|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:30 p.m.
1. Introduction
/ Roll Call
Acting Chair
Cihacek called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30
p.m. and at his request, Public Works Director Marc Culver called the roll.
Present: Acting Chair Brian Cihacek; and Members Thomas
Trainor, Joe Wozniak, John Heimerl, and newly-appointed Commissioner Nancy
Misra; with Member Seigler arriving at approximately 6:38
p.m.
Absent: Member Kody Thurnau
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver;
Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer; and Environmental
Specialist Ryan Johnson
Acting Chair
Cihacek reminded those commissioners who were unable to attend the recent
annual Ethics Training that they had been individually emailed the meeting
for their viewing.
Member Wozniak
also noted financial disclosure forms had been provided to commissioners for
their return to City Hall as soon as possible.
2. Swearing
in of New Commissioner / Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Acting Chair
Cihacek administered the Oath of Office to newly-appointed PWETC member Nancy
Misra and, along with his colleagues, welcomed Commissioner Misra to the
PWETC.
Election
of Officers
Motion
Member
Trainor moved, and Member Wozniak seconded, TABLING of election of officers
until after Communications items to allow time for remaining PWETC members to
arrive at tonight’s meeting.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried
3. Public
Comments
4. Approval
of March 28, 2017 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.
Motion
Trainor
moved, Member Heimerl seconded, approval of the March
28, 2017 meeting minutes as presented.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
5. Communication
Items
Public Works
Director Culver and Assistant Public Works Director Freihammer provided
additional comments and a brief review and update on projects, maintenance
activities, and City Council actions listed in the staff report dated April
25, 2017.
Member Seigler arrived at this
time, approximately 6:38 p.m.
Discussion
included communication efforts by the city to make the community aware of the
upcoming annual citywide clean-up day; report by staff of over eighty
residents signing up in the 2017 Pavement Management Plan (PMP) project area
for the option to replace their sanitary sewer lines at the same time, with
staff also clarifying that this involved the private line from the main to
the wye connection in the roadway impact zone and immediately outside the
curb line, but did not include replacement all the way to the home; and staff
further clarifying that if property owners expressed interest in televising
their private line further than that provided by the city’s contractor, they
were informed by staff of the process to hire a contractor independently for
televising that portion of the line.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver clarified that while the PWETC had recently
discussed the possibility of recommending to the City Council such a service
for televising private lines, beyond educating residents to be aware of the
age, condition and materials in their private water and sewer lines, the city
used caution in any semblance of endorsing a particular contractor. When
asked, Mr. Culver advised that the city provided a list of responsible
contractors offering service line televising. Mr. Culver suggested adding
additional verbiage to property owner notices in areas affected by 2018 work
projects as applicable.
Mr. Freihammer
noted that staff had talked to most people receiving notices of 2017 PMP work
in their neighborhoods, and provided information based on age of service and
other outstanding issues each property may have experienced. At the further
request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Freihammer advised that of the approximate
seven miles of resurfacing planned for the 2017 PMP work, the 80-90 residents
expressing interest was only a small proportion of the many residents
involved in the project areas.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Freihammer reviewed the process for staff and the
contractors to minimize interruptions, as well as coordinating private
utility work done prior to the city’s project being mobilized (e.g. Xcel
Energy). Mr. Freihammer estimated that the majority of the private utility
work will be completed in June in the PMP areas, and then those private
utilities would move on to other work in the community needing general
upgrades and replacements for the remainder of the construction season and as
weather allows.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver reiterated that there was no new news on
pavement delamination on city roadways. Even though reviewed annually, and
preferring annual seal coating to resume, Mr. Culver advised that Roseville,
as well as other communities experiencing the same problem, continued to
research and observe various materials and their wear as part of that study.
At the request
of Member Trainor, Mr. Freihammer confirmed that a late Friday afternoon
watermain break had occurred last week on County Road C east of Victoria
Street. Since the location was adjacent to a stormwater and of considerable
depth, Mr. Freihammer reported that the repair too longer than usual. Mr.
