|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
1. Introduction
/ Call Roll
Chair Cihacek
called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30
p.m. and at his request, Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer
called the roll.
Present: Chair Brian Cihacek; Vice Chair Sarah Brodt
Lenz and Members, Joe Wozniak, Duane Seigler, John Heimerl
Absent: Members Thomas Trainor, and Kody Thurnau
Staff Present: Assistant Public Works Director Jesse
Freihammer; Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson; and Finance Director Chris
Miller
2. Public
Comments
None.
3. Approval
of September 27 and August 23, 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.
Member Wozniak
moved, Member Seigler seconded, approval of the September 27, 2016 meeting
minutes as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Line 10-11 and all subsequent references (Cihacek)
Correct Title of Luke Sandstrom from City Engineer to staff Civil
Engineer
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
Member Lenz
moved, Member Heimerl seconded, approval of the August 23, 2016 meeting
minutes as presented.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
4. Communication
Items
Assistant
Public Works Director Freihammer provided additional comments and a brief
review and update on projects and maintenance activities listed in the staff
report dated October 25, 2016.
Discussion
included projected date for presentation of the latest solar installation
update to the City Council; and preparation by the Public Works crew of snow
vehicles and personnel training on that equipment in the next few weeks.
5. Proposed
2017 Utility Rates
Finance
Director Chris Miller presented the proposed 2017 utility rates, to be
presented to the City Council in November for their consideration and
approval. Mr. Miller noted that utility funds are considered ?Enterprise
Funds? and therefore restricted to funding those respective utilities. Mr.
Miller advised that utility rates are reviewed annually and set to sustain
the operations and capital needs of each.
Finance
Director Miller outlined staff recommendations for those 2017 rates in a
memorandum dated October 15, 2016 entitled ?2017 Utility Rate Review &
Recommendation (Attachment A); and sought feedback from the PWETC.
Chair Cihacek
noted the City of Roseville differed compared to the practices of most other
communities in that its base rates for water and sewer were the only funding
source used, with no assessments to property owners to maintain that
infrastructure.
Member Lenz
clarified that meant that the city?s rates were not the same as actual costs,
with other cities having similar costs, but recovering them through different
means.
Finance
Director Miller concurred; noting that all metropolitan cities pay the same
amount to the Metropolitan Council for sanitary sewer services annually on an
equitable basis; with water usage based on the cost of purchasing wholesale
water projected by the St. Paul Regional Water System (SPRWS) for the
upcoming year. Mr. Miller noted base fees covered fixed costs while usage
fees covered variable costs. The definitions of those costs were detailed in
Mr. Miller?s operational review, as well as other determining factors
including capital replacement needs and customer counts, consumptions
patterns, and rate structures. Mr. Miller also noted the city was subject to
the rate increases applied by the Metropolitan Council and SPRWS with limited
negotiations available for the city to impact those annual percentage
changes.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Finance Director Miller reviewed the use of reserves in
each utility infrastructure fund, as isolated and segregated to ensure
transparency and for management purposes. Mr. Miller advised that some
outside restrictions applied to these cash reserves, thus their segregation
not only for the water and sewer utilities, but in other areas of government
accounting. Depending on infrastructure replacement cycles, Mr. Miller
advised those cash reserves could spike or diminish from year to year
depending on that schedule.
Finance
Director Miller reviewed each fund, responding to questions and comments of
the PWETC.
Water
Operations (Attachment A, page 2)
Chair Cihacek
pointed out an apparent error in the 2nd table (water operations)
between lines 34 ? 38 (Revenues, Interest Earnings) showing ?zero percent?
increase or decrease in 2017, when an increase is actually projected based on
anticipated increases in those interest earnings. Finance Director Miller
thanked Chair Cihacek for pointing that error out.
Sanitary
Sewer Operations (Attachment A, page 3)
Finance
Director Miller reported that the Metropolitan Council is undertaking
significant infrastructure replacement on their trunk line, running through
Roseville, and would be passing on those capital improvement costs on to
their customers. However, Mr. Miller noted this large percentage increase
should be balanced by smaller increases in water and storm sewer utility
costs for customers.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Miller advised that staff was usually able to balance
rates to present steep spikes such as in this utility fund for 2017, but
admitted this huge increase from the Metropolitan Council had caught staff by
surprise even with the continued monitoring. Mr. Miller noted that Roseville
water flows had been dropping over the years, but not to any significant
amount; and compared to other cities, Roseville was taking a bigger hit than
those other cities resulting in opposite course corrections in the past.
Over the long-term, Mr. Miller reported the rate increases realized by
Roseville from the Metropolitan Council had been much closer to inflationary
impacts; but reiterated this one stood out as an anomaly.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Finance Director Miller confirmed that the City of
Roseville was tied to using the Metropolitan Council?s services versus being
able to revert to private septic systems or other options such as building
its own wells.
