|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
- Introduction / Call Roll
Vice Chair Brodt Lenz called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and at his request, Public Works
Director Marc Culver called the roll.
Present: Chair
Brian Cihacek; Vice Chair Sarah Brodt Lenz; and Members Joe Wozniak,
John Heimerl, Kody Thurnau, Thomas Trainor, and Duane Seigler
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver; Civil
Engineer Luke Sandstrom, and Environmental Engineer Ryan Johnson
- Public Comments
None.
- Approval of June 28, 2016 Meeting Minutes
Comments and corrections to
draft minutes had been submitted by PWETC commissioners prior to tonight’s
meeting and those revisions incorporated into the draft presented in meeting
materials.
Public Works Director Culver
briefly summarized minor corrections received from commissioners to-date that
had been incorporated into the draft meeting minutes.
Member Wozniak moved, Member
Thurnau seconded, approval of the June 28, 2016 meeting minutes as amended.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
- Communication Items
Public Works Director Culver
provided additional comments and a brief review and update on projects and
maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated July 26, 2016.
Discussion included various
sidewalk installations or rationale for not installing certain segments at
this time (e.g. Wheaton Woods); and formal and/or typical processes for
residents to provide feedback on various city projects before, during and
after a project (e.g. Commissioner Trainor with S Owasso Drive project).
Mr. Culver encouraged any
resident on any project to provide their feedback on the project; and
reviewed the various methods available (phone, email, personal staff contact
at City Hall, etc.) at any time to inform future projects.
Specific to the S Owasso project,
Mr. Culver noted it had been a challenging year, which was both good and bad,
with a very aggressive contractor on that particular project that kept things
ahead of schedule, but made it difficult if not impossible to provide proper
notification for residents, and staff’s normal communication methods.
However, Mr. Culver noted lessons had been learned in trying to manage the
contractor and project, and reiterated staff’s interest in hearing from
residents about the process.
Member Trainor noted the end
result was the contractor being way out ahead of the schedule which had been
painful for the residents. Member Trainor asked Mr. Culver if there was
contractual language the city could use to avoid those types of happenings.
Due to current contractor laws,
Mr. Culver responded it was difficult to make a contractor comply unless it
was at a financial cost to them, with normal legal channels used to fine a
contractor or charge for non-performance unsatisfactory unless additional
costs had actually been incurred (e.g. liquidated damages); and the required
time and investment for the city to follow-through and ultimate taxpayer cost
to do so.
Mr. Culver noted that obviously
some contractors were easier to deal with than others. As the city moves
more into best value contracting and awarding contracts under that method,
which the city had yet to do with its Pavement Management Program (PMP)
projects, Mr. Culver advised that a contractor’s previous experience on such
elements could be used to reduce their score on future projects. Mr. Culver
advised this would be accomplished through cities sharing their reviews and
scores on contractors and their experiences, with that information used to
score contractors accordingly. However, Mr. Culver noted this would require
a consistent or standard method for post-project reviews; and there was some
momentum in the industry to give cities more control making it in the
contractor’s best interest to perform above and beyond the norm.
Member Trainor stated he would
submit his comments as a resident to Mr. Culver.
- City Campus Solar
Mr. Culver provided a quick
review of the proposed City Campus Solar project, and reintroduced
representatives of Sundial Solar to present an updated proposal for solar
panel installation on the Public Works Maintenance Facility and City Hall
roofs rather than on the Skating Center as originally proposed; and next
steps if the project moves forward.
Art Kroll and Paul
Christianson, Sundial Representatives
Mr. Kroll reported on engineering
and logistical issues that arose at the Skating Center, as well as potential
roof upgrades that would be needed on that facility during the solar array
life span necessitating removal or relocation of the system for a time.
Therefore, Mr. Kroll advised that
the two above-referenced buildings had been isolated, as well as
consideration of the police station roof. Given the smaller square footage
of these roofs, Mr. Kroll reviewed each portion and size of the possible
solar array to maximize use of the buildings and make installation
economically feasible for the equity partner and city. By using both roofs,
Mr. Kroll advised that a total 450 KW system would be feasible to deploy
solar and result in a slightly larger array than the previous 300 KW proposal
for the skating center roof.
With this updated proposal, Mr.
Kroll reviewed the revised preliminary financial analysis for the solar
installation, and revised long- and short-term comparisons (dated May 31,
2016) outlining the value of energy for solar production, basic energy rate,
solar credits, full value, and total value; along with buy out at year 7.
Mr. Kroll noted estimated savings, after expenses, of approximately $8,663 to
the city; Similar economics – PPA long and short-term comparison dated
5/31/16 providing value of energy for solar production, basic energy rate,
solar credits, full value with solar credit, and total value after 25 years.
Mr. Kroll reminded commissioners there was no buyout option for the first 6
years of operation, and addressed further assumptions to qualify the
projections.