Freihammer noted that this was indicative of the city’s aging infrastructure;
with this particular break occurring with almost sixty-year old cast iron
pipe. Mr. Freihammer advised that staff would continue to prioritize the
city’s water main system, based on breakage history, material type, age, and
other risk factors (e.g. size and depth of pipe or other area conflicts).
Mr. Freihammer stated that the city hoped to be in a position in the near
future to be more proactive similar to the rehabilitation method used for
sanitary sewer lining.
Mr. Culver
reported on last night’s City Council actions of interest to the PWETC; with
approval of the booster station design work of high priority to the Public
Works Department over the next year; renewal of nine Park & Ride
facilities as Interim Uses for the Minnesota State Fair for a term of five
years, with additional conditions added to mitigate some of the parking and
nuisance issues in those neighborhoods having those facilities; and consent
agenda approval of Ramsey County’s household hazardous waste disposal site.
Mr. Culver
reported that there was interest among city residents for goats and potbelly
pigs in Roseville, currently being researched by the Community Development
Department and subject to City Council direction in the near future for a
potential ordinance.
At the request
of Member Heimerl, Mr. Culver confirmed that city staff worked cooperatively
with Ramsey County and MnDOT project development/management teams for annual
road projects attempting to accomplish work during the same timeframe to
accommodate traffic flow and not to interfere with area local and regional
events and activities. Mr. Culver reported that each agency was getting
better in being aware of and coordinating with other agency systems.
Election
of Officers
Motion
Member
Wozniak moved nomination of Member Cihacek, and Member Heimerl seconded,
appointment of Member Cihacek to continue serving as Chair of the PWETC for
the term of one year.
Member Cihacek
accepted the appointment and nominations ceased.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
Motion
Member
Seigler moved nomination of Member Wozniak, and Member Trainor seconded
appointment of Member Wozniak to serve as Vice Chair of the PWETC for the
term of one year.
Member Wozniak
accepted the appointment and nominations ceased.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
6. Organics
Recycling Location in Roseville
Mr. Culver
reported that, in anticipation of this agenda item, the city’s communications
staff had sent out a posting on NextDoor.com and had received immediate
responses in support of organic recycling in Roseville. Mr. Culver
introduced John Springman with Ramsey County Environmental Health for a
presentation on Source Separated Organics (SSO); the background of Ramsey
County’s efforts and desired goals for this recycling opportunity.
John
Springman, Ramsey County Environmental Health
Mr.
Springman’s presentation included the request and approval by the Ramsey
County Board of Commissioners in 2013 to add SSO collections to all seven
yard waste sites during regular site hours; to expand winter hours (December
through March) and to include weekends at all sites. With any of those sites
currently available to Ramsey County residents, and estimated participation
of 1,200, Mr. Springman reported that the next goal is to expand services to
local community event coordinators (e.g. zero waste events.
At this time,
Mr. Springman advised that the county’s recycling contractor provided BPI
certified compostable bags in two different sizes for residents’ use. Mr.
Springman reviewed other acceptable compost bags, with all collected and
managed separately from leaves and grass at compost sites by placing them in
designated containers at each site and then hauled to a commercial SSO
composting collection site.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Springman estimated the annual budget for this Ramsey
County service to residents was approximately $42,000, less than the original
budget estimate of $50,000. With yard waste efficiencies, and hauling bid
costs currently also down, Mr. Springman advised that those cost savings
could carry over into organics allowing room for expansion. Mr. Springman
reported that he largest cost of the program were obviously in providing bags
and hauling. Upon recent switching of vendors, Mr. Springman reported that
the county had seen an approximate $30,000 reduction for yard waste costs,
now handled by their vendor, Waste Management, at all fifty-four Ramsey
County sites; with the firm interested in remaining the county’s contractor,
thus offering a very low rate. Mr. Springman reported that Waste Management
had added organics collection in April of 2017 with the material hauled to
the Specialized Environmental Technologies (SET) composting facility in
Rosemount. Mr. Springman advised that the Waste Management contract expired
at the end of 2018, with an option to renew to year-end 2020.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Springman confirmed that the county buys organic
compost bags off the State of Minnesota contract and had done so since 2014.