Specific to
water, given economies of scale with St. Paul, Mr. Miller clarified that the
City of Roseville could not replicate that service, upon investigation
several years ago. Mr. Miller further clarified that with the contractual
relationship in place, St. Paul costs didn?t bleed over into the broader
system and other communities purchasing water from the (SPRWS) with a formula
in place and only shared equipment costs captured based on a proportionate
share, and nothing more. Mr. Miller advised that the only other costs were
other infrastructure costs shared for mains over to the Roseville booster
station, based on a formula and long-term contract and relationship. Mr.
Miller advised that the contract is reviewed and renegotiated at each
renewal; typically over a twenty-year term, with the next renewal in
approximately 6 ? 8 years. Mr. Miller advised that the only other option for
water usage would be partnering with other communities, such as Minneapolis
or others with their own well systems, since SPRWS uses recharged surface
water versus underground water from aquifers.
Member Lenz
asked how this worked for homes on the border of Roseville with adjacent
communities.
Assistant
Public Works Director Freihammer advised that the majority of those homes
(e.g. Larpenteur Avenue) were on the City of Roseville?s system and in some
cases the city may have St. Paul residents on its system and vice versa; with
billing done for those crossovers by the city they?re located in and then
adjusted between cities accordingly.
Member Wozniak
questioned why, if Roseville?s water usage and sewer flows were declining or
at least not as high as surrounding communities, yet the costs applied by the
Metropolitan Council were going up 19%.
Finance Director
Miller agreed that was correct for the last fiscal year, with flows dropping
for sewer. However, he noted the other 100 communities in the Metropolitan
Council?s system experienced even less usage and flows and therefore, since
the reverse had been true in the past with Roseville receiving the benefit of
those calculations, this round the City of Roseville was getting hit harder
for 2017.
Member Wozniak
asked if part of this was due to those other communities having a better
handle on their I & I than Roseville.
Assistant
Public Works Director Freihammer stated it could also be based on more water
use demand or growth in a community.
Chair Cihacek
asked how much I & I was inflating these numbers.
Assistant
Public Works Director Freihammer agreed that the Metropolitan Council metered
any flow going into the system and charged accordingly; and while the City of
Roseville had been on their I & I list for needed corrections and
improvements, he advised in the last correspondence this summer it had not
exceeded that threshold, even though the threshold continued to be ramped
lower. Mr. Freihammer opined that the city continued to make progress on
their I & I rates, with the annual main lining projects being
undertaken. Mr. Freihammer noted that the Metropolitan Council was also
performing their own infrastructure improvements on their main system, as
noted by Finance Director Miller, opining it would be interesting to see how
that directly impacted and hopefully reduced the City of Roseville?s flow,
since that was applied to Roseville?s calculations. However, overall, Mr.
Freihammer reiterated that the city had made significant gains in I & I
to-date.
At the request
of Member Seigler as to proportional percentages, Finance Director Miller
advised that staff always built in a cushion in rates intended to protect
utility customers; but admitted it was an imperfect science affected by
customer usage and past history. Mr. Miller advised that staff assumptions
were usually accurate, rates sometimes were purposely held off versus
increasing those rates in favor of another utility if funding for that
particular utility was falling behind another. Mr. Miller noted the healthy
cash reserves in the Sewer Fund resulted in staff intentionally recommending
that rates not increase as much in that fund. However, with the significant
investments of late for the Water Fund (e.g. infrastructure improvements and
water tower rehabilitation, and automatic read meters), Mr. Miller noted
staff had applied some science and art in the overall rate structure to keep
increases to homeowners and businesses somewhat stable, resulting in the
recommended 5% overall increase for 2017. Mr. Miller noted this would
balance some of the bigger increases and soften the blow and sequence timing
to offset each other long-term.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Finance Director Miller confirmed that the Metropolitan
Council?s fee would increase by 19% in 2017 and was based on estimated flows;
but noted staff had built in a cushion in the fund in past years to provide
some cushion for customers. Mr. Miller advised that staff uses historical
and projected data from real and estimated flows to adjust City of Roseville
rates accordingly; keeping in mind Metropolitan Council rates are always one
year behind. Mr. Miller noted that, relative to 2015, even though City of
Roseville flows have decreased, the other 100 communities collectively had
decreased their flows even more.
Member Seigler
questioned how many other companies could increase their rates by 19% and
expect to stay in business.
Finance
Director Miller advised that when viewed system-wide, the Metropolitan
Council?s rates didn?t constitute that much in the big picture.
Public Works
Director Freihammer concurred, noting that the Metropolitan Council continued
to ramp up their infrastructure asset management and replacement rates based
on the age of their infrastructure, similar to those steps being undertaken
by the City of Roseville and other older communities in the metropolitan
area. Mr. Freihammer referenced at least three of those recent improvements
within the Roseville portion of their system as throughout the entire
system. Mr. Freihammer noted just one of those projects had amounted to over
$30 million. Mr. Freihammer noted upcoming Metropolitan Council projects
affecting Roseville included Villa Park at Dale Street and County Road B;
Southwest border at County Road D next to Valley Park; and an additional
section between Old Highway 88 and Long Lake Boulevard.
