|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 6:30 p.m.
1. Introduction
/ Roll Call
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; and Commissioners Thomas
Trainor, Joe Wozniak, John Heimerl, Nancy Misra, Kody Thurnau, and Duane
Seigler
Staff Present: Assistant Public Works Director Jesse
Freihammer; and Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson
2. Public
Comments
3. Approval
of April 25, 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 April
25, 2017 meeting minutes as presented.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
4. Communication
Items
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 May 23, 2017.
Discussion
included the recent update by staff on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
to the City Council addressing upcoming buildings and equipment;
clarification of Enterprise Funds and General Fund monies and those that were
restricted in their use (e.g. pathway maintenance and pavement management
plan); and an explanation of how those shifting categories may impact short-
and long-term. CIP allocations and in light of negative trends due to lift
station and other programmed improvements to the city’s aging infrastructure
as well as other priority items.
Further
discussion including timing for some current development projects as
indicated on the monthly Community Development Department report; a staff
update and future presentation to the PWETC on alternate locations for the
Ramsey County organic drop-off site with Member Wozniak cautioning that a
decision was needed sooner than later to ensure Roseville was one of the
chosen sites currently in competition with other area communities with staff
advising that they were still working with Ramsey County representatives on
the general logistics and overall process, anticipating a final site
identified by mid-summer and coordination with the PWETC and Parks &
Recreation Commission, with the site currently under consideration at Dale
Street Soccer field area.
Additional
discussion included a requested update to the PWETC from staff and Eureka
Recycling on the pilot recycling program at Lexington Park as data become
available at the end of the summer use season, its evolution and suggestions
to move forward at other sites; with Chair Cihacek requesting that the report
be a separate subject after the summer months, and not part of Eureka’s
annual report; and Mr. Johnson anticipating that preliminary data may not be
available until later in the year (e.g. October or November of 2017).
Further
discussion ensued regarding the placement of recycling containers and
confirmation of their locations at the east end of the ball fields; and first
full pick up held on May 8th.
At the request
of Member Wozniak and with a bench handout provided by staff on the program
details, PWETC commissioners were encouraged to attend the daytime and/or
evening seminars to be held by the Alliance for Sustainability and
relationship to the current comprehensive plan update processes.
5. Right-of-Way
Vegetation Cost/Benefit Analysis
As detailed in
the staff report and presentation materials, Environmental Specialist Ryan
Johnson provided a cost benefit analysis of turf grass versus natural plantings
in city rights-of-way as previously requested by the PWETC. Mr. Johnson’s
presentation included initial installation and annual maintenance costs for
both options.
Discussion
included comparison costs for decorative and open space plantings per acre;
water quality cost benefits available for tracking and economic impacts to
track and avoid phosphorus impacts from either option related to stormwater
and reduced volumes over a number of years for plantings versus turf; and
how reducing that runoff is included as an additional cost consideration.
Further
discussion included native plant options based on their particular root
systems; public perceptions of native plantings; larger benefits with larger
planting areas, even with higher initial installation costs for native
plantings and annual mowing in the spring with turf grass requiring more
frequent maintenance and mowing; typical non use of fertilizers with native
plantings due to their larger root systems other than spot treatment of weeds
growing within the plantings themselves (e.g. thistles); with the City Hall
native planting area usually requiring less than monthly treatment since it
is now more established.
Commissioners
questioned staff as to whether these results could be replicated elsewhere in
the city (e.g. parks) and in larger contracted mowing areas to reduce costs.
Mr. Johnson
responded that options for native plantings could be replicated in numerous
locations around the city, with plantings available for every condition (e.g.
sunny, shady, on boulevards or slopes, or as buffers around wetlands and
lakes) with similar results to those shown to reduce pollution.
At the request
of Member Wozniak as to why it wasn’t seen more frequently, Mr. Johnson noted
the upfront costs for native plantings as well as public perception of them
as weeds and preferring turf grasses. Mr. Johnson suggested further public
education would alleviate those misconceptions.
Chair Cihacek
suggested another secondary benefit would be in traffic calming, reduced
headlight glare, natural habitat, and recharging shallow groundwater; and
questioned how those efforts could be funded.
