. Pasko noted that if an unanticipated problem occurred with the
robotics, there was always the possibility that the lateral line would need
to be dug up to rescue the equipment; and suggested that would not be a good
first test of a city ordinance.
Mr. Pasko also noted the need for an ordinance addressing
expenditure of public money to rehabilitate private property and clearly
defining those parameters or potential circumstances, such as the
municipality subsidizing a portion of the rehabilitation of longer laterals.
Mr. Pasko emphasized the need to make sure the ordinance was very clear about
how, when and why public monies would be expended. Other than in several
instances in the State of WI, Mr. Pasko advised that those Fourth Amendment
questions were being sufficiently addressed from his perspective as long as
the ordinances were enacted before rehabilitation was undertaken.
Specific to options used by other communities, Mr. Pasko
reported on one who applied a $50/month surcharge for private property owners
choosing not to rehabilitate those private laterals as an incentive to
encourage them to do so; while others used a subsidy for rehabilitation; and
others chose not to provide any subsidy. Another community, for those
property owners choosing not to rehabilitate their private laterals, chose to
install an inflatable ball where the city’s line met the private lateral to
prevent use of the main line beyond their lateral until the property owner
chose to correct problem areas.
Mr. Pasko reported other variables among communities:
total subsidy for rehabilitation borne by the city, options for lower lateral
rehabilitation by a city contractor only, and some of those done up to the
wye, some to the edge of the road, and some up to the rights-of-way. Mr.
Pasko noted that upper lateral lining was done by either using private or
city contractors.
Specific to Minnesota communities, Mr. Pasko provided a
matrix of the options used by the Cities of Edina, Golden Valley, Shakopee,
Hastings, and Rockford; and for comparison purposes, he included the City of Hampton
Roads, VA in that matrix.
Overall, Mr. Pasko opined that the most successful option
he observed around the country was real estate transaction based, such as
used by the City of Golden Valley, MN with point-of-sale inspections
performed from within the home allowing a holistic viewpoint for both the
upper and lower laterals. Mr. Pasko reported that some communities choose a
dye or smoke test when possible. On the east coast, Mr. Pasko reported that
over the last four years, they had experienced a turnover of homes at 10% to
15%, making those inspections a sustainable program, with the same home
inspected periodically over a fifteen year period, and thereby compiling a
database of information for the City’s GIS system for comparison purposes.
Mr. Pasko noted this was also possible for inspecting new homes being
constructed annually and adding that data for future comparison purposes as
well.
Lower Lateral Tools Being Used:
·
“Top-hat” style liner with the potential that it may be
unable to fully wrap the trunk sewer main and only able to extend <18”
into the lateral pipe. Mr. Pasko noted further problems with this tool
include the brim not always being wide enough to find its way through or
around tree roots, causing communities to shy away from using it.
·
“Shorty” style liner that does fully wrap the trunk
sewer main, and extends 1-2’ into the lateral pipe.
·
“Longer” style liner that fully wraps the trunk sewer
main and extends >2’ into the lateral pipe and can be done with or without
installing cleanouts. Mr. Pasko reported that the City of Shakopee, MN
currently uses this tool.
When to Use Robotic Tools:
·
To prevent damage to a lateral liner, you must line the main
line first
·
Any sharp main liner edges must be brushed to prevent tearing
of the lateral liner
What Tools are They Using?
·
Many communities use dig and replace in lower and upper
laterals – depending on specific situations
·
Use of cleanouts vary among communities and depends on their
location, whether above or below ground
·
Some communities choose to use vacuum excavating
Mr. Pasko noted that again, these choices are based on
individual community ordinances and their specific issues.
How Much Do the Tools Cost to Use?
Mr. Pasko again provided a matrix comparing the cost for
various options, and limits of the lateral rehabilitation, including:
·
Up to the wye: estimated at $2,000;
·
Up to the edge of the road: estimated at $3,000 to 7,000;
·
Up to the rights-of-way (same as above)
·
With the upper lateral, Mr. Pasko opined that most of the cost was
the contractor’s mobilization to get to the site; with the actual length of
the lining not that problematic beyond the cost of the base project itself;
estimating it at $1,000 to $2,000 based on his very schematic level opinion
of construction costs.
As an example, in the City of Edina, with most of their
single-family homes built pre- or post-World War II, they may experience 60%
to 70% of those homeowners using private contractors.
If the City had cast iron laterals, Mr. Pasko suggested
the city not bother and just leave them along. However, if the majority of
the city’s pipes were clay or orange bird piping, Mr. Pasko suggested that
the city seriously consider a lateral lining initiative.