If the PWETC recommended and City
Council approved the revised Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), Mr. Kroll
advised that the agreement would be negotiated with staff; as well as an
Operations and Maintenance Agreement for the duration. Mr. Kroll reiterated
this would be a 25 year contract, with a buyout option at year 7.
Chair Cihacek asked several
questions related to the performance guarantee for the tax equity partner,
Sundial Solar, and the city related to performance guarantees, the static
model as shown, margin of error, power generation; and what was being offered
the city in the way of economic value.
Mr. Kroll responded that any
guarantee would be to the fiscal investor/owner, who would watch and monitor
their investment resulting in keeping production up as much as saving the
city energy for the sake of both their interests. Mr. Kroll assured Chair
Cihacek and the PWETC that the solar array would be a partnership for both
parties.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Kroll confirmed that under no circumstance would the city ever end up
owing Sundial Solar money, including large storms as an example. Mr. Kroll
advised that Sundial Solar would replace any damaged solar panels or other
equipment at no cost to the city.
Mr. Kroll clarified that it was
industry practice for the system to fall under the city’s general liability
insurance coverage, since it had been found that it was less expensive for
the city to add it to their coverage at a typical $5 to $7 annual premium
increase rather than for an independent policy since Sundial Solar had no
sight or security controls. Mr. Kroll used the City of Farmington, MN as an
example for reference.
Mr. Culver advised that, until
this discussion, he was not aware of that specific contract term; and Chair
Cihacek noted his interest and that of the PWETC was to have an accurate cost
of ownership as part of the contract.
Specific to Chair Cihacek’s
question related to any time the city would owe money, Mr. Culver advised
that the only thing he could think of paying was if the city had to remove
any panels from service for unanticipated roof maintenance. Mr. Culver
advised that there were clauses in the agreement laying out how long panels could
be down before the city had to reimburse for lost power generated. Mr.
Culver noted this was another factor in the skating center roof being removed
from consideration with planned maintenance within 5 to 7 years, with the
system possibly offline for a month, and during non-winter months when solar
power generation would be at its highest when that maintenance would be
required. Mr. Culver advised that had triggered some potential lost revenue.
With the additional space
available on these two roofs, Chair Cihacek asked if any maintenance could be
staged with solar panels relocated for the short-term in different roof
locations.
Mr. Kroll advised that was
possible; but also noted with both of these roofs being relatively new, they
were anticipated to last through the term of the contract before major
replacement was needed. Mr. Kroll also noted with a smaller rooftop,
equipment and minor repairs would most likely be down for a shorter time as
well. Mr. Kroll reported he would work with the investor on a new contract
for that maintenance window, anticipating that window would be about 2 weeks
or 10 business days.
In looking at annual production
time, and if a sunny year, Chair Cihacek noted the ballast system wouldn’t be
tied into the roof structure anyway; with confirmation by Mr. Kroll.
Mr. Kroll noted that staff had an
old contract for reference; and advised he would provide an updated contract
to the city for city review, updated as the new model contract using the City
of Farmington as the example. In that revised draft contract and past
presentations, Mr. Kroll noted cost differentials from 10.5 to 11 cents
versus 7 cents; with more monthly yield on these two roofs versus previous
projections, essentially doubling savings for demand management based on Xcel
Energy billings and Sundial Solar management, while still allowing for some
flexibility.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Kroll advised that at this point the name of the financial investor isn’t
public knowledge, but noted the PWETC had met the investor in the past. Once
the system is built, Mr. Kroll offered to share that information with the
PWETC; but noted Mr. Culver could do so offline until it became generally
known further into the contract negotiations.
Mr. Culver advised the PWETC that
the next steps would be authorization for staff to negotiate a revised
contract with review by the City Attorney; at which time it would be
presented to the City Council – anticipated in August or September – for
their consideration and approval.
Mr. Kroll agreed with the city’s
next steps, advising that Sundial Solar would recommend the contract go to
the City Attorney for review before the City Council’s stamp of approval.
For their part (Sundial Solar), Mr. Kroll advised they would move toward the
contract negotiation step, since their engineers had already given the roofs
a precursory look to ensure they could support the solar arrays.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Kroll stated his preference would be completion of the contract negotiations
and attempt installation of the solar array yet this fall. With their
engineers and installers finishing up the work in Farmington, Mr. Kroll noted
it would then be easier and more cost-effective to mobilize their crew from
there to Roseville the end of September or by mid-October depending on the
timing of City Council approval. If that schedule isn’t feasible, Mr. Kroll
advised that he anticipated an early spring of 2017 installation, with either
option not problematic.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Kroll advised that production will start as soon as the solar system is
turned on.
As a Roseville resident, Member
Seigler expressed his preference in receiving a summary sheet that showed the
installation costs, investor amount, and city responsibilities; along with
maximum out-of-pocket expenses for the city even if projected at “zero;” and
projected increases in annual revenue that would be easier for citizens to
understand the city’s (e.g. taxpayer’s) liability other than the more complicated
spreadsheet presented tonight. Member Seigler asked that the summary sheet
also explain the PPA and how the buyout would work and that potential cost to
the city.