Storm
Drainage Operations (Attachment A, pages 3-4)
No comments
resulted from Finance Director Miller?s summary for this utility.
Recycling
Operations (Attachment A, pages 4-5)
Finance
Director Miller advised that the new Eureka contract as proposed, but still
being negotiated, had been incorporated and rate adjustments made in response
to a 2% increase from the contractor for Roseville customers for curbside
collection and taking into consideration variables with the revenue sharing
component. At this point, Mr. Miller advised that staff assumptions on the
2017 rates anticipated no revenue share; and the proposed rate increase to
customers was recommended by staff at 16%. However, Mr. Miller noted that
the City Council may decide that 90 cent increase for 2017 may be too large
and choose to spend down reserves in the Fund. As more is learned as the
next 5 year contract is finalized, Mr. Miller noted the market share may
stabilize and improve and increase revenue sharing projections, subsequently
impacting the rates for 2018 and 2019.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Finance Director Miller confirmed that the multi-family
and single-family recycling rates were the same. Member Wozniak stated his
understanding was that the proposed costs were based on per pull versus per
unit.
Environmental
Specialist Johnson clarified that the single-family and multi-family units
were billed quarterly at a consistent rate; but that the Eureka charge to the
city was addressed on a per unit or per pull basis.
Recommended
Rates for 2017 (Attachment A, pages 5?6)
Finance
Director Miller reviewed the rates per category and fund as detailed.
Referencing
Attachment A, page 6 in the stormwater base rate category of ?Cemeteries and
Golf Course? and proposed rate comparisons between 2016 and 2017, Chair
Cihacek noted the relatively low rate structure, and sought rationale for
those historical and proposed rate.
Finance
Director Miller estimated the rationale was based on those properties being
open space without much run-off.
Chair Cihacek
opined that if the charge was based on consumption, golf courses and
cemeteries would be significant water users for irrigation purposes at
least. Therefore, Chair Cihacek asked if the city was recouping its actual
costs for that water usage compared to this rate structure.
Finance Director Miller clarified this rate category was for stormwater base
rates, not based on water consumption, suspecting the intent when established
was based on that stormwater never leaving the site, even if irrigating.
Chair Cihacek
reiterated his concern that there may be disparities for a rate structure in
that specific category with other elements that came into that cost; and
asked if those properties paid more for their higher water usage or if they
were receiving a preferential rate structure for other utility fees for this
type of use.
Assistant
Public Works Director Freihammer concurred that there typically wasn?t a lot
of runoff on these properties, with most contained on site, resulting in
lower stormwater aspects and impacts, and not much runoff to roads. Mr.
Freihammer noted their sanitary sewer usage would be based on their actual
demand, which would be minimal since typically they only had one stub to
their office building or club house, similar to other commercial uses.
Chair Cihacek
noted typical park water use was three times higher than the cemetery and
golf course category.
Finance Director Miller noted city-owned parks don?t pay for utilities and
advised that that rate structure had been designed for private parks, even
though there currently were none; but stated he suspected at one point the
City of Roseville decided to adopt its rate structure accordingly.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Finance Director Miler clarified that Midland Hills and
Cedarholm Golf Courses both pay these rates. However, Mr. Miller advised
that the city did an internal charge for water to the golf course that was
then deducted from their operating revenues. However, Mr. Miller admitted
Chair Cihacek?s question was fair for the city?s engineering staff to review
the calculations that went into that initial rate structure; with Mr.
Freihammer opining the initial analysis was based on runoff calculations.
Chair Cihacek
opined that he found the rates too low compared to the water usage or what
was known about the runoff; especially given the high fertilizer usage on
this type of property that obviously ended up running off into the citywide
stormwater system.
Assistant
Public Works Director Freihammer duly noted that input.
Member Lenz
noted that the single-family residential and duplex stormwater base rate for
2017 was recommended at $12.95, no matter how big or small the residence.
Member Lenz expressed concern that this didn?t take into account those
customers attempting to manage their stormwater runoff through any number of
best practice management projects (BMP) or through conscientious care to
address that runoff.
Environmental
Specialist Ryan Johnson noted credits could be applied for if a resident
certified their rain garden or other BMP and memorialized reductions in their
runoff percentages accordingly.
Member Lenz
asked if this is widely known; and how residents found out about this credit
program.
Environmental Specialist Johnson noted that the city continued to see new
applications for BMP?s annually, while there weren?t a significant number
happening, reporting he?d only seen one application this year to-date. Mr.
Johnson advised that typically residents install them resulting in a decrease
of 25% to 75% depending on their location on the property. Mr. Johnson
advised that credits are available in any one of the three watershed
districts within the City of Roseville; with grants available for those BMP?s
that qualify to help residents achieve their long-term payback on the
project.