Mr. Freihammer
advised that some efforts could be managed through the Stormwater Enterprise
Fund related to stormwater management, using the recent infiltration basins
and native materials installed along Twin Lakes Parkway at Arthur Street
(e.g. rain garden), and other limited funds available for similar projects in
the future as applicable. While native plantings would offset long-term
operations due to having less turf grass to mow, Mr. Freihammer noted that
the biggest factor was where they should or could be installed to meet
resident expectations for manicured, mowed grass, with ongoing complaints
fielded of current native planting areas.
Member Misra
noted the research done by the University of Minnesota Landscape Architecture
Department balancing and addressing both schools of thought, noting the
ratios available for using native plantings that are more aesthetically
pleasing to the public.
Mr. Johnson
agreed, noting that with Twin Lakes Parkway, larger groups of more familiar
plantings were used that were more recognizable by the public to make them
aware of the intentional natural areas; but reiterated the need for
continuing education to address expectations for manicured areas versus
native plantings, as was continually addressed with the natural slope at City
Hall. Mr. Johnson agreed that the University of Minnesota had good
information available; as well as several contractors that have assisted with
those education efforts as well. Mr. Johnson noted the success of
incorporating a grass strip on the outside of natural plantings to make the
blend more aesthetically pleasing.
Member Heimerl
suggested that education and outreach should clearly identify the advantages
of native plantings as it relates to water scarcity and suggested that the
city take a leadership position as stewards of public property and water
quality in educating residents for their private property versus the typical
1950 ideal of the perfect manicured lawn.
Mr. Johnson
advised that, while definitely more could be done and staff could look into
that further education and outreach, the city’s website already had some
educational information available to assist with those efforts, as well as
other agencies with more information for the public to tap into. Mr. Johnson
noted that typically there were 1-2 articles issued annually from the city’s
Communications Department about stormwater reduction through native plantings
to mimic the benefits using the City Hall example.
At the request
of Member Heimerl, Mr. Johnson confirmed that the Community Development
Department monitored city code to ensure natural plantings were permitted and
evolved with new technologies and options (e.g. length of grass, sight lines)
to make it easier for residents to comply and differentiate between nuisance
weeds and natural plantings.
Member Wozniak
suggested the same type of outreach and education for commercial properties,
questioning if they were aware of these options as well to help reduce their
annual maintenance and operating costs to enhance their businesses by using
non-traditional landscaping and thereby reduce runoff (e.g. parking lots).
Mr. Johnson
responded that staff tapped into educational information from the three area
watershed districts; but stated staff’s interest in working with more
businesses to pursue that education. Mr. Johnson offered to work with the
Community Development Department to accomplish that, especially with cost
benefit analyses, etc.
Chair Cihacek
requested that staff identify and bring back to the PWETC specific sites on
public property that could be transitioned from turf grass and the long-term
cost benefit analyses for each, especially those areas in the closest
proximity to lakes with existing phosphorus problems where the quickest
tangible benefits could be found. Also, Chair Cihacek asked staff to provide
additional information on the costs of the current mowing contractor for
County Road C and costs to replace turf grasses and/or install a combination
of turf and native; not only for cost recovery time for native plant
installation, but overall goals to conceptualize specific projects.
Mr. Freihammer
advised that County Road C was contract mowing, with in-house part-time staff
(2-3 seasonal employees) mowing public properties over the summer months.
Chair Cihacek
opined that if this was an area of genuine concern with area water bodies
hitting a crisis point for phosphorus, the PWETC should recommend solutions
and justifications for leading the transitioning from turf grass to native
plantings on public properties.
Mr. Freihammer
advised that staff would further research costs as available for tracking
in-house and/or contract mowing.
Chair Cihacek
recognized that some public areas would be easier to implement native
plantings versus other areas as it related to aesthetic values, but suggested
staff identify and address those areas that would be easier for implementing
a vegetation plan, not only for cost but also additional secondary benefits.
Chair Cihacek asked that staff prepare their recommended sites and cost
benefit analyses as time allowed; with a proposed plan to alert the public as
to the how, why, and where and justification for initial spending and
long-term cost savings and environmental benefits.
Member Misra
concurred, and suggested staff research on potential grant options available
for habitat development.
Member Wozniak
concurred, suggesting that the city could work with grad students from the
University of Minnesota on potential partnership opportunities.