Mr. Kroll advised clarified that
the investor bankrolled the entire project, with no city money in the
project, while the city anticipated a 17% to 18% energy savings from the current
electric blended rate being paid. Mr. Kroll noted the buyout clause in the
contract would be determined by an appraisal at fair market value and
remaining years of the contract, at the discounted energy rate and that fair
market value.
Member Seigler asked what
recourse the city would have if the original investor sold the contract to an
entity the city may not be comfortable dealing with.
Mr. Kroll noted that the current
investor is interested in holding the contract long-term as that was their
area of expertise and business model to acquire and hold onto those assets
for the full duration of the contract; with their own operating and
maintenance department set up accordingly.
Chair Cihacek asked staff to
ensure the contract included a clause or negotiations addressed the city’s
first right of refusal and an option not to contract with any other firms or
individuals at their discretion.
Mr. Kroll advised that standard
contract language would provide that the city would have to approve any sale
transaction to change investors.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Kroll advised that the city would be contracting with the investor
itself, with the investor in turn contracting with Sundial Solar to do the
installation project. Mr. Kroll advised that the Power Purchase Agreement
would be with sundial; but they would immediately sell the contract to the
investor, with the city negotiating with the investor’s attorneys on exact
contract language.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Kroll reiterated the intended solar arrays: a 200 KW system on the City
Hall roof, and a 250 KW system on the Public Works Maintenance Facility for a
total of 450 KW. If the city chooses to include an option for the Lexington
Avenue fire station as well, Mr. Kroll anticipated that could support a 100
KW system, depending on their engineering specifications, which hadn’t been
looked into at this point.
At the request of Member Heimerl,
Mr. Culver advised that the total solar array at 450 KW would represent less
than half the city’s total power consumption; with the OVAL and Skating
Center consuming a considerable amount of the city’s total power.
Specific to the Public Works
facility, Mr. Kroll advised that that building alone would max out the solar
credit usage at the top end of the usage of about 80% coverage. Mr. Kroll
stated he anticipated about 70% coverage of the City Hall roof space to be
used. Mr. Kroll noted roof space was eliminated before hitting the cap; but
with anticipated monetary savings at 17% to 18% on the PPA, there was a
potential for more savings if demand offset that.
Motion
Member Seigler moved, Member
Lenz seconded, recommending to the City Council authorizing staff and the
City Attorney to initiate negotiations with Sundial Solar on a Power Purchase
Agreement for the installation of solar panels on the Maintenance Facility
and City Hall roofs, as presented; including submission for presentation to
the City Council a one-page summary of the proposal, taxpayer costs and any
liability, and payback, as noted during tonight’s discussion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
- Asset Management System Review
As detailed in the staff report
and part of the City Council’s Policy Priority Plan (PPP) that included the
city’s infrastructure sustainability, Mr. Culver reported a strategy to
inspect, rate and document assets for each department. Mr. Culver reviewed current
asset management software programs allowing management of that information.
For the purpose of tonight’s
discussion, Chair Cihacek asked staff to define “asset.”
Mr. Culver noted there were
assets not tracked (e.g. chairs, furniture, etc.) that were set aside for
general and periodic replacement, and therefore not tagged or inventoried.
Mr. Culver noted staff tried to use some logic and thresholds of what was
worth traffic and what wasn’t. Of those items for tracking, Mr. Culver noted
there were significant elements in the public rights-of-way worth tracking
and more critical for service delivery. Mr. Culver noted that part of the
exercise was going through infrastructure inventory and developing a rating
system identifying those assets being tracked. Mr. Culver advised that the
Parks & Recreation Department had utilized a similar process. As staff’s
response to the City Council, Mr. Culver advised that assets had been
identified and then tracked and subsequently rated to track their current condition.
For tonight’s presentation, Mr.
Culver introduced Roseville Civil Engineer Luke Sandstrom, with the city for
approximately one year.
Mr. Sandstrom provided a quick
background of the City Council’s strategic priorities, inventory and
maintenance history, an annual review of that maintenance, inclusion of the
infrastructure items on the city’s capital improvement program (CIP),
replacement costs, and condition ratings. While the condition ratings are
done for the pavement management program (PMP), Mr. Sandstrom noted that a
condition rating for all Public Works Department assets was new. Mr.
Sandstrom displayed a working model of the city’s infrastructure system,
included in tonight’s agenda materials. Mr. Sandstrom reviewed the status
and maintenance history already in place and tracked; with staff continuing
to work on integrating software making future research easier. Mr. Sandstrom
noted once completed, this would allow for an annual review and update of the
CIP plan.
Noting condition ratings were
still in draft form for this initial presentation, Mr. Sandstrom asked the
PWETC for their feedback on those ratings before moving this forward to the
City Council.
As part of the considerations and
ratings, Mr. Sandstrom reviewed some of the criteria, including time tracked
through PubWorks Software and used recent storm clean-ups as examples. Mr.