Member Lenz
opined that this should be very appealing to those residents seeking to care
for the environment, especially when you could receive credit for taking the
initiative to do a BMP.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Environmental Specialist Johnson advised that business and
industrial categories were also eligible for BMP credits; and reported three
industrial sites to-date with approved credits, but no businesses up to this
point. Mr. Johnson noted different credit bases depending on the runoff
volume captured and type of use. Mr. Johnson noted it was considerably more
expensive to do BMP?s on industrial sites due to their nature of larger sites
and higher impervious surfaces; but also providing greater benefits and
credits for them and the broader community?s stormwater system and ultimately
area water bodies and water quality concerns.
Water Usage
History and Rate Comparisons (Attachment A, pages 6-11)
Finance
Director Miller concluded with some historic information on usages for
average single-family homes in Roseville, citywide consumption histories and
changes in consumer behavior over the years. Mr. Miller noted the current
water rate structure provided some incentives to encourage water use
reductions, while higher rates for users found to have excessive usage. Mr.
Miller also provided comparison rates with Roseville and peer communities.
If individual
PWETC members had additional questions or feedback, Finance Director Miller
encouraged them to email them to Assistant Public Works Director Freihammer
to forward to the Finance Department for his response.
6. Eureka
Recycling 2016 Update
Given last
night?s City Council direction to city staff to continue negotiations with
Eureka based on their concerns with the proposed floor price and revenue
sharing with the new contract, Environmental Specialist Johnson reported that
the scheduled annual report and next year plan from Eureka originally
scheduled for tonight?s meeting had been postponed.
Based on City
Council concerns raised at their meeting last night, Environmental Specialist
Johnson reviewed historical revenue sharing revenue for the city and
reductions from revenue in 2014 of $62,000 to approximately $1,000 in 2015.
While 2016 is showing a potential uptick after April, estimated at $7,000 at
this point, Mr. Johnson noted the variables seen in that commodity market.
Mr. Johnson reviewed existing revenue share provisions in the current
three-year contract, expiring the end of 2016, and the proposed plan and
floor price provisions in the proposed five-year contract starting in January
of 2017. Mr. Johnson addressed current and anticipated markets and risks for
the city and Eureka based on contract language and ongoing negotiations. Mr.
Johnson noted the City Council?s concerns requesting continued negotiations
to lower the city?s risk while recognizing the impacts for Eureka. For those
interested in more detail, Mr. Johnson referred the PWETC to the city website
to view last night?s City Council meeting for that particular discussion.
Member Lenz
asked how many more negotiations could be accomplished before the need arose
to reissue a new Request for Proposals (RFP).
Environmental
Specialist Johnson opined those negotiations could remain significant, with
the city having until December 31, 2016 before the current contract expires;
and since Eureka owns the existing carts, it wouldn?t prove too problematic
if negotiations weren?t concluded by then, with an extension possible, even
though Eureka would basically have the city at their mercy as to what they
could charge for their services at that point. Mr. Johnson expressed
assurance with the long-term good working relationship with Eureka; and
anticipated a favorable and timely resolution.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Environmental Specialist Johnson confirmed that for 2017
budget purposes, no revenue share had been projected; with the intent going
forward to use actual revenue share from the prior year to set customer rates
for the following year rather than the current use of projected revenue share
in setting those rates. Mr. Ryan noted with the new formula, City Council
concerns are if there were no floor structure in the contract, the city may
have to pay Eureka, creating a risk for the city if and when commodities
markets drop. For instance, in 2015, under current contract language, Eureka
had to absorb a loss of $34,000 when the market dropped; and if under the
proposed contract, the city would have shared or absorbed the loss and been
required to pay Eureka $22,000 instead.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Environmental Specialist Johnson reviewed the reserves
currently available in the Recycling Fund, and efforts to keep the Fund
sustainable rather than continuing to dip into it to make a contract work.
Mr. Johnson advised that the intent was instead to have a contract and
agreement in place to reduce city risk as much as possible, ideally by
building up the reserves more to improve on the community?s recycling efforts
and options (e.g. park recycling).
Chair Cihacek
noted the vendor risk based on uncontrollable markets, especially based on
glass recyclables making up such a significant portion of materials collected
in Roseville.
Environmental
Specialist Johnson agreed that glass represented 21% of the city?s
recyclables right now; and if the city shifted its revenue share risk to
Eureka, it would also increase or impact the city?s processing cost or per
unit cost, since Eureka couldn?t realistically continue taking an annual hit
of $30,000 or more as a non-profit intended to grow and expand with their
plans for capital improvements and zero waste lab. Mr. Johnson noted Eureka
had risk concerns similar to the city.
