|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, June 27, 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, Public Works Director Marc Culver called the roll.
Present: Chair Brian Cihacek; Vice Chair Joe Wozniak; and
Members Thomas Trainor, John Heimerl, Duane Seigler, and Kody Thurnau; with
Member Misra arriving at approximately 6:32 p.m.
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver and
Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer
Chair Cihacek noted
the tour had been cancelled and will be addressed in the next couple of
months. There will also be a joint meeting between this Commission and the
City Council on July 10 and he encouraged the Commissioners to attend.
Member Misra arrived at this
time, approximately 6:32 p.m.
2. Public
Comments
Sara
Barsell, 1276 Eldridge Avenue W
Ms. Barsell
stated she is the cofounder of the Community Health Awareness Team, and is
interested in transportation availability on demand and out-State service.
They will be conducting forums on transportation and invited Commissioners to
attend. She stated the Director of Mn/DOT is a member of her team, and they
have invited people from the Metropolitan Council.
Chair Cihacek
thanked her for the information and requested she provide feedback from the
forums at a future PWETC meeting. Member Wozniak advised they are scheduled
to discuss transportation at the next three Commission meetings.
Public Works
Director Culver invited Ms. Barsell and members of her team to attend the
Transportation Focus Group meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 20.
3. Approval
of May 23, 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.
Chair Cihacek
noted they do not have a recording secretary present at the meeting. They
will make note of any changes to the minutes and email a final copy out to
Commission members.
Motion
Wozniak
moved, Member Trainor seconded, approval of the May 23, 2017 meeting minutes
as presented.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
4. Communication
Items
Public Works
Director Culver and City Engineer Freihammer provided additional comments and
a brief review and update on projects, maintenance activities, and City
Council actions listed in the staff reports dated June 27, 2017.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver provided an update on the search for an
organics collection site. He stated discussion has been on hold since the
Parks Department has been focused on Rosefest. They hope to continue
discussion in the next few weeks, have a proposal for a site in the next two
months, and an operational site before the end of October.
Member Heimerl
requested if pictures of the PaveDrain permeable paver system could be
available to show the public when the project is completed. Mr. Freihammer
agreed and noted videos on the installation of the system were taken and
posted to Facebook and Twitter by the Communications Department.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver provided an update on the campus master plan. He
stated the scope of what the Council approved in December did not include an
overall campus master plan. It was focused on building a license center and conducting
a detailed analysis of the maintenance facility. The maintenance facility
study is still underway, and they hope to give a brief update to the Council
mid-July. The overall facility study will not be completed until the end of
July.
Member Wozniak
requested an update on the parks recycling program. Mr. Culver reported the
pilot recycling program is focused on Central Park/Lexington, and around
Bennett Lake. They do have recycling containers at other parks, but they will
not expand it fully until they have results from the pilot program. There
should be recycling bins at the softball fields east of Victoria Street. The
pilot program will end in October, and they will assess how it went. Member
Wozniak commented Central Park East ball fields has one recycling container
north of the parking lot. Mr. Culver stated there should be a least one
recycling cart near the pavilion.
Member Seigler
stated there is a lot going on near Walmart. Mr. Culver commented there is
going to be one more multiple tenant retail building and it is nice to see
that area being developed. In response to a question from the Commission, he
confirmed that Calyxt is planning to go public and still plans to build their
headquarters in Roseville.
5. Overview
of Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Director of
Public Works Culver introduced Jeanne Kelsey, Housing and Economic
Development Program Manager for the City and the Economic Development
Authority (EDA).
Ms. Kelsey
showed a video from the State Auditor’s office that explained how TIF works.
She stated they have to submit documentation annually about their receipts to
the State Auditor’s Office until they are decertified. The average TIF
district can go up to 25 years and are regulated by how much TIF funding a
project needs. Any project must prove financial assistance is needed in order
to receive it. She explained four types of districts the City has utilized:
Housing, Economic Development, Redevelopment, and Environmental (Soils
Condition).
PWETC
Questions
Member Seigler
inquired how a company gets paid back from TIF financing for a project. Ms.