Sandstrom noted further breakdowns could also be done by cost summary and
task; with project cost components per job code tracked by department staff.
Mr. Sandstrom compared costs of the June 21, 2013 storm with that of July 5,
2016, allowing staff, the City Council and Roseville citizens to see actual
overall impacts to the city for equipment, man hours and labor costs. Mr.
Sandstrom noted this tracking was done for snow events as well, whether
plowing or application of salt, etc. Mr. Sandstrom noted this allowed better
planning for average costs to track activities and expenses going forward.
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Culver clarified that the cost shown was “gross” versus “net,” since
staff would be working anyway. Mr. Culver advised that a separate report for
overtime generated could be created. Since some staff would be working and
using some equipment anyway, Mr. Culver noted with unusual events, costs were
tracked on that event versus time spent on something that didn’t get done and
delays caused. Mr. Culver noted an additional report was needed to show
costs above and beyond normal operations.
Mr. Sandstrom addressed the
rating system examples and scales from 0 to 100 as a starting point and
criteria used. Mr. Sandstrom noted it was found that rating system wasn’t
applicable to all situations (e.g. sanitary manhole inspections) and compared
this rating system with the characteristics of the PMP. Therefore, Mr.
Sandstrom noted staff’s initial use of other rating systems, such as 1, 2,
and 3 for good, fair and poor ratings. Specifically for pipes, Mr. Sandstrom
referenced the report showing ratings of 0 to 5 with more information for
those systems. Mr. Sandstrom further noted ratings from 1 to 10 for lift
stations; and asked for PWETC feedback on staff’s thought process behind
various criteria.
On page 7 of the report, Member
Seigler noted some of the condition rating percentages (e.g. pavement) that
seemed to overlap and suggested further review before presentation to the
City Council.
Specific to the PMP, Member
Wozniak asked staff’s rationale for a scale of 0 to 100 when there were only
five categories.
Mr. Culver responded that a
separate program (entitled ICON) was used for the PMP program with an
independent contractor used to visually inventory the city’s pavement
system. As that information is entered, Mr. Culver advised that over the
last 20 years the PMP was done and updated, it addressed deterioration
curves. However, Mr. Culver noted it made no sense to bring that asset into
this separate software program, as the ICON program had no significant cost
compared to this asset management program. Mr. Culver advised that the PMP
and city policy established a timeline for pavement evaluation, with one
quarter of the city done every four years, providing a relatively updated
picture. Mr. Culver opined it didn’t make sense to use anything more broadly
than that model.
Member Thurnau suggested
referencing that rationale as a footnote in the report, and specifying if it
included sidewalks and pathways, ADA compliance, etc. Member Thurnau opined
that there was so much documentation to point those items out, it made sense
to provide a definition of the rating interpretation in the document as well.
Mr. Culver agreed that a note for
each item would be helpful, especially when using a different industry
standard scale and their specific rating systems.
Specific to the hydrant rating
system on page 9, with a minimum rating of 2 indicating a poor condition
requiring routine maintenance, Member Heimerl asked if it should bother
residents if their hydrant condition was rated “poor.” As a Roseville
homeowner, Member Heimerl suggested some consistency in looking at those
ratings to ensure they reflected the image the city wanted and if not to
bring those ratings to higher service levels.
With staff duly noting that
comment, Mr. Sandstrom suggested some may be placeholders for minimum ratings
at this time. However, after PWETC and City Council input, Mr. Sandstrom
agreed that clarification should be accurately reflected accordingly.
Mr. Culver agreed, noting that
staff’s goal was to get condition ratings listed now; and then actively get
all items loaded into the software program. While many are consistent, Mr.
Culver reported not all infrastructure elements had been inspected for their
actual condition ratings. Mr. Culver noted that some infrastructure (e.g.
water mains) were underground and difficult to visually inspect, so their
assumed condition was based on age, material make-up, number of watermain
breaks to-date, etc. In the case of the city’s 1700 fire hydrants, Mr. Culver
advised that they were flushed and set up on an inspection sheet currently
underway, at which point all conditions will be added to the system. With a
current minimum rating of 2, Mr. Culver advised that the average rating was
not yet known pending those inspections. However, if the ratings are set to
high initially, Mr. Culver noted it would be difficult to meet that higher
average, clarifying a difference in “minimum” and “average” ratings.
Agreeing that the city certainly didn’t want any hydrants rating fewer than
2, signifying immediate replacement, he suggested there may be another item
that needed to be added to the document, such as “Target Condition Rating”
such as the PMP has now, showing an average system rating. Mr. Culver
suggested that could be applied to other assets as well until the actual
average had been identified but still not setting that average too high
initially. Mr. Culver noted things would adapt and evolve as more ratings
were added to the system, allowing a better picture. Generally speaking, Mr.
Culver noted the age of the city’s infrastructure; but considered the city’s
maintenance of the system at a good standard based on its usage and overall
safety for the community.