Discussion
ensued related to the international commodity market due to no domestic
market for most recyclables; assurances that a contractor recycled all
materials collected curbside versus past issues with contractors landfilling
those items collected; intended presentation by Eureka at an upcoming PWETC
meeting to provide their year-end report once negotiations were completed at
the City Council level; and positives of Roseville continuing to work with
Eureka to retain its high participation rate and outreach and educational
efforts by Eureka with residents to-date evidenced by increased tonnage over
the last year, even with instituting single sort and retaining less than 2%
residuals.
In conclusion,
Environmental Specialist Johnson reviewed intentions for the pilot program
for park recycling under the new contract; possible changes in the price for
parking lot and building walk-up recovery; and work with the Parks &
Recreation Department staff and advisory commission, along with the PWETC and
Public Works Department staff. Mr. Johnson addressed the concerns with
pick-up on pathways based on their type and location. Mr. Johnson advised
that the initial focus would be on Central Park as the most used park and
providing good access, with Eureka providing an analysis of materials
collected, apparent interest of park users, and the amount of contamination
occurring, a driving force for Eureka and the city for future park sites and
costs.
7. Comprehensive
Surface Water Management Plan Update
Assistant
Public Works Director re-introduced Ms. Rebecca Nestingen, with SEH, for the
next discussion with the PWETC on Sections 4 and 5 of the current
Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan and updates for the next iteration.
Ms. Nestingen provided an outline of tonight?s discussion (Attachment A) of
the goals and policies, along with current potential issues going forward in
this cycle of the ten-year update to the current Plan.
Ms. Nestingen
offered the PWETC preliminary results of public input to-date based on an
electronic resident survey (still functioning) and discussion topic on the
?Speak Up! Roseville? website (5 responses). Ms. Nestingen reviewed the top
priorities and areas of greatest impact or threat to water resources
addressed and ranked by the public to-date. Ms. Nestingen encouraged
individual PWETC members to participate in the electronic survey.
Discussion
included how the minimal responses compared to other communities and their
rankings (similar to Burnsville rankings and trending there based on 80
responses); invalidity of the survey at this point given the few responses
received; how to promote the survey to receive additional participation; and
other electronic options to push involvement and public feedback.
Assistant
Public Works Director Freihammer advised that his staff would work with the
Communication Department to emphasize and promote the electronic survey.
Chair Cihacek
opined that given the number of households in Roseville, the survey results
to-date were insufficient to indicate any accurate trends.
Member Lenz
encouraged Ms. Nestingen and city staff to rethink community outreach,
utilizing all current technology to increase that participation.
Specific to
water quality issues displayed by Ms. Nestingen, Member Wozniak asked if
there was data and measurements available from other agencies (e.g.
Department of Natural Resources, Ramsey County Public Works, etc.) that would
provide additional data but had already been published. Member Wozniak
opined that data would help inform the city?s plan, and be helpful for
residents if accurately reflecting the Roseville water quality picture.
Ms. Nestingen
responded that such data wasn?t in the current plan, but could be added to
the plan update.
As suggested
by Member Heimerl, Chair Cihacek agreed that providing comparison survey
analysis with other area communities (e.g. Cities of Shoreview, Arden Hills
and New Brighton) could provide and supplement the City of Roseville survey
for an apples to apples comparison and provide higher niche data allowing for
better judgment overall.
Assistant
Public Works Director Freihammer noted city staff would also be doing this
process with the City of Falcon Heights, even though it had no water bodies
within their jurisdiction, similar questions could be reflective of their
community as well. Mr. Freihammer stated staff and Ms. Freihammer would
accept as many results as were forthcoming.
Member Lenz
contributed the lack of survey responses to a communication problem, with the
PWETC not even aware of the survey available online.
Environmental
Specialist Johnson committed to also talk to the city?s Communications
Department seeking a more robust promotion plan.
Member Wozniak
suggested having Public Works Department crews, normally out and about within
the community, promote the survey to the public as well, especially since
they were often on the front line as issues came up.
Chair Cihacek
suggested a subset of data for city staff, City Council, other advisory
commissions, and PWETC survey responses that would complement the public data
to determine shared patterns.
Ms. Nestingen
continued her presentation as she reviewed each Goal as outlined in
Attachment A, seeking PWETC feedback on the current plan and any updates or
changes they?d like for those current seven goals.
Goal 1 -
Flood Protection and Runoff Management
Discussion on
this goal included whether or not these goals, last updated and/or
established in 2013, were still adequate; recognizing the city had done made
considerable improvements over the last few years, and what additional monies
and projects are under consideration in the next ten-year cycle; and city
goals versus using this plan as a steering document for the next ten years.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson clarified that a number of the items identified
in sections of the plan were by reference either statutory or incorporated
from other agencies (e.g. DNR or watershed districts), basically serving as
an overlay stormwater district to meet their requirements and any applicable
criteria to do so; with the city using those references to build its own
ordinance.
Ms. Nestingen
noted that the city?s ordinance could be more restrictive versus a standard
boiler plate (e.g. elevation changes and high water levels of a water body)
beyond meeting the minimum DNR suggestions (e.g. ?free-boarding? minimums at
1? versus other communities choosing to be more restrictive at 2?). Mr.