Kelsey explained the City requires a pay as you go TIF and it can happen in
two different ways: 1) The Developer can get a loan based upon the valuation
based on the increment over that period of time, and then the increment is
given back to them; or, 2) The City establishes it, puts the financing in
place, and pays itself back out of the increment. If the increment is higher
than the loan, it will be used to pay off the debt sooner and it can be
decertified sooner.
Member Seigler
inquired about the $772,000 balance of Garden Station. Ms. Kelsey explained
prior to 1990, TIF districts were able to be modified. However, because this
ended up meeting TIF District 12, they were able to make an amendment to
include the Garden Station in that TIF plan and then allocate funds for the
demolition and acquisition of the site. Some of the fund balances represent
real cash sitting in an account.
Regarding TIF
#17 for Twin Lakes, Ms. Kelsey explained the City had to make sure they
covered the obligations over a 25-year period of time. The City had a bond
for $4,306,630, there will not be any increment excess until it is paid off,
and they are not available funds.
Ms. Kelsey
commented if a TIF district’s tax value is frozen and after five years the
values go up or down, the tax value remains at what it originally was before
it was redeveloped. When a district is taken off the tax roll, the County,
school district and City get what the freeze was. When they take the next
increment above the freeze, it all goes to the project. With the But-For
test, they need to prove they need the 25 year TIF established and that they
need all that increment. If they cannot prove it, it will be issued for less
time.
Mr. Culver
commented from an infrastructure component and soil clean up, it has been
helpful to have. These funds have helped to clean up an area to make the land
developable and without it, it would have been too expensive to clean up. The
land would have sat empty and the City would not have gained from that tax
base. The Twin Lakes TIF has been used for infrastructure projects and soil
cleanup costs. Ms. Kelsey commented the redevelopment construction that has
happened in Twin Lakes has not received TIF. With Calyxt, they were able to
get a Job Creation Fund from the State, and Environmental TIF to help clean
up some of the site. They try to tap into all the funds that are available.
Mr. Culver advised when the parcels between Mount Ridge and Arthur develop,
they will most likely use Environmental TIF as well. Some of the properties
are not owned by the original property owners, and by establishing this TIF
district, it helps avoid legal issues with determining who caused the
contaminated soils.
Ms. Kelsey
stated when a project is underwritten, the goal is to not unfairly subsidize
a project for the current or potential new owner. With Twin Lakes, they
wanted to identify the costs for environmental cleanup and make sure there
was enough to cover it. In response to a question from the Commission, Ms.
Kelsey stated there are other possibilities within the City that may qualify
for this TIF. There are certain tests and criteria it has to meet, but as
TIF laws modify, different opportunities come forward to utilize it.
Mr. Culver
commented while most cities have to go to the Legislature to establish a TIF
district project area, Roseville already has this established. They already
have the authority to establish different TIF districts for specific
projects, if it meets certain criteria.
In response to
a question from Chair Cihacek, Ms. Kelsey confirmed TIF is the last funding
resource that they make available to projects. TIF funding must be used in
the context of a larger project and for things that are part of the project.
The scope of a project must be defined to determine what public improvements
need to be done, because there are things it cannot be used for.
6. Transportation
Plan Update
Mr. Culver introduced
the City’s transportation plan consultant, Scott Mareck from WSB and
Associates.
Mr. Mareck
began his presentation by describing what a transportation plan is. He
referred to page 30 of the meeting packet, and went over the process for
developing a transportation plan. They are looking to come up with strategies
the City can use to plug into the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for future
projects, potential future studies at intersections to alleviate traffic
issues, and possible policy changes that could help improve the system in the
future. After a plan is in place, more detailed scoping studies are done, it
is included in the City/County CIP or State Improvement Program (STIP), right
of way is acquired, and projects are completed. This completed transportation
plan is forecasted through the year 2040.