Chair Cihacek asked if the system
broke out which sections were of the highest priority, in aggregate versus
specifically.
Mr. Culver responded that the
system should be able to perform both and generate a report accordingly, in
addition to generating average condition ratings.
Member Wozniak noted he didn’t
see any vehicles or equipment on this list; and asked if street sweepers or
chain saws were considered assets.
Mr. Culver reported that staff
didn’t track shovels or similar smaller items for this purpose, since they
were considered more easily replaceable in the maintenance budget. However,
for plow trucks, and other heavy equipment, Mr. Culver advised there was a
fleet system; and offered to provide the PWETC with follow-up information on
how those assets were tracked. Mr. Culver reported that there was more
history in tracking those assets over the last 20-30 years, and included
expected replacement dates and costs for all vehicles and larger equipment.
Mr. Culver clarified that those larger items were not automatically replaced
at their anticipated replacement year, but were annually adjusted to determine
their condition, with their value remaining in the schedule since it will
ultimately need replacing. However, Mr. Culver noted their replacement may
shift forward a year or two, or even move up for replacement depending on
wear and tear. Mr. Culver agreed it was a valid point that staff needed to
do a better job tracking condition ratings on vehicles and setting target
condition ratings for replacements. Etc.
Member Trainor suggested this
document should note who was doing the ranking – city staff or outside parties
– for roofs, pavements, etc. and in the case of the PMP, identifying whether
they were civil engineers or road contractors to determine their level of
expertise. Member Trainor also noted the need to clarify whether the person
doing the inspection (e.g. roof maintenance/replacement) was an independent
person or a vendor the city may feel indebted to if bidding on a contract at
some point in the future.
Mr. Culver clarified roof
inspections done on a regular schedule for minor maintenance issues; and how
a bidding process for future major maintenance or replacement would be
handled.
On page 17, Member Seigler noted
the need of an additional column to show whether or not a category was above
or below the rating goal.
As actual inspection data becomes
available, Mr. Culver advised that the city could gather more confidence in
the numbers and overall ratings.
As the last step for the rating
system, Mr. Sandstrom noted the spreadsheet was hard to formulate to incorporate
the system ranking while ranking it with overall GIS maps for better
visualization and communication to show different areas and pass on to
various departments. For assumption purposes, Mr. Sandstrom noted they would
be refined moving forward. As an example, Mr. Sandstrom noted the city had
70,000’ of sanitary sewer lines for televising, at which time those pipe
ratings for the overall system would be refined. At this time, Mr. Sandstrom
noted the city attempted to televise 1/10 of the city’s sanitary and
stormwater sewer lines annually, so within 10 years that televising should be
completed and a good rating system in place.
Member Lenz asked if staff’s
intent was to use 2017 to put together this rating to inform the 2018 budget
for maintenance and repairs.
Mr. Culver responded
affirmatively; but prefaced it by noting variations of the maps displayed by
Mr. Sandstrom had actually been in use for a number of years, perhaps not as
well-defined with condition ratings, but showing water main breaks and known
trouble spots to allow the city to prioritize scheduled and projects over the
upcoming year. Mr. Culver noted this additional data would allow staff to
better priority strategic items that would come into play for each CIP budget
for each asset. As is currently done, Mr. Culver advised that staff assumes
a capital expense for each year, varying per utility, determining annual
spending for those capital projects to-date. Using maps, Mr. Culver advised
that it was then decided where to spend the allotted $1 million annually.
However, as this data becomes more refined, Mr. Culver noted staff would be
able to project (e.g. poor condition rating items) and set a goal that within
a certain time frame, all those rated items should be replaced, and to do so,
an annual allotment of so much was needed. If the city’s policy caps those
annual expenditures, Mr. Culver noted utility rates could address those
dollars needed. In the preliminary budget numbers the PWETC had already seen
for 2017, Mr. Culver reported staff would be able to do a better job
projecting those annual costs going forward. Mr. Culver advised he was
really looking forward to being able to do so with the city’s storm sewer
system and other assets not having good history or data available now.
Noting staff considered water and
sewer infrastructure of high importance, Member Lenz asked that staff not
lose sight of the importance of bus shelters in the community, even though
they may be less life-critical elements of the city’s infrastructure.
Mr. Culver duly noted that
observation; and clarified the importance of the water and sewer funds was
due to their status of being Enterprise Funds which are more challenging to
fund. Mr. Culver noted the huge needs remaining in addressing storm sewer
issues in the community; and while some interfund loans had been done in the
past from the water or sanitary sewer funds, those funds were “siloed” and
often made it difficult to prioritize one asset over another, while funding
from the General Fund was easier to address (e.g. streets, retaining walls,
fences, trails, etc.). For those categories, Mr. Culver noted the city could
look between different asset categories and needs based on their importance.
Member Trainor opinioned this
document was a terrific product and very impressive; and stated he looked
forward to the city moving ahead with it.