Johnson further noted that the city?s current minimum is 2? while the Capitol
Region Watershed District?s minimum is 3?.
Member Lenz
noted a number of these things are incomprehensible to the average,
single-family homeowners; and suggested something be added to define city
goals, applicable policies, and how those affect the average resident without
so much technical jargon. For instance, with the popularity and value of
rain gardens or other stormwater management options, Member Lenz suggested
making the goals more interesting and personal; and alerting residents to
city assistance and rationale for them helping the city achieve those goals
for their broader benefit.
Mr. Johnson
duly noted that suggestion.
Addressing
looking ahead (e.g. parking lots), Mr. Freihammer noted triggers when
additional impervious surfaces are being considered (e.g. reconstructing
parking lots) and information proposed at next month?s PWETC meeting to
discuss those triggers, and research from other cities and watershed
districts as to how to identify that threshold or interpret further
restrictions or requirements to mitigate larger parking surfaces.
Further
discussion included probability projections for 100 year rainfall events and
shifts from previous precipitation data as more intense rainfalls are
realized; and flexibility of this plan update to reference and incorporate
those higher volumes during that time period; identifying data now being used
versus past use of ?Atlas 14? data; and whether certain areas of the city
needed more strict requirements for flood areas versus those allowed more
leniency where no or little flooding was experienced.
Additional
discussion included newly-constructed stormwater retention ponds and
city-required emergency overflow spillways or larger retention ponds in those
areas already recognized as being more susceptible based on historical
flooding and current/relevant climate data (changes to #4, 5 and 6
accordingly).
Mr. Johnson
clarified that, in part of the plan, areas considered ?flood prone? were
identified and language changed to add more protection for those areas, not
specific goals, but just added language within the flood portion of the plan
and corresponding maps giving more leeway for flood zones instead of using
normal standards based on lower probabilities.
Member Wozniak
noted #7 related to minimizing impervious surface, and recent City Council
approval for a residential stormwater fee for purchasing credits to allow
more impervious surface areas.
Mr. Freihammer
clarified that the intent of the fee was in lieu of mitigating efforts on
site that were not feasible; and noted this did not encourage impervious
coverage, but required sequencing and mitigate on-site if at all possible;
and only allowed if no stormwater structure was available to tie into or
contaminated soils that may be tapped into would cause more harm.
Goal 2 -
Surface Water Protection
Discussion
included the City Council?s adoption of a lower threshold (4,000 versus
10,000 square feet); goals for water quality as addressed by flood
protection, encouragement for rain gardens and other BMP options; identifying
the purpose of a rain gardens and underground BMP?s for larger areas: all
goals to reflect a broad spectrum of goals and policies for the city.
Chair Cihacek
asked where actual code enforcement for wetland areas and zoning regulations
would be addressed in the plan language for city enforcement for wetland use.
Member Seigler
noted #3 and 4 as well and the need to link them to city code or ordinance.
Mr. Freihammer
and Ms. Nestingen duly noted that suggestion for a direct reference as
applicable; even though most ordinances were included in the appendix to the
plan.
If not already
addressed, Chair Cihacek suggested the addition of Strategy #6 to enforce it
as a mechanism for increased code enforcement as it related to wetlands and
any new structures in those areas.
Mr. Freihammer
noted old things were grandfathered in, but the goal could ensure that new
changes were adequately captured and addressed.
Chair Cihacek
opined that many problems result from those properties grandfathered in; and
suggested that they be identified and specifically located; and if a uniform
ordinance addressed everything or various ordinances here and in other areas,
or if it consisted of a series of regulations, and how that was addressed.
Chair Cihacek further opined that the current inventory and categories,
especially those grandfathered properties, needed to be re-evaluated to
ensure uniform enforcement.
At the request
of the PWETC, Ms. Nestingen advised that the plan update would include an
acronym section to make it more user-friendly.
Goal 3 ?
Groundwater Protection
At the request
of Member Heimerl, Mr. Johnson addressed groundwater elevation versus the
quality of groundwater in aquifers and wellhead protection areas; a few
remaining abandoned wells in NE Roseville and needing monitoring and wellhead
protection consideration, especially those not yet capped.
If only those
two specific situations are being monitored, Chair Cihacek asked how Item #1
in this goal is even relevant.
Ms. Nestingen
responded that the reference in #1 was intended to determine infiltration
practices and which BMP?s would be appropriate in a certain areas. Ms.
Nestingen advised that cities generally regulate to avoid infiltration
practices in wellhead protection areas if considered vulnerable, or there was
a potential for contaminating source water for drinking wells. However, Ms.
Nestingen noted this wasn?t applicable to the majority of Roseville.
Chair Cihacek
sought clarification as to whether it needed to be addressed as a bullet
point or elsewhere since it wasn?t applicable to most of Roseville.