In starting
with city-owned parks and public properties, Chair Cihacek suggested
educational signage at those test sites providing public education on how to
do, and their additional long-term benefits to lessen the intimidation for
the public while providing examples.
6. Annual
Stormwater Meeting and Public Hearing
Chair Cihacek
opened the public hearing at approximately 7:23
p.m.
Environmental
Specialist Ryan Johnson presented the annual 2016 Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (Small MS4) (Attachment A); and 2013-2018 NPDES Phase II Permit
(Attachment B) establishing conditions for discharging stormwater to water
bodies within the state. Mr. Johnson noted that additional and more detailed
information could be found on the city’s website, with hard copies made
available for the public upon request.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Johnson advised that if the city did not submit this
annual permit and report, the city would be subject to fines and negative
comments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
Mr. Johnson’s
presentation included best management practices (BMP’s) used by the city for
various projects to reduce stormwater volume and improve water quality (e.g.
erosion controls including silt fences or bio-rolls); negative nutrient
concerns for water quality involving phosphorus and chloride with the city
continually monitoring salt use in the winter months for pavement ice
control. Mr. Johnson reviewed the monitoring and use of smarter technologies
based on pavement temperatures for ice control, opining that the City of
Roseville had one of if not the best system in the metropolitan area with
every pound of salt used on roadways tracked and measured before and after
snowfalls to provide data on what was used and track trucks and their
routes. As the city’s transportation expert, Mr. Johnson suggested a future
presentation by Public Works Director Marc Culver. Mr. Johnson noted the
availability of stormwater pond mapping for real-time maintenance data,
including depths, volumes and other data that provided timing information for
excavation and removal efficiencies and results.
As examples,
Mr. Johnson noted the stormwater management efforts at Twin Lakes Parkway
resulting in improvements to Langton Lake via use of iron-enhanced sand to
remove as much phosphorus as possible as one of several options. Mr. Johnson
and Mr. Freihammer also noted another example at Alameda Pond and existing
unique pre-case round structures that had been installed in the past versus
the considerable higher construction costs if installed today. Given the
uniqueness of these structures, Mr. Johnson noted that retrofitting them
proved challenging and required staff thinking outside the box in some cases
to help reduce contaminants and make those ponds work better.
Mr. Johnson
referenced a table providing projects and estimated total costs, as well as
identifying priority projects within that list and costs to address and
implement the city’s surface water management plan.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Freihammer advised that the city typically budgets
$700,000 annually in the CIP for stormwater mitigation, with grant funds
sometimes available for a particular project, or cost-sharing with watershed
districts or other jurisdictions, including costs for maintenance of ponds
prone to flooding.
Mr. Johnson’s
presentation included annual citywide clean-up day statistics from 2003 –
2017, with cost breakdowns available since 2013, and identified partnerships
with various agencies and vendors to help reduce city costs. Of particular
interest this year, Mr. Johnson noted the considerable number and major
expense in disposing of mattresses dropped off. Mr. Johnson noted that the
number of bikes dropped off had increased this year, advising that some were
only usable for parts, but 16 of those collected this year were recycled by a
vendor, at no charge, and put back on the road after some rehabilitation.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson advised that the city typically paid for
approximately 1/3 of the total cost of clean-up day, with mattresses and
electronic costs up over the last few years, thereby increasing city costs
accordingly.
Mr. Johnson
provided statistics from shredding day between 2009 and 2017, noting the
popularity of the event, and requests from residents to provide it 2-3 times
each year versus only annually.
Mr. Johnson
concluded his report by outlining resident tips for reducing and/or
eliminating stormwater contaminants to benefit of water quality of area
lakes.
Discussion
included private versus public ponds each counted but managed differently;
the public infiltration pond at Corpus Christi Church; city credit for public
stormwater management efforts but not private ones, but still advantageous to
improve water quality and the city’s duty to ensure private systems are
well-maintained for city credit for projects in place to improve rate control
and water quality.
Further
discussion included communication efforts for the annual citywide clean-up
day and shredding event, with suggestions to continue seeking improvement in
those efforts; how to and if needed to target college campus and/or rental or
transit populations for disposal of items and timing of or expansion of
future clean-up days to encourage their participation; with Mr. Freihammer
suggesting that staff check with area colleges to see if they already had
programs in place to do so; and Mr. Ryan advising this was a good time to ask
those questions as three-year contracts and quotes for clean-up day were coming
up. Chair Cihacek suggested further staff research with multi-family and
more transient populations (e.g. area universities and landlords) as to
whether tenants were aware of this city service, and any further education
and/or outreach that may be indicated.