- City Council Joint Meeting Review
Based on the recent joint meeting
of the PWETC and City Council, Mr. Culver reported staff had drafted a proposed
work plan of items, as detailed in Attachment A (lines 15 – 21), showing
initial areas of interest and, while other priorities may come up during the
year. Mr. Culver opined the dialogue from the meeting minutes showed good
discussion, and he didn’t see any particular items outside those areas
brought up for the PWETC to expend any additional time on.
Pending negotiation of the
Recycling contract and the organics recycling option, Chair Cihacek suggested
removing that item from the work plan for the upcoming year.
Mr. Culver noted there was an
opportunity if the PWETC wanted to recommend the city expand drop-off
locations for organics; and advised staff would work with Eureka to manage
them accordingly, whether at the city’s compost site or with a City Hall drop
off site. Mr. Culver noted both came with their own challenges, but
suggested further discussion in the future.
Chair Cihacek stated he wasn’t
clear on where to move forward with sewer and water services, since
recommendations of the PWETC had not been found satisfactory to the City
Council at this point. Other than small options and bid alternatives for
lining laterals, Chair Cihacek questioned what was left to address that
hadn’t already been done.
In response, Mr. Culver noted the
presentation done over the last year by Paul Pasko and the City Council, and
based on the City Council’s initial feedback, reported there was some
interest in exploring some programs offered currently by other metropolitan
cities for residents. Mr. Culver noted some discussion at the City Council
level of cost participation from the sanitary sewer fund to supplement those
expenses to line a portion of all sanitary sewer services, including options
for stub lining at the wye or lining up to the right-of-way with an option
for the resident to pay more to have the entire line done. Mr. Culver
suggested further PWETC review of those options and assessment options for
residents to pay their cost for such a project, or whether to take it
entirely out of the sanitary sewer fund that would be paid by all Roseville
residents.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Culver stated he wasn’t sure if prices for the lateral lining were
declining, it was only obvious that as more interest was found and more
competition in the market, and more contractors performing the work, prices
would be lowered. Mr. Culver noted that was the experience with sewer main
lining, with those costs having diminished considerably over the last few
years.
Chair Cihacek noted the
difficulty in defining bid alternates or exploring those options without a
hard number of cost versus risk; unless they were done as a bid alternate and
on a case by case basis brought back to the City Council.
Mr. Culver suggested scheduling
this item to come back to the PEWTC with staff providing more information
from surrounding communities before that discussion. If the city considers
it, Mr. Culver opined he saw it as an all or nothing situation, since he
didn’t think there would ever be a cost benefit to offer it as an option to
residents. Mr. Culver opined the city needed to make the decision on the
scope of the work when the city was already in the street doing a project.
Mr. Culver suggested the city would decide on the lining and where that ended
with the work completed shortly before or after the main project, since
different contractors were involved. Mr. Culver opined the program would
only be effective if the city made the decision to do all services, and
decided how to pay for it, allowing residents the option to extend lining up
to their house at their cost. Mr. Culver further opined it wasn’t cost
effective or a reasonable contract cost to offer it as an option for
residents, without 100% participation.
As part of that future
discussion, Chair Cihacek asked staff to provide pricing for the lining to
the wye and to the right-of-way options, and annual cost projections, along
with a model that could be implemented.
Mr. Culver stated staff would
review the recent projects in Burnsville, Edina or Golden Valley currently
performing this work and review their process, number of homes done, and
average cost per home. Mr. Culver noted there were lots of variables but a
comparison would inform the PWETC discussion.
Discussion ensued regarding
timing of work plan items and PWETC monthly agendas. A tentative schedule
was outlined as follows:
·
Sewer and Water Service Lining (October 2016)
·
A-line Update and Accessibility to shelters, bus stops and
route planning and their potential use.
Chair Cihacek suggested questions
related to this topic included how routes are determined coming through
Roseville; revisit where that bus infrastructure is located currently
(shelters and stops, etc.) related to current routes, and based on transit
planning to-date, how that connects with routes and infrastructure; where bus
stops and signage are placed and those areas not compatible or difficult to
access.
Member Lenz agreed, noting that
the A-line was not the only bus line in Roseville, but the other routes
seemed to have been forgotten over the last few years in developing that
route. As the City Council noted, Member Lenz noted the lack of east/west
connectivity throughout the community and beyond. Member Lenz opined an
entire new look was needed and the city’s viewpoint taken into consideration
by Metro Transit.
Chair Cihacek agreed with that
lack of connectivity to downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis as well. Chair
Cihacek asked that staff arrange for a representative of Metro Transit to
come before the PWETC’s perceived concerns and outline their outreach about
deficiencies.
Mr. Culver noted the City
Council was seeking information from the Metro Transit representative as
well.
Chair Cihacek suggested updates
to the PWETC from staff in November, with that conversation teed up for
January of 2017, anticipating no meeting would be held in December.