Given the
wellhead protection area, Member Wozniak opined it should remain.
Mr. Freihammer
noted there was always the potential that this could change, if an adjacent
community changed its area and drilled a well, it could potentially affect a
larger area.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Freihammer reported the city was aware of twenty
residences still hooked to private wells or private wells still in use and
not connected to city water. Member Wozniak also asked if by the city
tracking that data, if it played into this goal at all.
Mr. Johnson
advised that the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and other agencies had
data on abandoned wells on properties; and if they were still open and active
(e.g. not sealed) and their direct connection to the aquifer. Acknowledging
that there were twenty known active wells yet in Roseville, Mr. Johnson noted
there may be hundreds across the city that had been abandoned but not sealed.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Johnson advised that the data could be researched
through the MDH and Soil & Water district. Member Wozniak opined the
city should quantify active and inactive/not sealed wells to protect the
groundwater as a resource. As an example, Member Wozniak referenced a
property across the street from the City Hall campus currently under
discussion as a potential development expansion that may be one of those
sites needing a well abandoned.
This
suggestion was duly by Mr. Johnson.
Goal 4 ?
Public Education and Outreach
Chair Cihacek
noted the need to remember to have hard copies available for residents for
their access to education and public outreach, not just online options (e.g.
stormwater pollution prevention plan).
In Item #4,
the PWETC asked that all public comment be sought, including from the City
Council and across city advisory commissions.
Member Wozniak
suggested the education and outreach include ?information boards? such as at
the aerator on Bennett Lake to explain to the public what was happening and
why, and tie it into the city?s overall stormwater management plan; providing
opportunities to increase the involvement of the public in the overall
picture.
Chair Cihacek
noted Item #7, modeling interpretative sites; with Member Lenz suggesting
such an interpretative site could be the boardwalk at the Harriet Alexander
Nature Center (HANC) to educate people on the value of having swamps.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Freihammer clarified the intent in using the term
?city,? to mean the city as a whole, the City Council and staff inclusive.
Member Lenz
suggested adding ?members of the general public? to that to appeal to
involving the entire community in these efforts; indicating that everyone is
responsible for the outcome.
Goal 5 ?
Pollution Prevention and Maintenance
Ms. Nestingen
reported that this goal was wide-ranging, and tied into the city?s MS4 and
NDPES permit.
Member Wozniak
suggested modifying Item #1 to include Ramsey County Organics Collection
sites; and further suggested including pet waste clean-up.
Mr. Freihammer
noted these were all part of the specific mandated requirements in the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Member Wozniak
asked if there was anything addressing yard waste going into the stormwater
system.
Mr. Johnson
responded that it was addressed in the city?s nuisance code and Illicit
Discharge Ordinance. Mr. Johnson reported that the Public Works crew
provided educational notices based on their observations when out and about,
and used door hangers to help with those educational efforts. At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Johnson noted this was referenced in Item #3 of this
goal. While not previously aware that the city addressed this, Member
Wozniak opined that was a good thing.
Ms. Nestingen
suggested elaborating on that in the plan update under educational
information, duly noted by Mr. Johnson.
Goal #6 ?
Coordination and Collaboration
Mr. Johnson
advised that this was intentionally broad; and noted city staff worked
closely with the state, watershed districts, and soil & water
conservation districts; along with other agencies as applicable.
Member Lenz
suggested Item #5 include language such as ??but not limited to?? to reference
other agencies that may or may not be in existence at this time or change
from time to time.
Goal #7 -
Sustainability
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Freihammer clarified that Item #2 referred more to city
infrastructure construction versus private development; with Chair Cihacek
suggesting this be made clearer.
At the request
of Member Seigler as to what Item #3 intended, Mr. Freihammer clarified this
referred to directionally boring instead of digging up an entire road to
avoid runoff exposure and erosion as applicable. At the request of Member
Seigler, Mr. Freihammer further confirmed that most of this page generally
dealt with city activities.
Member Heimerl
asked if the latest guide for the Metropolitan Council provided any updates
relevant to this plan update.
Mr. Johnson
advised that several guides were referenced specific to stormwater issues;
with Mr. Freihammer suggesting the plan update reference the ?latest version?
rather than specifically dated updates or guides, allowing the plan to be
updated by reference as applicable.
Member Wozniak
noted the desire to install remote readers on city facility water meters,
with Mr. Freihammer suggesting this goal would be the area to do that to
address the city monitoring its water usage.
Other Goals
Ms. Nestingen
sought additional feedback from the PWETC on other potential goals not
addressed in these seven. Ms. Nestingen noted that sustainability was the
hot button topic with the last update process; while now it was ?resiliency
and planning for future climate change.?
Member Wozniak
noted he was also thinking about that and public health circles and changes
coming about as a result; and suggested addressing those or being prepared
for them as this plan moves forward. While it related somewhat to
sustainability, Member Wozniak questioned if it warranted its own separate
goal.