Based on his experience, Mr. Pasko briefly addressed
lateral insurance or warranty programs, and reported on various communities
throughout the country.
Mr. Pasko provided one example of the city forces
undertaking that private lateral work themselves rather than hiring an
outside contractor, essentially using city labor and equipment. Mr. Pasko
advised that part of their rationale was that it provided them another
opportunity to interact with customers in a positive way, and whether or not
the lateral rehabilitation program is also subsidized or not, they claim
they’ve been successful in their endeavors.
Mr. Pasko provided other examples, such as in the
Philadelphia area where the municipality chose a for-profit warranty program
at reasonable rates. However, Mr. Pasko noted that this created some
significant increases in utility rates of up to a $1 increase in one year;
and some communities were limited in the number of contractors serving in
this capacity. Mr. Pasko noted that most of the warranty program agreements
allow the municipality to build in a clause for choosing contractors or only
quotes from local contractors. Mr. Pasko cautioned that there were pros and
cons with this type of warranty program, one of which was whether or not the
municipality may be endorsing certain plumbers above others. Mr. Pasko noted
that he had found with municipalities partnering with these warranty
programs, their residents had been engulfed with mass mailings from the
plumbing industry.
Again, Mr. Pasko emphasized the need for appropriate
ordinance language to protect the municipality and its residents.
Q & A
During and after the presentation, Mr. Pasko responded to
questions of the PWETC.
Chair Stenlund noted that, overall, the lower laterals in
Roseville were not typically a problem for I & I.
Given the age of the community and its infrastructure, Mr.
Pasko opined that this was most likely due to backfilling of pipes in
rights-of-way done to a higher standard with inspection staff on-site than
may be found in current construction efforts. Mr. Pasko noted that the other
side of the laterals were usually more problematic outside that right-or-way
line with private contractors being less diligent in packing soils. Mr.
Pasko noted that this was problematic nationwide, with findings that the
lower lateral is better compacted than the upper lateral as it related to I
& I.
Chair Stenlund noted that some mains were not under the
road in Roseville, but may be located on one side or the right-of-way or the
other, and affected homeowners accordingly for rehabilitation costs. Member
Stenlund questioned if those situations would be redlined as good candidates
to consider for lining sooner than later.
Mr. Pasko responded that lining was paid for by the foot;
and as an example, there were many situations where whether or not that lateral
was on the short or long side, those homeowners on the short side got more of
a bargain than those on the long side. Mr. Pasko noted that some communities
stipulate that all property owners pay the same to equalize factors; but if
not a lot of those situations, that was not taken into consideration beyond a
unique situation. Mr. Pasko noted that there were many different ways for a
community to approach that inequity.
Chair Stenlund questioned problems with flows coming
toward the lining and creating a plug.
Mr. Pasko responded that there were not, and as an
engineer, a pre-lining television inspection (after cleaning the line) was
performed and if active I & I was found, it may be addressed with a plug,
while tree roots were removed. After that, Mr. Pasko noted that the end cap
was cut off and then inspected again, and if the problem or indication of a
problem during installation was observed, it was removed and the process done
again. Mr. Pasko advised that he uses a two-year inspection clause for
lining contractors, requiring them to re-inspect and correct any problems on
their own dime. While it varies with contractors, Mr. Pasko advised that the
best lining contractors average 2% or less with problem areas.
At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Pasko advised that
the liner has a built-in taper, with minimal identification loss, and while
there may many roots and problems within the pipes, there was little problem
or evidence of problems from flushable items getting caught in the laterals
with the smaller and smoother liner applications now available with improved
technologies.
Member Wozniak asked if there was a limit to the pipe
condition in which lining would work (e.g. broken, disjointed or
disconnected) that determined if and when the liner tool would still prove
effective.
Mr. Pasko advised that the only problem was a pipe was a
pipe with 50% or more missing; and even then if technicians were gentle in
the lining, they could still blow right through that broken or missing area,
essentially creating a pipe within the pipe. Mr. Pasko noted that the only
problematic situations he’d observed were if a pipe had been crushed or
offset and became oval or teardrop shaped. At that point, Mr. Pasko
suggested it may be better to dig and replace that spot, or in areas with a
sag. Again, Mr. Pasko noted the need to address that clearly in ordinance
language to address rights and responsibilities for laterals for homeowners
and the municipality.
At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Pasko estimated the
typical cost for each cleanout would be $1,500 to $2,500 each, and perhaps up
to $3,000 for vacuuming.
