|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
1. Introduction
/ Call Roll
Chair Cihacek
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; and Members Joe Wozniak,
Duane Seigler, John Heimerl and Kody Thurnau,
Absent: Vice Chair Sarah Brodt Lenz and Member Thomas
Trainor
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver
and Civil Engineer Luke Sandstrom
2. Public
Comments
None.
3. Approval
of August 23, 2016 Meeting Minutes
Due to
technical difficulties in their timely transcription, Member Wozniak moved,
Member Heimerl seconded, TABLING approval of the August 23, 2016 meeting
minutes until the October meeting.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
4. 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
September 27, 2016.
Mr. Culver
announced that MnDOT had advised that Lexington Avenue under the Highway 36
bridge replacement was scheduled to open later this week.
Discussion
included Mr. Culver?s explanation to not proceed with liquid damages included
in the contract and unrelated delays in the Twin Lakes Parkway project; an
update on the Solar Project and information intended to be available for the
City Council and energy consumption and Xcel Energy negotiations and sizing
the solar systems; rights-of-way mowing by the city or alternatives for
plantings that may not require mowing, and aesthetic and/or safety factors
involved and valued by people.
Chair Cihacek asked
if consideration was given to alternatives for the larger explicit costs for
maintenance that would also address water retention, I & I, bee
pollinators, and other things beyond front end costs that considered
long-term maintenance. Chair Cihacek used Snelling Avenue, even though it is
a state road, as an example.
Mr. Culver
recognized the city had a wide variety of rights-of-way and public spaces to
maintain, and even some that were not maintained at all unless the city
received a complaint, many of those involving rights-of-way on corridors or
street segments not yet constructed, while others may be in wooded areas, or
some adjacent to property owners who volunteered to take on their
maintenance, while others chose not to do so. Mr. Culver noted these didn?t
involve a great deal of maintenance with city staff attempting to balance
moving them 2-3 times annually. However, Mr. Culver noted this did result in
more complaints when rainfall was more considerable, such as this year.
Chair Cihacek
asked staff to add this topic to a future agenda, with input from
Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson, to consider taking Public Works staff
from their other maintenance activities to perform this mowing; and if a
better alternative with side benefits was a consideration.
Chair Cihacek
thanked Mr. Culver for including development project information in
communication items for the PWETC?s awareness.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver provided a brief update on the Recycling
contract and continued negotiations with Eureka Recycling focused on
implementing parks recycling. Mr. Culver reported he hoped to have those
negotiations and any phasing and financial impacts due to a smaller phase in
within two weeks for presentation to the City Council in October. Mr. Culver
advised that since this was the current vendor, he was less concerned with
not having a need to swap carts out with the new contract.
5. Water
Supply Plan
Public Works
Director Culver reintroduced Civil Engineer Luke Sandstrom, advising he had
been working on the water supply plan, with the end product due the end of
2016.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver contrasted the duties of Mr. Sandstrom with that
of City Engineer Jesse Freihammer. Mr. Culver advised that Mr. Freihammer served
directly under Mr. Culver and served as the City?s Assistant Public Works
Director and as a senior engineer in charge of the overall engineering
division, while Mr. Sandstrom serves under Mr. Freihammer, doing the
detailed, day-to-day engineering work for the city.
In his
presentation, Mr. Sandstrom provided an overview of the Water Supply Plan
focusing on water conservation options, including examples used in other
municipalities. Mr. Sandstrom reviewed the purpose of the plan in outlining
water sources, water usage, emergency plans, and water conservation measures
that pertain to the city. Mr. Sandstrom noted this Plan is required for
water suppliers serving over 1,000 people; and was closely related with the
St. Paul Regional Water Services Plan. Mr. Sandstrom advised that this Plan
is required for updating every ten years, and was broken into three segments:
Inventory, Emergency Planning, and Water Conservation. As a side note, Mr.
Sandstrom reminded the PWETC that the City of Roseville also supplied water
to the City of Arden Hills; with total annual water supply billing at 1.6
billion gallons, of which approximately 306 million gallons was used by Arden
Hills.
Mr. Sandstrom
reviewed recent updates to Minnesota State Statutes, and those mandates
incorporated into this updated Plan, specifically related to water
conservation. Mr. Sandstrom noted this included mandated conservation
programs, ideas of plan options that would impact rates. As part of the most
recent conservation efforts by the City of Roseville, Mr. Sandstrom noted
they included rate structures for initial conservation efforts by citizens,
with other ideas or plan options always sought. Mr. Sandstrom noted other
efforts to achieve better water conservation could include a rebate program,
irrigation restrictions or adjustments, education, capital improvements, and
remote read meters.