After the
initial roll-out in 2014, Mr. Springman reported on additional options for the
program, including seeking the County Commissioners’ approval to add an
additional six locations. Mr. Springman reported that elements of
consideration for each location included collaboration with partner
organizations (e.g. municipalities in Ramsey County); Ramsey County’s seeking
and obtaining necessary permits at their expense; the county’s provision of
up to $5,000 toward construction costs; with the county also providing
signage, collection containers and hauling services. Mr. Springman advised that
Ramsey County would provide compostable bags and promote the service with any
and all collection sites available to any resident in Ramsey County. Mr.
Springman advised that the county had toolkits available for city use in
their communication sources as well to promote the service.
As far as
collection site criteria, Mr. Springman noted that the preference was for
siting them on publicly-owned land; their location in under-served areas of
the county; easy/visable access to the site; secure sites with the ability to
accommodate traffic and parking, preferably on a hard surface; and screening
of the site.
Mr. Springman
displayed examples of enclosures, signage, large and small organic collection
bags, and educational materials used to promote the sites and to inform what
was and was not accepted for organic composting. Mr. Springman also reviewed
the county’s efforts and sources to communicate the services; kitchen
caddies, starter kits and loyalty cards. Mr. Springman advised that caddies
and starter packets were handed out at yard waste sites along with tips to
start composting organics; and supplemental bags available at those sites
when dropping off full collection bags. Mr. Springman suggested having them
available at City Hall for additional convenience for residents as well as at
the collection sites.
Mr. Springman
referenced a sample service agreement for hosting cities, with a City of
Maplewood agreement provided to staff outlining city/county responsibilities
and a point person for each agency identified in the agreement.
Mr. Culver
reported that city staff had been brainstorming with Mr. Springman on
potential sites in Roseville. Mr. Culver advised that the City Hall parking
lot was already overtaxed and therefore not a viable site; and further
advised that several park locations and adjacent parking lots were discussed
to determine what made the most sense initially and could prove to be a
smaller investment than the leaf collection site.
Chair Cihacek
asked Mr. Johnson to share some of the specifics of potential sites in
Roseville that could serve as an organics drop-off site, including the leaf
collection site at County Road C and Dale Street and open space within that
site. Mr. Johnson reviewed some of the considerations in determining a site,
including potential traffic with any resident of Ramsey County and other
municipalities able to use a Roseville site. Mr. Johnson advised that the
proposed collection site would consist of a concrete slab with two dumpsters
inside the gate adjacent to the compost site with sizing and adequate service
worked out with Ramsey County. With city maintenance having reviewed the
site, they found no problems, and Mr. Johnson reported that Waste Management had
also reviewed and approved the site for access by their trucks. With a gate
in place, Mr. Johnson noted that the site could be kept open for 24/7 access;
and since it is already a hidden site, staff didn’t feel any additional
enclosures and related expenses would be needed beyond the existing concrete
wall.
From the
Public Works staff’s perspective, Mr. Johnson reviewed the pros and cons of a
Roseville organic collection site, with no significant impact identified.
Mr. Johnson advised that staff considered having collection bags available at
City Hall the best option versus having city staff monitor the leaf
collection site for an ample bag supply, with Ramsey County staff monitoring
bag supplies in conjunction with weekly pick-up service. Mr. Johnson advised
that Public Works and Ramsey County staff would work with the city’s
communications department for education and outreach to Roseville residents.
Mr. Johnson reviewed one of the cons with the yard waste site would be a
potential layout change for compost and wood chips, currently experiencing
muddy walking conditions and tracking dirt onto Dale Street and with yard
waste dropped inside the access gate, there was the potential for its
contamination with increased non-residential use of the leaf site and
possibly requiring more city staff monitoring of that site.
Discussion
ensued with Chair Cihacek identifying current areas for wood chips, compost
and additional materials on the displayed site map and potential relocation
areas to make access easier. Mr. Culver noted that the woodchips and compost
were available for pick-up as well as drop-off with gates – if installed –
needing to be left open over the weekends when residents are typically
performing their yard work and needing access for pick-up from the site.