Based on his experience, Member Seigler asked Mr. Pasko if
those communities offering a warranty program were happy with it.
Mr. Pasko opined that it varied: with older communities
getting more than new communities; along with some property owners pushing
back or not wanting to participate based on their preference for less
government intervention.
Chair Stenlund asked staff to report on the percentage
overall in Roseville of PVC, clay or cast iron laterals.
Mr. Culver noted that, with the majority of the Roseville
sewer system installed in the late 1950’s, and primarily in the 1960’s, most
lines were clay, but he wasn’t able to identify how much if any were cast
iron. Mr. Culver noted that, obviously, new lines were of PVC construction,
but those were few and far between unless in new construction situations.
Mr. Pasko noted that this would fit in with most of the
upper Midwest and national averages, with clay popular at the turn of the
century through the 1970’s until use of cast iron, then trending to PVC once
that technology became available.
Given the age of most of the homes in Roseville, Member
Seigler asked when a large amount of lateral failures could be anticipated.
Mr. Pasko advised that it had a lot to do with soil type
and trees in their vicinity. Based on the amount of Roseville’s tree cover,
Mr. Pasko opined that there was probably a lot of root damage that had
already occurred or was occurring right now. Mr. Pasko noted that the
sub-grade soils around Roseville varied; and if you had heavy clay soils, any
defect in joints when the laterals were put together were probably leaking
water. If those soils were sandy, Mr. Pasko opined that most of the
surrounding trees were drinking water out of those laterals and had been
doing so for some time.
Mr. Culver referenced the permit information previously
supplied to the PWETC for sewer services (September 2015) and advised that
those numbers continued to increase. When televising city mains, Mr. Culver
reported that they looked the short distance available into laterals, and
when seeing an obvious root intrusion, those property owners were sent a
standard courtesy letter alerting them to that observation.
Mr. Pasko briefly reviewed some of the new inspection
tools available in that ever-changing technology and ability for television
inspections that can pan and tilt about 1’ into the lateral. Also, if no
root intrusions are observed, Mr. Pasko advised that a small crawler attached
to the main robot can be deployed to move up the lateral into the home
carried by a tether.
If there are too many roots present or a sag, Mr. Pasko
noted there is also technology for a mobile probe through the home’s inside
cleanout consisting of a low voltage probe to hit the pipe, then another
section grounded to a sign post or fire hydrant to ground it and complete the
circuit. Mr. Pasko advised that this allows the operator to measure how much
current arrives at that ground from the probe and from the amount of current
back estimate or calculate the amount of I & I that can go in. Mr. Pasko
noted that this also provided a nice and repeatable measure from one year to
the next. However, Mr. Pasko noted that it also depended on the operators on
those cameras and their skill levels; again requiring ordinance parameters
that clearly define potential problem areas and variables.
At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Pasko confirmed that
the contractors performing lining of mains and those lining laterals were two
separate specialties with their equipment also radically different at this
time. Mr. Pasko noted that lining of mains was becoming more common and
specialized, and those contractors didn’t want to stop that process to deal
with laterals. Mr. Pasko advised that he had yet to see any contractor make
lining laterals part of lining main lines. Mr. Pasko noted that it was more
common to line the mains one year and return the next year to line laterals.
In the City of Edina, Mr. Pasko reported that when they do
street reconstruction, they will also rehabilitate or line laterals, but that
is typically done by a different contractor while still allowing private
owners to take advantage of a better rate for that contractor to do multiple
linings once mobilized. In other words, as suggested by Member Cihacek, if
the City of Roseville bid street reconstruction, and chose to bid laterals
while the street was torn up, it made sense to do so, but otherwise there was
no benefit to bidding them together. Mr. Pasko reiterated that he didn’t see
those technologies merging anytime soon; since those operating the joysticks
differ. Mr. Pasko advised that the skill sets of most of those operators
were amazing; with some of the best he’d observed having previously been
drone pilots, and transferring those skills to this technique.
From his perspective, Chair Stenlund asked Mr. Pasko for
his opinion on why or how a homeowner could be responsible for a portion of
the line under the street and beyond his right-of-way; and without any power
on their part to control what occurs around or near that line, such as
compaction or traffic vibrations. Chair Stenlund also sought Mr. Pasko’s
observations of other communities and their practice.
Based on his experience across the country, Mr. Pasko
advised that he was only personally aware of one community that stops
ownership at the property line or right-of-way. Mr. Pasko advised that the
responsibility of the owner usually went to the main and includes the wye,
with the private property owner responsible for the lateral and wye
connection that comes into the main to make it a complete pipe. Furthermore,
Mr. Pasko noted that it was common on the east coast for ownership of the wye
and lateral up to the main. Mr. Pasko recognized that the wye was generally
the first part to break.