Mr. Sandstrom
advised that Roseville uses seasonal rates, continues educational efforts via
several tools, and its capital improvements to the infrastructure continued
to provide system improvements, along with the city encouraging and
participating in stormwater res-use projects, and using remote read meters.
Specific to the use of water rate usage tiers that had been discussed off and
on in the past, and was now used in a limited way, Mr. Sandstrom referenced
tiers used in other metropolitan communities, provided as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof. In Roseville, Mr. Sandstrom reported
that the majority of Roseville residents would fall within the first tier,
using 30,000 plus gallons.
Discussion
ensued regarding tiers and usage history; potential formation of an
additional tier threshold; how to make the system equitable for households
with only 1 person in the home versus average households with more residents
in the home who were making a concerted effort to conserve water without
penalizing them due to their higher usage due to the number in the home; or
profiling users for actual use versus lumping them into a pricing structure.
Mr. Culver
advised that the intent of tonight?s presentation was to seek PWETC
assistance before going to the City Council at their October 2016 Worksession
to discuss the components of the Plan update. Since the state mandate
requires that the city talk about water conservation and how it was promoting
it, Mr. Culver advised that staff would be seeking feedback from the City
Council on what they would be comfortable pursuing or committing to and
directing staff on what options they should explore, such as those outlined
by Mr. Sandstrom. Mr. Culver stated that staff was seeking feedback from the
PWETC to present or recommend to the City Council for possible
implementation. As an example, Mr. Culver asked if the city should focus on
education or explore a rebate program, funded either through grant or through
the water utility rate structure to promote conservation.
Further
discussion included identifying the target residential household or
commercial user; focus on residential users if appliance rebates; focus on
commercial or higher density residential users; restrictions on lawn watering
or rebates for water sense technology for irrigation systems.
Specific to
commercial water users, Chair Cihacek opined they could and would do a much
better job in using their irrigation systems if there was a cost for them not
using an irrigation management plan, including taking weather and
precipitation into consideration. However, Chair Cihacek noted the need to
review their management plans before offering any subsidization.
Specific to
residential users, Chair Cihacek expressed his interest in a rebate program
once the cost was better defined; opining it was hard to consider a
recommendation without knowing what specific rebate was considered and its
long-term impact to the city?s asset management program.
From an
infrastructure standpoint, Mr. Culver responded that it was difficult to
realistically correlate water conservation and the use of less water with
infrastructure savings. With the exception of less wear and tear on the
pumps in booster stations or use of smaller pumps with reduced water usage,
Mr. Culver reported it would require a significant reduction in water use to
make any significant impacts to the cost of the city?s infrastructure and its
ongoing maintenance. Mr. Culver noted the city was still required to
distribute water to every household and business within the community, with
all pipes already in the ground and sized for a certain amount of use. Mr.
Culver noted the only infrastructure savings would therefore be at the
booster stations if the city wasn?t pumping as much water daily, also
impacting energy savings realized by the city for pumping a certain amount of
water.
Mr. Culver
suggested while there may be some potential usage savings for residents
long-term, the overall cost of water would only continue going up as it
becomes a more valuable resource in the future and exponentially more
restrictions are mandated on groundwater pumping. Obviously, Mr. Culver
noted the less water a community used, the less money was spent, but with the
current pricing structure, the city paid for the water it used and that cost
was passed on by the city to its customers. However, Mr. Culver noted the
interest in promoting long-term savings for residents on their utility bills
to reduce reliance as a whole, serving as a sustainability issue.
Chair Cihacek
noted an option could be for the city to purchase in bulk number water saving
showerheads for distribution with a possible credit on customer utility bills
accordingly. However, Chair Cihacek questioned if the nominal cost of the
purchase and limited savings along with time for staff to administer such a
program was worth the effort, even though it addressed education and met
multiple points in the Plan.
Member Seigler
suggested getting more bang for the buck by using less water over the summer
versus shower heads. Member Seigler suggested focusing that effort during
the spring to address irrigation or lawn/garden watering as an educational
effort and addressing frequency, etc. opining that would have a much more
significant impact for the city?s water usage.
Mr. Culver
referenced a program used by the City of Woodbury last summer, and researched
further by Mr. Sandstrom, for a pilot program using smarter irrigation
controllers that monitored actual soil moisture in the ground and adjusted
irrigation systems accordingly. Mr. Culver admitted they were expensive to
install and difficult to maintain, yet could provide a quick benefit. Mr.