Mr. Culver advised that staff
anticipated presenting the 2017 Public Works work plan to the PWETC in
November, and subsequent to the City Council and their approval in December
of 2016.
Chair Cihacek suggested staff
provide an update of the work plan in their communication items in November,
at which time the PWETC could address any issues or questions.
Intersection of Snelling and
Skillman
Member Seigler noted the
difficult intersection at Snelling Avenue and Skillman, asking if the city
had considered any updates to address that situation.
Mr. Culver reported that prior to
the Chianti Grill development approximately 5 to 6 years ago, a new signal
light had been initially intended to align with Skillman further sough on the
west side. However, with that proposal defeated primarily from resident
concerns on the east side and having a signal that much closer to their homes
and more traffic. Mr. Culver stated the opportunity to do something
significant at that intersection for the foreseeable future was gone, since
the MnDOT had made a significant investment in the traffic signal at its
current location.
Organized Trash Collection
Member Wozniak pointed out that
the City of St. Paul had recently enacted the procedure to organize waste
collection, a culmination of a lengthy study and initiating the 90-day clock
for contractors to submit a collective proposal. With that step, Member
Wozniak noted the City of Roseville was now surrounded by communities with
organized trash collection. Member Wozniak noted the new TCAPP site
development would also have organized trash collection. While recognizing
the City Council isn’t interested in discussing it, Member Wozniak noted it
didn’t preclude the PWETC’s pursue of the issues.
In defense of the City Council,
Mr. Culver noted the priority work they were undertaking and length of their
meeting agendas of late, and other related items yet to come (e.g. SE
Roseville redevelopment, Twin Lakes zoning) and from their perspective and
based on feedback on past community surveys, there appeared to be no
overwhelming interest by the community to pursue organized trash collection,
at least not as a priority. If the PWETC was seeking a discussion on
organized collection and processes and experience of neighboring communities,
Mr. Culver left that up to the PWETC to set it up as a future agenda item.
Chair Cihacek suggested that be
part of the 2017 work plan in the future, allowing time for the changes in
the new recycling contract to take hold.
Member Seigler agreed this would
also be after the City of St. Paul went forward with it.
Mr. Culver cautioned that the
City of St. Paul was a much larger city as well; with Member Wozniak
countering that this also meant more people and more challenges.
Pathway Master Plan Update
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Culver addressed where the pathway master plan fit into the upcoming
comprehensive plan update. While the master plan was not an actual component
of the comprehensive plan, Mr. Culver advised it would be referenced within
the document in the transportation chapter. Mr. Culver advised that the
reason not to consider it as an official component was so any updates could
be handled by the city without the lengthy, formal public input process
needed to amend the comprehensive plan. However, Mr. Culver stated he had
suggested and had the desire to incorporate that discussion into the public
input process along with other components versus the PWETC taking on the
updating of the master plan and priority ranking with it. Mr. Culver noted
this would allow the public meetings and discussion to inform the master plan
update and remaining gaps and priorities for those missing segments.
However, Mr. Culver noted that
the negative of that process, was the two year comprehensive plan update.
Mr. Culver noted that no identified funding source was available for pathway
updates anyway; even though several groups had petitioned for specific
segments, and other areas had received heightened demand, but at this time,
no intentional public process was in place to address those segments.
Member Wozniak noted past
discussion about revisiting the ranking system for the pathway plan.
Mr. Culver clarified that the current
Pathway Master Plan was updated and re-prioritized in 2008; but the ranking
system referenced was an effort of the PWETC done in 2013 and subsequent
concerns of the City Council with the method and inconsistency in criteria
used as to how segments were rated. While appreciating the effort, Mr.
Culver noted concerns of the City Council as to the validity of the outcome
and time needed to address criteria and focus on updating priorities. Mr.
Culver noted that a number of segments had been completed since the last
master plan update; but agreed it was worthwhile to address the master plan
while reviewing zoning, transportation, and transit chapters of the
comprehensive plan; and include that discussion at the same time to allow for
public input.
In the 2017 work plan, Chair
Cihacek asked staff to plan on providing the PWETC with an updated pathway
map of what had been accomplished to-date as a template over missing segments
still remaining. Chair Cihacek opined that would provide important priority areas
and those areas recognized as gaps; informing discussions going forward and
prior to moving into the comprehensive plan process. Chair Cihacek opined
that known gaps are a different context than those segments the city would
like to complete. Chair Cihacek noted this would also address tangible
deficits and areas of safety concerns or connectivity; where the segments fit
into the overall efforts, and those segments requested, those completed, and
those remaining gaps in the infrastructure system. Chair Cihacek stated he
was seeking discussion across those three different map concepts.
Member Wozniak suggested that the
PWETC also identify other criteria for rating pathways, based on City Council
concerns with the PWETC’s 2013 ratings and perception that they were
insufficient or irregular. Member Wozniak opined this would allow for
criteria identified and an exercise of weighting or rating pathways in
advance of comprehensive plan activities.