Mr. Pasko noted that the State of MN was actually
progressive in that a private property owner didn’t own water service to the
main or half or all of the curb stop box; and advised that many communities
across the nation do so.
Mr. Pasko opined that depending on the situations and
technology to employ them, he suspected that the use of cleanouts was coming
to an end. Mr. Pasko noted that it wasn’t unusual for private plumbers to
carry liners into home basements or install cleanouts next to the foundation wall
but not in a right-of-way.
Member Seigler asked if water laterals and linings had the
same issues as that of sanitary sewer lines as far as deterioration.
While water mains were similar in terms of trouble spots
and many can be rehabilitated using similar technology, Mr. Pasko noted that
it depended on the community and its type of soil. Mr. Pasko advised that
30% to 60% of pipe wall loss was being experienced in communities with 1920’s
era infrastructure. Mr. Pasko anticipated that in the next ten years,
technologies will be available allowing for water service pipes of ½”
diameter to be lined, once the materials used are certified; with some being
experimented with now.
Mr. Culver reported that S.E.H., Inc. will be designing
and administering a Roseville project lining the water main on Heinel Drive
due to it being a long dead-end street and creating difficulties for those
residents if an open cut process was used. Mr. Culver advised that this new
technology for water main lining was different than the previous pilot
program using 3M spray-on material.
On behalf of the PWETC, Chair Stenlund thanked Mr. Pasko
for his informative presentation and discussion.
6.
Roseville Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP) – continued
from January
Mr.
Culver referenced the staff report and attachments; highlighting specific items
remaining for PWETC recommendation. Mr. Culver also provided a summary of
the 60 comments and questions received via the Speak Up! Roseville website.
Mr. Culver noted that the frequency question was intended to be built into
the upcoming 2016 community survey as well to inform the RFP; with options
included in the RFP for final deliberation and determination of the City
Council.
Review of Last
Month’s Discussion
A
brief review of last month’s PWETC discuss ensued, including current and
proposed pick-up frequency and whether occurring between regular routes or at
an extra charge; possibility of more than one cart per home, but recognizing
the limited garage sizes and available storage space for many older Roseville
single-family homes; and city code requirements for storage out-of-site.
Chair
Stenlund sought clarification as to whether park pick-ups would be a separate
zone unto itself or embedded into one of the five existing zones.
Mr.
Johnson responded that the RFP would include that option for contractors and
include routine pick-ups whether on the trails requiring a smaller truck or
relocated by city staff to a central collection point depending on the park
and/or trail accessibility.
Member
Wozniak noted that the current contractor does not separate multi-family
zoning or collections.
Mr.
Johnson reported that the rationale of Eureka Recycling is to keep those
multi-family collections separated from single-family units to allow tracking
materials to determine participation rates among various housing stock
types. Mr. Johnson noted that the city could not really stipulate whether or
not a vendor chose to keep that separation going forward.
Member
Cihacek opined that the city should not dictate that for contractors, nor
require that a special trip be made for a designated pick-up point. However,
Member Cihacek suggested the RFP should provide an opportunity for the vendor
to describe their preference or value added.
Mr.
Culver also noted that for park pick-up, it required coordination of park
maintenance staff with the contractor; but agreed that at the very start, the
vendor should signify the most effective way to accomplish pick-ups.
Specific
to parks as a separate zone, Chair Stenlund clarified that he had no problem
with the current zoned collections, but was seeking to differentiate it
separately.
Mr.
Johnson advised that he would clarify the RFP accordingly.
Specific
to curbside collection of residential organics (pages 18-19), Member Cihacek
asked if the vendors would provide their options; with Mr. Johnson responding
affirmatively for future consideration, whether via bag, another cart or how
they would propose to collect organics.
Section
5.11: Mr. Johnson noted language specific to missed collections by the
vendor.
Section
8.04 (page 32): Mr. Johnson addressed the optional revenue sharing component
and definitions by each contractor to choose a percentage.
Member
Cihacek noted that if no revenue, the price would revert back to the base
price; with Chair Stenlund noting in theory that could lower overall prices
for residents.
Mr.
Culver agreed, noting that could result in lower and consistent pricing
versus more volatile pricing.