Chair Cihacek
opined that it already existed in each of these seven goals, and was made
clearer in Goal 3. Therefore, Chair Cihacek suggested that those elements either
be pulled out of the previous seven goals and made a separate goal, or
referenced as part of each goal already addressed. However, Chair Cihacek
noted the missing piece was how resiliency analysis or planning was Roseville
specific. As a next step for staff, Chair Cihacek suggested pinpointing
specific steps in the existing plan based on those trends, or state if
they?re already covered in goals and gauge them accordingly.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Ms. Nestingen noted rainfall estimates, based on the 2014
publication, while not addressing specific goals but alluding to them, had
resulted in design standards being updated accordingly.
Member Wozniak
opined he would like to know more about resiliency discussions that had been
put forth and climate change items to add as a separate goal or specifically
referenced in the sustainability goal at a minimum.
Current and
Potential Issues
Ms. Nestingen
noted broad issues in the current 2013 Plan Issues Assessment.
Mr. Freihammer
noted city staff would also provide updated issues from their perspective:
some old or ongoing from the previous plan, and some new for this plan.
Mr. Johnson
concurred, noting the assessment section would have more information or call
outs, with some growing or multiplying from the current plan; and as one
issue was taken care of, the next target to be considered downstream.
·
Localized flooding issues
·
Water quality impairments
·
Operations and maintenance
·
Education, outreach and collaboration
·
Others?
Chair Cihacek
noted the request for a ?Resiliency Goal? in the plan update.
Proposed
Schedule
Ms. Nestingen
reviewed the proposed schedule for the plan update, working toward completion
of an initial draft by early January, prior to the scheduled meeting #3 of
SEH with the PWETC on February 28, 2017. Ms. Nestingen noted that the intent
would then be to incorporate the PWETC input into the next draft and submit
it to the Metropolitan Council and three area watershed districts for their
45 ? 90 day review periods; anticipating their agency approvals by April of
2017. Ms. Nestingen advised that any revisions from those agencies would
then be incorporated and presented to the City Council for their review and
subsequent adoption in May of 2017.
General
Discussion
Discussion
included the ramifications if the city did not complete the update, as part
of the comprehensive plan update, essentially tied to future funding
opportunities.
Chair Cihacek
asked staff and Ms. Nestingen for the next iteration of the document at their
earliest convenience, and well before meeting #3 to allow the PWETC to have
an opportunity for review prior to then and hopefully submit any comments to
staff for their response prior to doing so during meeting time, especially
given the large (approximately 60 pages) and technical nature of the
document.
Mr. Johnson
noted the link for the current plan and advised that the updated plan would
be similar in content, with updated goals and policies. To save time, Mr.
Johnson encouraged the PWETC to review that document in more detail to alert
them to any potential areas of conflict or creating obvious content issues
for discussion prior to the next meeting.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Chair Cihacek noted estimated the costs for implementing
the goals and policies were included in the plan itself. However, Member
Seigler asked that the specific cost for the city be incorporated.
Ms. Nestingen
clarified that that those costs were identified in the Implementation Plan
Table 15 (current plan) as the approach in the last update.
Member Seigler
further asked that the amounts be included in an additional column for each
goal or policy; not just referenced with a key at the bottom of the table.
Chair Cihacek
noted those would need to be estimates or a cost range at this point, and not
too specific.
Member Seigler
stated his intent was to provide an overall estimate for the plan?s goals and
policies as part of the plan update.
Mr. Freihammer
advised that staff would consider options of how best to address that,
perhaps by using a high/low estimate for each item.
Member Seigler
suggested ranking them by the best return for the least amount of money, or
best return on investment possible.
Ms. Nestingen
encouraged the PWETC to provide additional feedback to staff upon their
closer inspection of the plan and goals.
Mr. Freihammer
encouraged individual PWETC members to take the survey.
Mr. Johnson
stated he would send a link for the plan, Ms. Nestingen?s contact
information, and a link to the survey itself.
8. Possible
Items for Next Meeting ? November 22, 2016
As provided in
the staff report for this item, Assistant Public Works Director Freihammer
briefly summarized proposed agenda items. Additional items suggested
included a joint meeting with the Planning and Parks & Recreation
Commissions to discuss pathways and parks from each advisory commission?s
perspective (Cihacek); a tour of the Public Works Building (Wozniak); and a
solar update as part of the communications materials based on upcoming City
Council discussions.
Recognizing
there was no December 2016 meeting scheduled due to the holidays, Member Lenz
suggested moving the November 2016 PWETC meeting to the fifth Tuesday to
avoid the Thanksgiving holiday week.
Member Lenz
moved, Member Wozniak seconded, changing the November 2016 PWETC meeting to
November 29, 2016, contingent upon room availability, and with due notice to
the public as per standard notice practices.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
9. Adjourn
Member Wozniak
moved, Member Heimerl seconded, adjournment of the PWETC at approximately
8:48 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|