Chair Cihacek agreed that
provided a context for integration of this PWETC-level piece and priorities
in the comprehensive plan discussion, but also was early enough in that
process to provide context for public input. Chair Cihacek suggested that
discussion also include connectivity with the regional efforts to St. Paul
and Minneapolis and infrastructure demands also. Chair Cihacek suggested it
might be good to pick that discussion up yet in 2016 to see if there are
linkages Roseville could make for bike lanes to connect with the St. Paul
system.
Mr. Culver reported that Ramsey
County was also finalizing the process to establish a countywide bike and
pedestrian plan and provide guidance of planning for intercity connections.
Mr. Culver reported that city staff continued to work with Ramsey County
staff representatives on connections from Roseville to St. Louis Park, and
other locations. Mr. Culver further reported that Ramsey County continued to
apply for federal funding, as those pathways would be concrete and of
considerable expense; with outside funding also sought for other gaps.
To summarize, Chair Cihacek and
Mr. Culver noted suggested work plan items included:
·
Transit discussion (A-line update, etc.) with Metro Transit
representative Marie McCarthy (January of 2017)
·
Pathway Master Plan (February)
·
Cost analysis of residential sewer lining (October 2016 for
sanitary sewer lining)
·
Work Plan review (November of 2016)
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Culver provided an update on leaf collection options in Roseville after
discontinuation of the city’s collection program. Mr. Culver noted the flyer
as presented earlier this summer had received minor edits and graphic
improvements, with all residents receiving one in their next utility bill.
Mr. Culver reported there would also be educational articles in the next City
News newsletter offering more detailed options for residents to dispose
of their leaves.
- Possible Items for Next Meeting – August 23, 2016
Solar Update
Mr. Culver advised this was
pending depending on City Council presentation and approval of a contract by
the next PWETC meeting.
Eureka Contract
Member Lenz noted last month’s
meeting minutes talked about park pick-up, and asked that the PWETC interface
with the Parks & Recreation Commission on the logistics.
As noted in this month’s PWETC
communications items, Mr. Culver advised that prices would be negotiated for
various service options depending on park use and location of containers and
access to them. However, Mr. Culver clarified that it was not intended to
lay out specific commitments at this time for each park within the contract,
but allow for phasing in based on those various options as the Parks &
Recreation Department performed pilot ideas and experimented with a more
intensive recycling effort in city parks. Mr. Culver reviewed some of those
options, and advised that Public Works and Parks & Recreation staff would
be initially discussing options next week before a contract is signed. Mr.
Culver spoke in support of a more intentional and planned discussion on park
recycling; and advised he would need to talk to the Parks & Recreation
department before committing to a potential public discussion with the PWETC
in September.
Corpus Christi Rain Garden
Project Update (Fairview Avenue)
Member Seigler suggested a field
trip to view how things are working.
SE Roseville
Planning/Community Discussions
Member Lenz advised that she
intended to attend this joint discussion between the cities of Roseville, St.
Paul and Maplewood, as a first opportunity for public engagement; and offered
to provide a report at the next PWETC meeting.
Ramsey/Washington County
Resource Recovery Project
Mr. Culver asked Member Wozniak
if the project was operating yet, with Member Wozniak responding that it was.
I-35W Managed Lane Project
Mr. Culver reported on last
night’s presentation and public hearing as part of the municipal consent
process for this project. Mr. Culver advised that no residents had attended,
but noted there would be other opportunities for public comment through the
process. Mr. Culver advised that the City Council wasn’t expected to vote on
the Roseville area portion of the project until October of 2016. As part of
that project, Mr. Culver advised that noise walls were under discussion, and
reviewed the voting process for benefitting property owners in determining if
MnDOT installed the walls or not. Mr. Culver identified the commercial area
between the I-35W on ramp and Cleveland Avenue north between County Roads C
and D as the noise wall area. Since the city has a pathway in that area, Mr.
Culver reported that the city would get one vote as well.
Mr. Culver suggested having
discussion on the project, and any others staff is aware of in the area at
that point, for the August PWETC meeting.
Community and Economic
Development Updates
Member Seigler noted two new
hotels and other things going up in the Twin Lakes area as well as new
housing throughout the community. Member Seigler suggested it would be of
interest to the PWETC to have an idea of those development and redevelopment
projects.
Mr. Culver apologized for not
having included the most recent report in the PWETC communication items
tonight. Mr. Culver reported that the City Council receives a monthly
development update, which is also posted on the city’s website, but he would
make available going forward as part of the PWETC communication items. Mr.
Culver advised that the report was based on known developments and permits
pulled to-date; and proved interesting.
Chair Cihacek asked individual
PWETC members for ideas for a possible tour in September.
Mr. Culver suggested touring the
St. Paul Regional Water Treatment Plant, Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer
systems or connection at Roseville; Material Recovery Facility (MRF) as
possibilities to consider.
- Adjourn
Member Trainor moved, Member
Wozniak seconded, adjournment of the PWETC at approximately 8:26 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|