Continuation of
RFP Discussion Tonight
Cart
Ownership (city vs. contractor)
Among
questions outlined in the staff report, Mr. Johnson asked for the PWETC
feedback on ownership of the carts, referencing background information
included in the report as indicated, and provided by Ramsey County’s
consultant, Foth; and a grant program available through Ramsey County paying
up to 50% of the city’s cart purchase if that was the preferred option in
Roseville.
Member
Cihacek questioned if revenue sharing monies could be used to pay for the
city’s cart ownership and spread out over time.
Mr.
Johnson responded that it was possible, but would require significant staff
time in tracking that process; as well as taking into consideration the
considerable mobilization charge when first rolling out the carts, with the
cit potentially incurring those costs annually as well if it chose cart
ownership.
Mr.
Culver advised that he was not sure of the Recycling Fund balance at this
time without consulting with Finance Director Miller on the account; but
agreed those funds could also be used. Mr. Culver advised that the theory is
that if the city owns the carts, it would provide a reduction per residential
unit for monthly or quarterly recycling fees. Mr. Culver noted that another
option would be to keep the fund as-is to build the fund back up once the
carts were purchased by the city. Mr. Culver suggested this should all be
part of the financial analysis. Mr. Culver noted that the real benefit of
cart ownership was that after the term is up with a contractor, the owner of
the carts remained the city and there was no swapping out of carts if
changing from one vendor to another. Mr. Culver noted that this also
provided the city another benefit for more flexibility even if choosing to
terminate a contract with a contractor earlier if needed.
Member
Cihacek stated that he was fine with the city owning the carts if city funds
were available for their purchase; and if there would be no additional outlay
or implicit overhead costs with city ownership beyond their purchase,
including management and/or maintenance of the carts and it could be solvent
within the current budget. Member Cihacek opined that it seemed to be a good
use for revenue share funds going forward.
Member
Seigler concurred with Member Cihacek, opining that if the average life
expectancy for carts was up to ten years, it would result in a $2/month
savings.
By
consensus, the PWETC majority supported city ownership of the carts.
Section
5.05 - Zero Waste Events (pages 18 - 19)
Mr.
Johnson noted current zero waste events; and asked if the PWETC would like to
add other events.
Member
Cihacek opined that he found the intent of this section vague other than
requiring contractors to attend and collecting materials.
Mr.
Johnson responded that the intent was to 1) educate the public; 2) helping
people sort materials; 3) use of special compostable materials supplied by
the city (e.g. BPI-certified utensils).
Member
Cihacek questioned how contractor performance was measured.
Mr.
Johnson advised that, for the Taste of Roseville in 2015, the contractor
provided a report showing the composition of discarded material by volume;
providing overview as well as informing future events.
Member
Cihacek noted that this fit with Eureka’s operating model; but asked if other
vendors offered this as part of their standard business model, or if this
limited vendors to only those with a similar core vision.
Mr.
Johnson advised that, as with the previous RFP, all vendors said they could
do it and provided their ideas for how they could do so; and he saw no reason
how this should limit vendors.
Organic
Composting Facility.
Member
Seigler asked if the City of Roseville had a composting facility at this
time; with Mr. Johnson responding that it did not, and while it could be
dropped at a Ramsey County site, any organics currently collected were
brought to the Eureka Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). In response to
Member Seigler, Mr. Johnson advised that the vendor would need to take that
into consideration as part of their bid to provide that or subcontract with
another MRF if they didn’t have their own processing plant. However, Mr.
Johnson advised that it was part of the process and they would provide prices
accordingly through multiple and competitive bids accordingly.
At
the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Johnson confirmed that the city reserved
the right to add other zero waste events to the contract term.
Chair
Stenlund reminded to make sure it was clear in the RP that vendors reported
annually to the PWETC with an update, suggested improvements or challenges.
Costs
Mr.
Johnson noted that Roseville had served as the “golden child” of recycling
from a rate perspective, and therefore advised that the only way to go would
most likely be an increase in that rate. Mr. Johnson reviewed the current
Eureka contract and annual costs based on the 2013 RFP process receiving a
total of three proposals from vendors. Mr. Johnson also included a price
comparison from Foth in the matrix. Mr. Johnson noted that the county-wide
average for curbside collection every-other-week was anticipated at
approximately $3.20/unit.
Member
Wozniak stated that he had a problem with current multi-family facilities
paying a per unit fee; and suggested instead a “pull” rate for multi-family
units; and further suggested the RFP say those facilities should designate a
proscriptive 96 gallon cart size.
Mr.
Johnson noted that the RFP does indicate that the contractor provide another
location for cardboard and larger recyclable items to avoid filling up carts.