Culver noted a less costly and easier to maintain system would be irrigation
sensors or controls that could be managed via the Internet as weather
forecasts were viewed, including future rain projections and a history of
rain to-date compared to programmed data for yard needs depending on type and
amount of lawn, and/or vegetable/flower gardens. Mr. Culver advised that the
system automatically adjusted how much water the irrigation system received
and constantly adjusted the system accordingly.
If the City of
Roseville considered a similar pilot program, Mr. Culver suggested it could
first focus on townhome associations to use controllers and see what kinds of
savings were realized before moving forward. However, Mr. Culver noted the
need to determine whether to do so from an educational standpoint or apply
for grants for rebates from other agencies interested in reducing water usage
across the metropolitan area.
Discussion
ensued related to kinds of programs or rebate options available, with Mr.
Sandstrom providing various examples (e.g. City of Eden Prairie); comparables
with other metropolitan communities operating their own treatment plants and
having their own wells and pumping water out of the ground and their more
significant and direct correlations than the City of Roseville using surface
water through St. Paul Regional Water Services. However, Mr. Culver noted
there was the big picture component simply dollars saved, which could provide
incentive for spending money out of their annual budget.
Specific to a
rebate program, Chair Cihacek stated he was supportive of it unless it cost
the city too much to implement compared to the benefits received; and if
amortized on water bills, asked if it could be paid back over time unless
receiving grant funds. Chair Cihacek stated he was fine applying for a grant
as a pilot program, but only if the customer was interested in purchasing and
paying back the city?s initial cost over time.
Member Seigler
stated that the city should monitor itself on irrigation systems on
city-owned property. Member Seigler opined there was nothing more
disconcerting than observing irrigation systems running on city property when
it was raining out. Member Seigler suggested as an educational point, the
city show cost savings realized for taxpayers by monitoring those systems.
Mr. Culver
agreed that the city should certainly lead by example. Mr. Culver noted the
city also had a lot of city water usage not currently metered; and advised
that was one recommendation staff would make for the city to expend money to
install meters on its own sprinkler systems in city parks and other city-owned
properties if not currently metered to allow a record of how much water was
being used and to hold the city more accountable. Mr. Culver admitted this
was a good point and a reality for the city to spend funds to lead by example
and better manage city water usage.
Member Wozniak
concurred, noting that was a great idea and served as a good starting point
for the city?s educational program for residents in talking about the steps
taken by the city to restrict or limit irrigation use and landscaping; and
set the stage for the long-term view of the cost of water historically from
1980, 1990 and what it may look like in 2030. Member Wozniak suggested this
would incentivize residents to take steps now before water usage reaches that
higher cost; and noting this is the city is doing ? as well as other
municipalities. Member Wozniak suggested the city also solicit feedback from
residents.
Member Heimerl
also suggested that city staff review city code related to applying code to
minimize irrigation people are currently doing, and ways through landscaping
technologies and types of plantings that could further minimize water
usages. Member Heimerl suggested the city take the lead, through example and
education, through code changes and changing community views of what is good
vegetation for yards beyond weed overgrowth but as an alternative to typical
lawns, moving away from the 1950?s pristine yard. Member Heimerl opined the
education process could include what needs to be cut and/or irrigated, and
the opportunities for plantings to reduce the need to sprinkler.
In conclusion,
Mr. Culver duly noted the PWETC?s recommendation to the City Council the use
of emerging technologies and educational opportunities to reduce watering in
the community, utilizing some of the ideas brought forward during tonight?s
discussion.
Member Seigler
emphasized the city?s initiative to save money through addressing non-metered
usage.
As the city
begins metering that usage, Chair Cihacek suggested staff track the usage and
savings as a demonstration to residents the improvements being undertaken by
the city, especially focusing on larger public facilities with larger land
areas. Chair Cihacek noted this would exemplify a bigger return, and whether
code or usage issues, provide information on those larger use profiles, as
case studies to use in rolling out the education process.
Member Wozniak
suggested, if possible, incorporating stormwater management into that
educational piece as well (e.g. Upper Villa Park and baseball field
irrigation system), and then look at Fairview Avenue and stormwater issues in
that area and if there was a way to capture or redirect that drainage.
Member Wozniak noted this would allow that stormwater to be used in a
positive way if used for irrigation purposes in place of using fresh water.