Discussion continued on options including moving organics collection into the
bay on the exterior of the site for 24/7 access without any additional staff
costs for weekends and still allowing access for organic drop off without
significantly impacting the compost and wood chip materials. Mr. Culver
identified the private property on the northern edge of the site; and further
addressed concerns if gates were left open overnight, as well as larger
issues with unauthorized dumping at the site and having to pay staff to open
and close the gates.
Chair Cihacek
suggested moving the gate as a more cost-effective measure if access was
relocated.
Mr. Culver
agreed this may be a valid consideration for a long-term solution, but would
require additional city funds above the $5,000 allowance from Ramsey County
in order to move the gate and realign access. In the fall, Mr. Culver noted
that the site got very full with leaves, and required room for city staff to
move the rows around requiring space for circulating the rows. Mr. Culver
stated that he didn’t disagree with Chair Cihacek’s suggestion, stated that
he’d prefer to see dumpsters on the public side of the gate as well since
they’d be more visible and the hauler could easily access them without being
able to get into the gate or whether or not the main gate was blocked by
leaves frequently dropped off and before city staff had time to move the
leaves. However, without moving the gates, Mr. Culver opined that it would
be difficult.
Referencing
previous comments during staff’s comments about the Parks & Recreation
Department concerns in loosing any additional parking spots at suggested park
locations for recycling and/or organic collection, Member Wozniak asked if
there was an opportunity to minimize the loss of parking spaces when redoing
parking areas to expand drop off areas. Mr. Culver reported that several
parking spots had been added recently where possible, but also noted the
additional demand for parking when activities are underway at parks (e.g.
baseball and soccer fields).
Member Trainor
encouraged rethinking the potential organic collection site as suggested by
Member Wozniak, opining that this type of collection has the hallmarks of
growing as recycling has grown in the community. Member Trainor opined that
this industrial site has a strong list of cons and isn’t appealing to people
as well as being in close proximity to an incredibly busy 4-way stop with
people backing in to pick-up compost and chips. Member Trainor suggested installing
a pad off the east end of the existing parking lot in space not currently
being used, especially since those dropping off organics would spend a
minimum amount of time and not use up parking space for any significant
amount of time.
Further
discussion on potential design of the site ensued and access issues.
Mr. Culver
agreed that staff would explore this issue more, and while it may delay start
up, suggested more discussion with the Parks and Recreation Commission and to
receive public input on a proposed location.
Member Wozniak
noted that the PWETC appeared to support an organic collection site in
Roseville, but the concern was to get a location right and protect the
current leaf compost site to avoid any dumping of materials (e.g. grass
clippings, etc.) that would serve to further contaminate that compost.
Mr. Culver
agreed that he had concerns in using the leaf collection sites including how
to monitor the site to avoid contractors and non-Roseville residents dropping
off leaves at the Roseville site and avoiding drawing any more attention to
that site by combining it with non-resident drop off of organics and
confusing the availability of city-specific services and programs.
Member Misra
asked if Ramsey County had an anticipated timeline to move away from this
type of collection system and moving toward residential curbside collection
of organics.
Mr. Springman
advised that there was no plan to do so at this point, since the main issue
was with route density until it was proven for haulers that there was
sufficient interest in organic collections to make curbside service
efficient. While the option is probably in the near future, and the city had
the option to include organic collections with their municipal organized
curbside collection program for those trucks already in the area, Mr.
Springman advised that it would require enough interest from residents and at
this time there was no estimate of that timeframe.
Mr. Culver
thanked the PWETC for its initial input and advised that staff would continue
internal discussions about other potential sites, and then return with their
recommendations to the PWETC at a future meeting.
7. Stormwater
Mitigation Requirements Review
Mr. Culver
noted PWETC discussions over the last few months about the various levels of
stormwater management requirements and agencies involved and at what level.
Mr. Culver noted that those discussions included what triggered agency
requirements, costs associated and the actual requirements of each agency
compared to those of the city.