Member
Wozniak suggested leaving that up to the contractor as to what type or size
of carts, especially if Ramsey County is paying for containers.
At
the request of Member Seigler, Member Wozniak defined the “pull” rate that
addressed either per container, per cart or per stop, depending on the
contractor’s use.
Mr.
Johnson agreed that using the “pull” rate would provide more flexibility for
the vendor, but suggested a minimum for the bidding floor and to guarantee
the containers are right-sized for the facility and number of units.
Member
Cihacek noted that, as part of their due diligence in responding to the RFP,
each vendor could request that information and based on their perspective,
make sure right-sized containers are bid for multi-family units. Member
Cihacek suggested that the RFP make it clear that the city would only work
with vendors willing to provide the right-sized containers.
At
the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Johnson advised that the cost does not
include the revenue share assumption.
Member
Cihacek asked, if the city took on cart ownership, would they be amortized
for one year or for a longer period.
Mr.
Culver responded that it may depend on the fund balance and input from the
City’s Finance Director. Mr. Culver agreed that, if the fund balance was sufficient,
there should be no discussion; and to that extent, staff should be able to
perform a pseudo-amortization and rebuilt the fund balance, recognizing that
it may never reach today’s high.
Member
Wozniak noted that, in the pricing sheet prepared by staff, they did include
a “per pull” price for park collection.
Cart
Size
Recognizing
the limited space available in some residential garages in Roseville, Member
Wozniak suggested weekly collection would allow some of those units to move
to a smaller cart for storage.
Proposal
Review Committee/Interview Panel
Member
Wozniak asked who was involved in the RFP review panel and how the PWETC fit
in.
Mr.
Johnson advised that those details had yet to be confirmed on the staff and
City Council level; but encouraged comment from the PWETC if they had
recommendations for the interview panel.
Mr.
Culver advised that staff generally performed the initial scoring of
proposals, based on their familiarity with the Best Value Process, including
the price component. Mr. Culver noted that this RFP would prove more
challenging with the many options, making it difficult to ensure a blind
price comparison. Mr. Culver noted that the typical process scored each
proposal based on the values and their weight before getting to the price.
However, Mr. Culver noted, depending on which options were selected and their
complexities, it would impact that pricing for overall scoring of proposals.
Depending on the timing, Mr. Culver advised that the intent was for staff to
then bring it back to the PWETC for scoring on each proposal, including
staff’s recommendation and the PWETC’s subsequent recommendation to the City
Council. Mr. Culver advised that the process would then move into a
negotiation period with the contractor, to ultimately ratify a contract
during the summer of 2016.
At
the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver proposed that the PWETC would see
all rankings and an explanation of how the end recommendation was arrived
at.
Member
Cihacek asked if there was any reason staff would not consider using someone
from the PWETC as part of that evaluation.
Chair Stenlund advised that the PWETC was not involved last time beyond
setting the criteria.
Member
Cihacek expressed concern that the stakeholder perspective of the PWETC may
provide a different agenda than that of staff’s perspective and thereby score
proposals differently. Even though he trusted staff to evaluate the
proposals, Member Cihacek noted that it still involved a qualified opinion
from staff’s perspective. Member Cihacek opined that a lot of things
occurred during the evaluation of specific proposals and expressed his
interest in serving on that panel. Member Cihacek opined that it was at
least worth having that conversation at the PWETC level to involve a member
of this commission or an interested resident representing that stakeholder
perspective.
Mr.
Culver suggested that this option be presented to the City Council when the
draft RFP was presented to them at their March 14th meeting to see
their interest in that, providing the PWETC majority sought that feedback and
participatory level from the City Council.
Member
Cihacek opined that the City Council or someone beyond staff should be
involved in the panel.
Chair
Stenlund stated that he would not be interested in serving; opining that it
was a lot of work and in some ways personally felt that it was overstepping
the bounds of the PWETC. Chair Stenlund noted that the PWETC participant(s)
would need to make sure they were fully prepared for the amount of work and
time commitment needed. Chair Stenlund noted that he considered the
preliminary work of the PWETC in setting the stage and subsequent review of
the results as most appropriate, since the proposals would be based on input
variables and weighting outlined and recommended by the PWETC. Chair
Stenlund opined that he was fine with staff doing the work based on the
criteria set by the PWETC. With the current transparency in local government
and this process itself, Chair Stenlund questioned how anything other than
the previous process and established evaluation variables could be improved
upon.
Member
Seigler agreed with Chair Stenlund’s viewpoints, opining that it would only
add another layer of complexity; and opined that he had no desire to serve on
the panel.