Mr. Culver
noted watershed districts were huge proponents of re-use; but noted the
difficulty with those large projects in the long-term economic payback for
those re-use systems. Therefore, Mr. Culver noted the goal is to incorporate
other reasons beyond financial to pursue those projects. Mr. Culver reported
that discussion was underway to consider another re-use system by Fairview at
Evergreen Park, that, with grant application. Mr. Culver noted code items would
need to be addressed by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, and
perhaps considered for larger developments of a certain size, that they be
required or encouraged ? if doing irrigation on site ? to build a re-use
system into their development. Mr. Culver advised that staff would look into
that further.
6. Sanitary
Sewer Services Discussion
Mr. Culver
noted the ongoing hours of discussion at the PWETC and City Council levels in
continuing to explore options for maintenance or assistance to residents for
private sanitary sewer services. Mr. Culver deferred to Mr. Sandstrom for an
update since last discussed and previous consideration of a service warranty
program and presentation by Paul Pasko on options for lining private
services, along with what other municipalities were doing.
Mr. Sandstrom
provided a brief review of the general cross section as displayed and
defining public and private lines; ordinances in other cities and city
attorney input related to enforcement following inspections and service
replacement requirements. Mr. Sandstrom referenced the necessary Inflow and
Infiltration (I & I) mandates related to these efforts.
Mr. Sandstrom
reviewed some of the programs for discussion, including point of sale;
inspections based on street projects (Roseville currently does this);
inspections based on permit applications; city-wide inspections; and/or
blanket replacement. Mr. Sandstrom clarified that, at this point, the City
of Roseville did not require property owners to replace laterals during a
street replacement project. Mr. Sandstrom reviewed a similar program used
in the City of Edina only during reconstruction, clarifying that the City of
Roseville didn?t follow that model for lateral replacements when only doing
mill and overlay projects or anything involving pavement reclamation that
kept the curb intact. Mr. Sandstrom noted that the City of Edina sent out
letters to those affected by a project; and budgeted accordingly for upfront
costs for the city as property owners were assessed and could pay over a
15-year term.
Mr. Sandstrom
reviewed programs in the City of West St. Paul and City of Golden Valley,
both having an in-house camera system; and setting up appointments with
residents connected within a project area. If those laterals are found
non-compliant after inspection from inside the home, as per their respective
ordinances, the property owner is required to fix it.
As another
example, Mr. Sandstrom noted the City of Eagan inspected their entire city
within four years; and while that municipality is much larger than Roseville,
noted their population had tripled and had many new laterals compared to
Roseville?s older system experiencing more issues with laterals constructed
of different materials.
Mr. Sandstrom
noted the City of Shakopee?s program had been highlighted by Mr. Pasko?s
presentation in February of 2016.
Discussion
included the number of street reconstruction projects anticipated by staff in
the next five years, limited to 1-2 if determined not to be up to city
standards due to construction and/or drainage issues, but most street now
simply requiring mill and overlay and only patching or replacing curbs if
cracked or settled. Mr. Culver clarified that only one street was not up to
city standards at this time, as it was a recent turnback from Ramsey County
(County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue connecting to Highway 280), but was
an isolated neighborhood. Mr. Culver further noted some others that were in
industrial areas where the curbs were not up to city standards.
Chair Cihacek
noted this resulted in fairly limited opportunities for the long-term
consideration of lining projects during reconstruction other than those few
sections mentioned by Mr. Culver.
Mr. Culver
noted there may be some unanticipated segments if a water main needed repair
or replaced, or substantial repairs were needed to the sanitary sewer system
where it couldn?t be lined for some reason. In that case, Mr. Culver noted
the road would be substantially compromised an opened up, creating cost
advantages at that point to access services also. Mr. Culver noted there may
be minimal situations where when performing a mill and overlay, no matter the
depth, if unable to get good compaction in patching the street, it may be
most cost effective to do service repairs at that time as well. Mr. Culver
advised that staff was currently looking into those situations citywide for
further analysis and cost benefit considerations.
Chair Cihacek
led discussions regarding the significance of where to line laterals, and
advantages from a cost benefit for extending the life of the entire system,
and projected additional life span for those lined services even if not
solving all the problems.
Mr. Sandstrom
noted the significant cost and time savings by the city lining up to the
rights-of-way staying on city property versus getting permission to access
private property, even though repairs in private yards may be less expensive
versus removing curbs and digging up the roadway.