At the request
of Member Misra, Mr. Johnson reviewed illicit discharges of anything going
down a storm drain other than irrigation water that created problems (e.g.
grass clippings, paint, concrete slurry) and many calls fielded by staff from
residents alerting them to illicit discharges (e.g. home improvement projects
and wash water from mudding walls and painting) to the system. Mr. Johnson
noted that Eureka Recycling alerts staff of any spills (e.g. a recent
hydraulic leak reported that was caught before getting to a storm drain, but
still reported as a spill). Mr. Johnson expressed appreciation for the good
job done by residents in monitoring those situations and being extra eyes for
the city.
At the further
request of Member Misra, Mr. Johnson provided the process by staff in dealing
with those calls, depending on their nature, with the working streets foreman
typically popping the manhole for access in determining the problem and
tracking it downstream to see if there is evidence of the material moving to
and reaching the nearest water body. If traces are observed, Mr. Johnson
reviewed the measures taken (e.g. silt socks) to capture those materials
before they become more mobile and make it to a pond, and their deployment
accordingly. Mr. Johnson noted that typically the materials are easily
tracked, with residents notified of staff’s observations, and potential
application of a $150 nuisance fine if and when warranted, for residential
and/or commercial properties. Mr. Johnson advised that for those more
egregious issues, the city worked with the MPCA for a larger enforcement
penalty, with larger spills often reported by the Police and/or Fire
Departments.
At the request
of Member Misra, Mr. Johnson reviewed the impaired waters in the Roseville
area (all) other than for the jewel of Roseville as far as water quality was
concerned (McCarrons Lake) based on the amount of work done over the years
related to water quality; with Lake Owasso on the rise as an impaired body
and Langton Lake not considered impaired given its standards as a shallow
lake.
At the request
of Member Misra, Mr. Johnson reported on ongoing education and outreach
efforts to the public, noting the big educational push by the City Council
with its surface water plan to educate residents and schools for water
quality improvements.
Chair Cihacek
closed the public hearing at approximately 8:07
p.m., with no one appearing for public comment for or against.
7. PWETC
/ City Council Joint Meeting – Preliminary Discussion
Mr. Freihammer
sought PWETC input on the upcoming (June) joint meeting with the City Council
by providing an example of last year’s report of activities and
accomplishments, upcoming year’s work plan, and questions for the City
Council from the PWETC (Attachment A).
Chair Cihacek
reviewed ongoing work plan and accomplishments: organic recycling solutions,
expansion of the recycling program to include parks, dialogue with Metro
Transit with concerns about Roseville’s transit service, review and updates
for a number of city ordinances and policies (trees, parking lots, design
manual), solar energy options, comprehensive plan components, sanitary
service lines and cut-off locations and warranty program; with commissioners
noting the time-consuming nature of some of those topics. Chair Cihacek
noted the annual mandatory issues also dealt with by the PWETC.
Chair Cihacek
asked individual commissioners to provide their input to staff outside the
meeting via email for finalization at the June PWETC meeting. Chair Cihacek
advised that he and Vice Chair Wozniak would attend the joint meeting to
represent the PWETC, but invited other commissioners to joint them as well.
8. Items
for Next Meeting – June 27, 2017
Review of
those items proposed for the June meeting were discussed as provided in the
staff report and the projected time required for each; and looking ahead to
future meetings, and upcoming large focus on the transportation plan and
pathway master plan updates as part of the comprehensive plan update.
Discussion also
ensued on a potential field trip in June to review active construction
projects, with commissioners discussing possible sites, dates, and timing,
possibly separate from the regular June PWETC meeting itself, duly noticed as
with any meeting.
After further
discussion and without objection, Chair Cihacek directed staff to notice the
June regular PWETC meeting at 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. to facilitate a tour,
provided that timing worked out logistically.
9. Adjourn
Motion
Member
Misra moved, Member Wozniak seconded, adjournment of the meeting at
approximately 8:25 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|