Section
5.02 – Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements (page 13)
Chair
Stenlund suggested further clarification that a vendor will use new diesel
engines using the clean diesel concept, and not old beater trucks. While the
age may be insignificant, Chair Stenlund opined that the technology wasn’t
and further opined that a vendor promoting natural gas or a cleaner burning
fuel should receive additional points accordingly.
Also,
Chair Stenlund suggested fine-tuning language related to appropriate terms
and expectations for universal clean-up of spills or leaks that may end up in
the city’s gutter lines by defining what they meant by “clean-up, including
how and when they would address those spills. Chair Stenlund noted that this
area tied directly to the City’s MS4 permit.
Chair
Stenlund also suggested clear language that the contactor, their employees,
or subcontractors did not smoke in garages; and wherever “No Smoking” signs
are in evidence, they comply with that.
Specific
to collection zones, Chair Stenlund reiterated the potential dividing of the
park zone; and asked that staff review the draft RFP for areas or zoned
(Section 5.08) to make it clearer.
Chair
Stenlund noted the need to spell out MRF the first time it was used in the
draft RFP.
Chair
Stenlund expressed his appreciation that the annual recommendations to the
City Council come through the vendor and PWETC to further discussion actions
taken by a vendor to reduce their carbon footprint as well as that of the
city; and as a way to inform future best management practices.
To
that point, Mr. Culver noted that the best part of the Best Value Process
scoring was recognizing those additional standards proposed by a vendor and
rewarding them for those extra efforts.
Section
6.07 – Annual Work Plan (page 28)
Chair
Stenlund opined that he found the first sentence somewhat awkward, and asked
that staff review that as well as Section 6.08 (Outreach to Low Participating
Communities) to make sure there was consistency in what was being addressed.
Chair Stenlund noted in Section 6.08 specifically the need to be consistent
with the terminology of “Best Value Plan,” Value Added Plan,” or “Best Value
Process” throughout the RFP.
Chair
Stenlund also noted the reference to the “annual work plan” in Sections 6.07,
6.08 and 6.09 needing consistency as well.
In
Section 7.01 – Processing Facilities Must Be Specified (page 28), Chair
Stenlund again asked that MRF be spelled out the first time it was
referenced.
Chair
Stenlund noted the changes made by staff in Section 8.05 – Liquidated Damages
(page 34 – 35) based on Member Cihacek’s comments at the last meeting and
whether that language was clearer.
Member
Cihacek responded that while “liquidated damages” was a different term, from
his read of the previous month’s meeting minutes, the numbers were
justifiable and he was fine with them as indicated in those minutes.
Member
Wozniak suggested referencing Section 8 (page 30) and “payment in damages”
versus “penalty” as previously discussed.
On
page 36, discussing failures, Chair Stenlund noted Item g. specific to
clean-up of spilled materials by the contractor within six hours or verbal or
written notification. Chair Stenlund noted that a lot could happen in six
hours, and suggested that language be changed to “Immediate Clean-up” and
also requiring that the contractor self-report the spill to the state duty
officer, depending on the amount and type of spill. In the case of a truck
breakdown, for example, Chair Stenlund noted that materials were not always
picked up before those rich nutrients ended up in the storm sewer system.
Chair Stenlund suggested that some incentive should be in place to get the
spill cleaned up ASAP without direction from city staff being required.
Chair Stenlund also noted the need for the contractor to clearly identify
what they were carrying in their spill kits. Chair Stenlund suggested that
any additional costs incurred by the city for discharge of materials (e.g.
cleaning out or jetting the sewer system) be applied as an additional cost to
the contractor, thereby revising the language to $250 for each incident, PLUS
any additional costs incurred by the city.
Mr.
Culver expressed his concern in the subjective interpretation of “immediate;”
and suggested instead language to read “…immediately or no later than six
hours after the incident occurs.
Evaluation
Criteria and Weighting
Chair
Stenlund asked if there were any individual concerns of the PWETC with this
evaluation as defined. Chair Stenlund advised that he was fine with the
scoring as currently defined in the draft RFP.
At
the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Johnson referred to the first three
bullets on page 4 identifying “community values.”
Chair
Stenlund noted that they were further defined in the packet under community
values; and each vendor was asked to provide information as to how their
proposal met them.
Member
Cihacek stated that his concern was with transparency for the vendor, since
the value system was unclear or the vendor may not understand the value.