Chair Cihacek
stated he remained a proponent for a point of sale inspections policy; and
suggested staff examine ordinance language and potential costs to residents
based on street and permit applications to-date; providing a cost analysis of
in-house inspections versus using outside contractors. Even if the city
absorbed the cost of lining up to the rights-of-way, Chair Cihacek opined it
provided the city improved I & I controls and thereby reduced long-term
city costs for its constituents, and was worth examining. Chair Cihacek
further opined that taxpayers didn?t realize how much it cost for I & I
overages; and suggested that would be another excellent education piece.
Even with a
proposed cost cap and city liability risk consideration, Member Seigler asked
what advantage it provided him if the city charged him to run a camera down
his sewer pipes and lateral line.
Mr. Sandstrom
responded that the City of Golden Valley initially got a lot of pushback from
the community; but in the end noted it proved a selling point for homes. If
using in-house staff time, Mr. Sandstrom advised there would be an upfront
cost to property owners for such an inspection.
Based on the
age of a home, Chair Cihacek noted that would determine the possible risk for
failure of a sanitary sewer system. Therefore, Chair Cihacek suggested
writing the ordinance to address those high risk properties as a starting
point. Chair Cihacek opined that part of the value of such an inspection
program was that the city didn?t currently have a good sense of the condition
of non-city-owned pipes.
Member Seigler
reiterated his confusion as to why any city was concerned about this or
wanted to undertake such an inspection program.
Mr. Culver
noted both points made by Chair Cihacek and Member Seigler were reasons to
implement a program such as this. Mr. Culver clarified that the overriding
benefit to the city is reduction in I & I, even though the city had been
very proactive to-date in lining its mains and reducing inflow as part of
that, even though water continued to come in through cracks in the older
sanitary sewer system.
Mr. Culver
noted that the city was currently working with the Metropolitan Council who
will be lining their trunk lines and other rehabilitation work, some going on
in Roseville; which should also prove helpful with Roseville?s inflow
issues. For clarification purposes addressing Member Seigler?s concerns, Mr.
Culver clarified that inflow involved businesses or residents illegally
connected to the city?s sanitary sewer system or other areas causing
infiltration. Mr. Culver advised that the city had some data to address some
inflow issues, but at some point the city would be penalized financially from
the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Culver advised that this was a significant
issue for the Metropolitan Council and ongoing treatment of water not needing
treatment. Mr. Culver advised that the city was addressing ?low hanging
fruit? first as a less expensive means to address I & I, including
disconnecting known illegal connections. However, as those less costly
issues are addressed, Mr. Culver noted the city would then be left with
determining the other I & I causes, including service laterals. Mr.
Culver advised that either the city would need to address issues, or the
Metropolitan Council would force it to do so and apply a surcharge to the
city to incentivize them to make corrections accordingly. Mr. Culver noted
the City of Golden Valley had chosen to be very aggressive in addressing
their I & I issues, since they had gotten to the point they were paying
higher bills if they didn?t address it. Mr. Culver stated he credited that
municipality with taking those steps; but noted not a lot of communities had
the stomach to be that aggressive.
Member Seigler
asked if this meant he would be required to foot an additional $7,000 bill
for such an inspection before he could sell his house.
Chair Cihacek
clarified that the PWETC seemed to be in agreement that the city wasn?t
interested in being overly-aggressive, and that this should remain an issue
between the buyer and seller as part of their disclosure agreements versus
the city mandating repairs, but noted this would at least make the buyer
aware of such an inspection. If there was no immediate concern, Chair
Cihacek noted there would be no actual cost to the city, but if the
inspection showed something of concern, current and future best practices
could address those situations. Chair Cihacek admitted the City of Golden
Valley was a good model in concept, but stated he didn?t think it was
necessarily appropriate for the City of Roseville.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Sandstrom confirmed that the City of St. Paul also had
surcharges too.
Mr. Culver
concurred, noting that the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul had a much
different situation than most suburbs, with many of their sanitary and storm
sewer lines running in the same pipes, requiring them to spend considerable
resources over the last few years just separating those lines. Since this
was considered the ?low hanging fruit? for those cities, Mr. Culver noted
they hadn?t gotten into the deeper costs yet, but noted they would do so.
Mr. Culver noted all metropolitan communities were subject to similar rules
and ordinances about not connecting sump pumps to the sanitary sewer system,
but many had not begun an aggressive inspection program yet.
If the City of
Roseville?s I & I was going down due to city lining efforts, Member
Seigler asked if that didn?t indicate the city was good for a while yet.