In response,
Mr. Johnson had prepared a summary presentation of the three watershed
districts involved in Roseville, with each of their missions to manage,
improve and protect local water resources. Mr. Johnson identified those
three agencies as: Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District, and Capitol Region Watershed District. Mr. Johnson
advised that the biggest driver was the city’s MS4 permit system (Municipal
Separate Stormwater Systems).
Mr. Culver
asked for a definition of “shoreland” with Mr. Johnson responding that city
code defined it as anything within 1,000’ of a waterbody (e.g. McCarrons
Lake, Lake Owasso, and smaller water bodies in the city and area). Mr.
Johnson advised that an overlay district was 300’ from ordinary high water
levels of a particular lake that required stricter compliance (e.g.
impervious surface coverage).
Mr. Johnson
used the Dale Street soccer fields as an example project area; noting that
Roseville prided itself as a green city with a priority to protect the
community, parks, water quality, etc. through erosion control, best
management practices (BMP’s) and other mitigation efforts with a small upfront
cost versus the ramifications of cleaning up contamination after the fact.
Mr. Johnson’s
presentation included Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements,
permits and inspection fees and escrow funds, and a trigger based on the
number of acres, typically using a tiered approach. Mr. Johnson provided
comparisons of costs for each watershed district and the city with fees and
escrows based per acre and involving erosion and sediment control, stormwater
and erosion control, flood control, illicit discharge and connections, and
wetland mitigation. Mr. Johnson further advised that the city worked with
watershed districts and coordinated related issues and projects.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Johnson clarified that the cost for a residential
property would depend on the amount of impervious coverage as to when and how
stormwater management standards were triggered and the portion necessitating
erosion control. Mr. Johnson, in reviewing example costs, clarified that
these engineering fees for erosion reviews were exclusive of building permit
or other fees required for applications submitted to the Community
development department.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson reviewed the intent of escrow funds and process
to ensure erosion control is maintained throughout a project, at which time
the money was refunded unless the city needs to use the funds for a
contractor or city staff to bring a site into compliance if failures are
found in that stormwater management system.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver confirmed that a stormwater management review
would be triggered on any residential remodel involving excavation outside a
home’s original footprint. Mr. Culver advised that this also provided an
opportunity for the city to address erosion control issues, also when a site
is re-graded, and allowed staff to know what was occurring on sites within
the city and inspect the work being done. Mr. Culver advised that the city
took in numerous escrow and management fees annually, but during his tenure
he only remembered one case where the city used escrow funds to take
corrective actions.
Mr. Johnson
advised that the city’s escrow and permit renewal fees were outlined and
refunded at the end of a project.
8. Vegetation
Cost/Benefit Analysis
Given the
lateness of the hour and since it wasn’t time-sensitive, Chair Cihacek
suggested tabling this discussion to a future meeting.
Motion
Member
Trainor moved, seconded by Member Wozniak, to TABLE this item to the next
available PWETC agenda.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
9. Items
for Next Meeting – May 23, 2017
Discussion
ensued regarding the May PWETC agenda and time required for each item:
§
Update on organics collection program to be provided for the
next few months as part of staff’s communication memorandum
§
The required annual legally noticed MS4 Public Hearing
scheduled for May, with an estimated time requirement of 30-45 minutes for
the report and to hear any public comments
§
Transportation Plan consultant discussions over the next few
PWETC meetings as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process (June/July),
and including an extensive discussion on the Pathway Master Plan (July)
including community engagement opportunities
§
Community Development Department attendance at the May PWETC
meeting for an update and information on Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Districts
§
Tour Options, possibly in August or via a special meeting to
organize a field trip in late afternoon or early evening at a specific
construction project site of interest to the PWETC
§
Possible tour of the Eureka Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)
§
Member Trainor suggested a more formal introduction and brief
bios of each member at the May PWETC meeting for the benefit of Member Misra.
10. Adjourn
Motion
Member
Wozniak moved, Member Trainor seconded, adjournment of the meeting at
approximately 8:24 p.m.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|