Member Cihacek proposed changing the weighting as follows:
·
Price:
40%
·
Past
Performance: 15%
·
Value
Added Plan: 15%
Member
Cihacek questioned why the Interview wasn’t scored was included; with Mr.
Culver responding that it didn’t provide a separate score for the interview,
but allowed the interview panel to tweak some scores based on the answers of
vendors during the interview. Member Cihacek opined that it looked like two
different scores to him and suggested removing it entirely or somehow noting
that an outcome of the interviews may result in scoring being adjusted;
allowing vendors to clarify or modify their proposals.
Member
Seigler proposed that the price be weighted at 50% rather than 40%, opining
that it was at least as important if not more so than the other components.
Mr.
Culver recognized Member Seigler’s perspective and advised that he would
recommend it to the City Council. As with all other Best Value Processes
to-date, Mr. Culver noted that 40% was the typical weighting for price,
remaining the highest factor, but less than half. Mr. Culver clarified that
the fear was if the price was weighted at half or more of the criteria, other
categories would have even less weight in this optional bidding process and
not recognize the value added of a particular contractor beyond that price.
Regarding
whether the PWETC or a member of the public should be involved in the panel
process, Member Wozniak admitted he was torn. While considering that city
policies were in place guiding the process and precedents as well in place,
Member Wozniak admitted he was compelled by Member Cihacek’s suggestion that
it would engage a public perspective in the decision-making process.
Member
Cihacek noted that even as a non-voting member of the panel, it would allow
their input and serve as an education piece for the public as well as enhance
transparency. Whether as a formal or non-formal vote, Member Cihacek stated
that he was happy with staff or the City Council further evaluating that
option.
Member
Seigler spoke in support of the PWETC suggested that a better option would be
for the full PWETC to be involved through every part of the review process to
serve transparency purposes.
Member
Wozniak noted that the PWETC would eventually be evaluating and making a
recommendation on the best proposal.
Chair
Stenlund asked how the PWETC would have accountability in order to ask good
questions, through documentation received from staff; or transparency in that
interview discussion. Chair Stenlund opined that it was important for the
PWETC to understand the thought and scoring process, having any deeper
conversation on the scoring outcome provided an added and dramatic complexity
to the process.
Member
Cihacek opined that his concern was that in not having that piece of the
information and process, it wasn’t allowing him to do his job of engagement
and information processing as part of his decision-making on the PEWTC and
subsequent recommendation to the City Council.
Chair
Stenlund noted that it was up to the PWETC majority.
Member
Cihacek suggested a subcommittee of the PWETC review the proposals.
If
the majority decided to pursue this option, Chair Stenlund advised that he
would support the full PWETC reviewing the proposals versus a subcommittee.
Members
Thurnau, Seigler and Heimerl agreed that if the PWETC was to be involved in
reviewing the proposals that it be done by the entire PWETC as a full
commission.
Member
Cihacek reiterated that he was happy to let the City Council make a
determination as to whether or not the PWETC should be involved or if it
should be left at the discretion of staff. Member Cihacek opined that the
PWETC didn’t need to make that decision, but his interest was in presenting
the argument to the City Council, and let the public and City Council speak
to it; with staff advising the commission of the City Council’s subsequent
decision.
Member
Seigler opined that staff should perform the review; reiterating that he
didn’t want to be involved as a group or individually; and agreed that staff
should be left alone to do their job.
Motion
Member Cihacek moved, Member Wozniak seconded,
recommending to the City Council that they accept the RFP as revised.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
7.
Review March 2016 Meeting
·
Mr. Culver advised that the Lake Owasso private drive storm
sewer project was an item the PWETC needed to address next month, with the
potential for a possible assessment and recommendation of the PWETC to the
City Council accordingly.
·
Community Solar (tentatively scheduled)
However, Mr. Culver suggested a field trip in honor of
Chair Stenlund’s last meeting, including a tour of the Upper Villa Re-Use
System and Corpus Christi Basin, and if time allowed, possibly another
stormwater-related project: the St. Croix Lift Station Rehabilitation.
Mr. Culver suggested the PWETC meet in the Council
Chambers to address immediate business concerns; and then proceed with the
tour. In order to accommodate the tour, Mr. Culver suggested meeting earlier
than the regular 6:30 p.m. meeting time.
Motion
Member Cihacek moved, Member Thurnau seconded, moving the
March 22, 2016 meeting to 5:30 p.m.; and directing staff to meet applicable
notice requirements accordingly.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
8.
Adjourn
Member Cihacek moved, Member Heimerl seconded, adjournment
of the meeting at approximately 9:00 p.m.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|