Mr. Culver
stated that was one interpretation, but clarified that the City Council
continued to be concerned over the cost of maintaining those older services.
On the flip side and beyond the I & I issue, Mr. Culver noted some
individual council members felt the ownership of those lateral services
should be different, with either the sanitary sewer service from the main to
the home or water main from the main to the home (laterals) being addressed
versus current ownership. Mr. Culver noted a vast majority of cities in
Minnesota have residents owning the laterals from the main to the home; and a
few do so from the rights-of-way to the main. While it was difficult to
define at this point, Mr. Culver opined there was some interest on the City
Council to have the city take some steps when doing other rehabilitation on
the system to also make an effort to rehabilitation a portion of the laterals
in the rights-of-way. As discussed previously and again tonight, Mr. Culver
noted the processes between lining laterals and main lines were different and
required two different contractors. Therefore, Mr. Culver noted staff had
insisted to-date that unless every service line was done at the same time, it
didn?t make sense to provide any other options on projects without majority
agreement to do so. Again, on the flip side, Mr. Culver noted other
municipalities (e.g. City of Burnsville) have a blanket program a part of
their street reconstruction projects. Mr. Culver noted there were several
options, including sewer lining projects to bring in a separate contractor to
lie the first few feet (e.g. 10?) or other options for sanitary sewer
service. Mr. Culver noted any of those options provide multiple benefits
including reduced I & I, not having private contractors digging up city
streets when a private lateral fails, and peace of mind for residents.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver advised whether the laterals were bid as an
alternate or as one entire separate project would depend on the best sequence
for that particular project area, either lining laterals first and then the
main line or vice versa. Mr. Culver noted either process would entail costs
that would need to be passed on to the public whether or not they were
interested, or if the city absorbed the cost from the sanitary sewer utility
fund, but increased sanitary sewer rates citywide to do so. Mr. Culver noted
the cost would depend on the option chosen, but estimated a potentially
annual cost per property at between $10 to $50 per year per property.
Chair Cihacek
concluded that doing the lining during reconstruction made the most sense;
and suggested staff return to the City Council to determine their threshold
and how they preferred to pay for it. If the City Council chooses to
proceed, Chair Cihacek suggested they come up with a plan to do so,
indicating whether it was worth the PWETC and staff exploring it further
depending on those cost factors. Chair Cihacek clarified that property
owners would end up paying either way, whether through taxes or utility fees.
As individual
homeowners, Mr. Culver asked the PWETC how they would feel if the city
implemented a blanket program for lining laterals, at 3? or 10? and sanitary
sewer rates were increased from $10 to $50 per year. Mr. Culver asked if
they found $50 an extreme fee.
Member Seigler
opined the price of lining would drop in the next few years; and suggested
waiting to see if prices were to plummet unless the city saw a drastic
increase in failures. Otherwise, Member Seigler suggested the city absorb
that cost unless a great amount of failures was realized.
In previous
presentations, Mr. Culver noted staff had reported the city was experiencing
more lateral line sanitary sewer failures annually, actually dozens or more
throughout the city. Mr. Culver opined those numbers would go up as the
sanitary sewer infrastructure systems continued to age, creating one of the
questions as to timing. Mr. Culver noted a sanitary sewer system failure
wasn?t a problem for residents until it happened to them personally, with
those numbers of failures continuing to rise.
Member Seigler
expressed his interest in a Service Warranty Program as previously considered;
especially if a current homeowner only intended to live in their current home
for a minimal amount of time.
Chair Cihacek
noted, by creating a cost cap, the city would essentially be implementing a
self-insurance plan. Therefore, Chair Cihacek expressed his interest in
looking at a cost cap or cost share for the cost of lining laterals, opining
that $10 over 3-4 billing periods created some pain tolerance, especially if
the annual cost was less than projected. If higher than projected, Chair
Cihacek stated he was then not interested in such a plan. However,
addressing Member Seigler?s point, Chair Cihacek opined the city was clearly
moving toward a crisis point due to the age of its infrastructure and
majority of its housing stock. While most of the city had sandy soils, Chair
Cihacek considered the number of trees in the community as well. While
unsure whether the city needed to do the option that costs the city money,
Chair Cihacek suggested the point of sale inspection may not necessarily
mandate repair by the seller, but at a minimum would provide the buyer with
truth in disclosing a potential cost going forward, and adjusting selling
prices accordingly.
At the request
of Member Heimerl, Mr. Culver stated he wasn?t aware of any other point of
sale inspections or permitting requirements by the city at this time.
Member Heimerl
questioned if this was the point the city wanted to jump into point of sale
versus lining initiatives.
Member Thurnau
noted a property owner could choose to line the laterals separately without
the city mandating it.
Mr. Culver
noted some cities did that, but other cities required the point of sale
inspection prior to transferring ownership.
If the city
chose to go down this path, Member Heimerl cautioned whether this was the
first point of sale inspection to delve into or if this was a big enough
issue that required city code changes or a new ordinance.
Chair Cihacek
noted repairs could be expensive for homeowners, potentially upwards of
$10,000, versus other issues such as requiring smoke detectors, carbon
monoxide detectors, in comparison to a home?s market value.
Member Heimerl
argued it could be considered no different than a buyer purchasing a home and
finding the central air going out shortly thereafter. Member Heimerl stated
he would not be in favor of such a mandated inspection; and suggested it was
all part of home ownership, and should not add to the cost for the city to
administer such a program and/or additional staff inspection time. Member
Heimerl stated he could not support such a point of sale inspection program.
Member Seigler
concurred with Member Heimerl.
Member Thurnau
stated he didn?t support an ordinance at this time, but suggested pursuing an
infrastructure education point at point of sale for buyers/sellers in
understanding the infrastructure of their homes.
Member Heimerl
opined this was no different than leakages or mold issues; with the city
perhaps performing outside home inspections and/or cameras sent through sewer
drains; but he was not in favor of the city going overboard on the issue that
may prove not that problematic.
Mr. Culver
clarified that he was hearing the PWETC was also not interested in the city
doing a blanket or system-wide lining of a portion of laterals.
The consensus
of the PWETC was that they were not interested as noted by Mr. Culver; with
Chair Cihacek applying the caveat that there was no interest unless it became
a huge crisis.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver stated the city lined approximately 7 miles of
pipe annually; with over 80 miles of pipe citywide not yet lined, having
addressed less than half the system to-date; with plans to line the entire
system over the next 10 to 12 years. Mr. Culver clarified this didn?t
involve the newer pipes of PVC material, and advised that staff identified
the older segments or areas of most concern, and ongoing inspections and
responses as needed.
Member Wozniak
suggested the educational efforts involve all homes in a particular area
being lined by the city for residents to be aware of what was happening and
why, including the approximate age of their laterals, what the city was doing
and why, and opportunities available for residents to consider for their
laterals to determine if there was any damage before it became an emergency
situation.
Mr. Culver
reviewed the information provided by the city toward those efforts to-date;
with Member Seigler stating the City of St. Paul incorporated such an
educational effort as suggested by Member Wozniak. Mr. Culver noted part of
that educational information included alerting residents to smoke testing and
rationale in the city doing this to find illicit connections to the sanitary
sewer system as well. Mr. Culver stated that, in general, he felt the city
could do a better job of educating residents in reconstruction areas.
When
considering offering a service to residents as part of a sewer lining
project, Member Wozniak questioned if the city had made sufficient efforts to
explain the broad picture of ownership for infrastructure, including service
life expectancy, typical age of service laterals in their area, and potential
cost liabilities if they were to experience a problem.
Mr. Sandstrom
noted city staff sent out letters to residents when televising mains if they
found areas with roots, especially if those pipes were of clay tile material
from the 1960?s and ramifications of that root issue for homeowners. If the
city is performing a pavement project at that time, Mr. Sandstrom advised
that the city offered to facilitate the homeowner?s replacement of their
laterals at that time at a significant cost savings for them when the street
would be open anyway by the city. As an example, Mr. Sandstrom noted last
spring he sent out 45 such letters and had 6 responses of interest, while
some were just seeking additional information. Mr. Sandstrom agreed the city
could include more language to provide residents with additional information and
explain that the city can only see a small portion of their laterals and not
all the way to the home with potential issues elsewhere on that route, and
recommending they seek assistance from a private contractor.
In conclusion,
it was noted that all commissioners were in agreement that more and better
education was good, including how to address problems, projected service
life, a process for who to contact; with a request for specific additional
information from the City Council on capping costs.
Chair Cihacek
reiterated his specific request from staff for a cost analysis and possible
solutions if rates were found relatively low for in-house inspections at this
point. Chair Cihacek thanked commissioners for their ideas and tonight?s
discussion.
Further, it
was noted that the consensus of the PWETC was that if the City Council
majority was concerned with ownership of laterals, whether at the
rights-of-way or elsewhere on the line, the PWETC encouraged the City Council
to provide direction on their preferences in paying for such a change in
ownership or recommendations to staff directing further evaluation by the
PWETC.
Specific to
the ordinance, Member Wozniak stated he was on the fence, as he saw the
benefits but still felt it was a strong-armed approach. Member Wozniak
stated he would favor a more transitional approach by encouraging residents
to hire the services of a home inspection agent.
Chair Cihacek
agreed the inspections provided a way to obtain the information, but noted it
was expensive, especially if taking the Golden Valley model as an example,
which he found much too aggressive to consider in Roseville. However, with
the expected life span of the city?s older lines, if the city could narrow
the cost to not create such a burden for residents, Chair Cihacek suggested
staff may want to draft language accordingly, and limit the target area and
impact. If it proved not to be a huge burden based on the requested cost
analysis, Chair Cihacek suggested the PWETC could then vote the ordinance up
or down and present their recommendation to the City Council accordingly.
Chair Cihacek opined the city had been lucky so far, but also noted that may
change. However, Chair Cihacek agreed that education at this point was the
best option; and if the choice resulted in considering inspections, that such
a program be more lenient and within the context of housing stock type and
age; but not a general ordinance that would impact all, and only those
considered at risk or with older pipes.
Mr. Culver
noted it would be a challenge to identify those high risk areas, since the
majority of the city?s sewer system was installed in the 1960?s unless homes
added after that point or of better materials.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver stated the life of clay pipe was variable,
depending on soil factors, trees nearby, and other issues determining the
longevity as long as nothing was compromising them structurally.
Under that
scenario, Chair Cihacek questioned if the ordinance language could be limited
at all; but left it up to staff. As part of the education process, Chair
Cihacek noted residents should be made aware of tree plantings and their
proximity to sewer lines, especially for those replacing trees damaged by
storms. By promoting that improved educational process, Chair Cihacek opined
it would limit the and community?s liability long-term if those risk factors
were brought up for consideration going forward.
Consensus was
that education was good; and staff was asked to return with an education and
outreach plan with specific targets or more general based on available staff
resources.
Chair Cihacek
reiterated his interest in a cost analysis based on a cap on expenses for
programs.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver clarified that the education components would
include choices for residents to make, alerting them to potential costs for
emergency infrastructure situations depending on the season, contractor
availability, and choices for a resident to be proactive in addressing
potential problem lines or accept the risk of a potential break during the
winter resulting in frozen ground and the sanitary sewer backing up into the
basement.
Chair Cihacek
noted that tonight?s conversation included education for residents on how the
infrastructure system worked, construction of pipes, vegetation variables
around those lines, inspections needing to be done by reliable vendors, what
questions to ask those vendors performing an inspection, as well as if buying
a home in Roseville what questions you should ask. Chair Cihacek again noted
the two choices for homeowners: either proactive or reactive, with the goal
being for the city to make its residents more knowledgeable in making those
choices. Overall, Chair Cihacek noted the PWETC?s preference for the city to
generate information versus applying mandates.
7. Possible
Items for Next Meeting ? October 25, 2016
- Meeting Minute Approval
(August and September)
·
Annual Utility Rate Discussion (Sewer, Water, Storm
Sewer, and Recycling) based on rate adjustments received by the city from the
St. Paul Regional Water Service and Metropolitan Council?s sewer system
rates, as well as the city?s short- and long-term capital improvement
schedule.
- Comprehensive Surface
Water Management Plan Update Meeting #2
With the
initial meeting held in August, the next meeting would involve the review of
limited public input received to-date; with the final meeting scheduled for
January of 2017 before submitting the plan update for agency review.
Discussion
included a potential field trip in November with a tour of the Public Works
Maintenance Facility as the city gears up for snow equipment and vehicle
preparation; 2017 Work Plan discussion (October); and consideration of the
Surface Water Management Plan timeline for needs and presentation in light of
the timing of the annual review of utility rates by Finance Director Chris
Miller.
At staff?s
earliest convenience, Chair Cihacek asked for an update from Environmental
Specialist Ryan Johnson on city rights-of-way and other city-owned property
mowing schedules and rationale related to mowing frequency and types of
plantings in consideration of water conservation efforts and staff and financial
resources; and a review of the Open Meeting Law as a refresher or training
for commissioners, specifically a look at the actual law itself.
8. Adjourn
Member Seigler
moved, Member Thurnau seconded, adjournment of the PWETC at approximately
8:27 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|