Mr. Mareck
highlighted the goals and policies from the City’s existing transportation
plan. He encouraged Commission members to look them over and provide staff
with feedback on things that may be out of date or additions that could be
made. He referred to Goal 5 and noted, that not all the multi-modal
infrastructure is owned by the City, and it was suggested to change the
statement to read, “Encourage the use of non-motorized transportation to
provide or support a high-quality network…”
Member Seigler (54.07) referred to Goal 2
and inquired why the City is so anti-growth. Highway 36 is killing Roseville
and making every street going east and west a highway. The plan says they are
not going to do expansion and expects people to ride a bike. Chair Cihacek
pointed out there is not a lot of space left in Roseville for expansion,
unless they change density. Mr. Mareck commented a transportation plan is
about putting together a balanced network of improvements. In discussions,
there has been a strong desire to focus on the bike and pedestrian trails.
Member Seigler (56.22) suggested they build
the transportation plan to include future growth. Mr. Mareck stated at this
stage they are only collecting input from people regarding modes of
transportation and there are not any solutions that are being proposed. These
types of projects will need to have multiple owners that would include
Mn/DOT, Ramsey County, and the City, and that is why they have been included
in the initial discussions.
The Commission
discussed the future use of self-driving cars and if the future use of them
should be included as a mode of transit. They will make more efficient use of
roads, but will still use the roadways.
Mr. Culver
stated there is conflict and synergy between Goals 2 and 3. Goal 3 does
address accommodating existing and projected demand of cars to reduce
congestion. The plan itself does not say they are against any roadway
capacity and they are open to expand roadways in an effort to improve
congestion. The plan represents they are in a constrained place both fiscally
and with land, and it is difficult to expand the roadways within an urban
environment. Chair Cihacek suggested they look more closely at Goals 2 and 3
and remove some of the conflicting language.
Mr. Mareck
referred to the maps in the meeting packet, beginning on page 34, and
continued his report on the existing roadways in Roseville regarding roadway
jurisdiction, lanes, classification, average daily traffic (ADT), existing
and forecasted level of service, crash rates from 2011 to 2015, freight
system, transit service, and pathways.
Chair Cihacek
inquired what a MSA street is. Mr. Culver responded it is a Municipal State
Aid street and the City is allowed to spend the dollars it receives from the
gas tax on those streets. The roads with higher volumes of traffic are
designated a MSA streets, 20 percent of the roads in the City can have this
designation, and they can be changed annually, if they City chooses to.
Mr. Mareck
explained the classifications of the roads and their uses. With each use,
there is funding and speed and design considerations that are applied to the
improvements. The categories of roads are updated with the transportation
plan as necessary. Mr. Culver stated that only roads classified as A Minor
Arterial and above can receive Federal funding. Mr. Mareck stated Twin Lakes
Parkway could be officially designated as a collector road as part of this
Transportation Plan update.
Member Misra
inquired about the process for changing the classification of a roadway. Mr.
Culver stated any request they make to the Metropolitan Council on a County
road would need to have the support of the County.
Mr. Mareck
referred to the map on page 37 of the meeting packet, and reported on the
existing average daily traffic. He referred to the legend on the map and
explained dark green represents a two-lane road way, light green represents a
three-lane roadway, yellow represents a four-lane roadway without a median,
orange represents a four-lane roadway with a center median, and red
represents a major expressway. This map includes data from 2012 through
2015. Regarding the two colors on Snelling/Highway 51, people go in different
directions, there is more traffic being dispersed onto other roads south of
Highway 36, and this is reflected in the numbers. They can go through a
modeling analysis to pick out roadway lengths to show where the traffic is
coming from and going to.
Mr. Mareck
referred to the map on page 38 of the meeting packet. He explained how the
level of service classification relates to the volume to capacity (v/c)
ratio. They typically construct most projects to level of service D.
Regarding Interstate 35W and the differing congestion during different times
of the day, they look at an average overall level of service for all lanes
together. They are all generalizations, and if they did a detailed study on
Snelling Avenue, they would look at the type of traffic on the roadway, the
speed of the traffic, volume of the cross streets, and amount of access.
Mr. Mareck
referred to the maps on page 39 and 40 of the meeting packet and highlighted
the forecasted 2040 average daily traffic and 2040 level of service
classification as it relates to the v/c ratio. The roadways congested today
remain that way in the future and the Rice Street corridor is projected to be
worse than it is today. These numbers are based on the demographic forecasts
from the Metropolitan Council and the regional growth plan for the Twin
Cities area. If a number looks unreasonable, they can communicate that with
the Metropolitan Council.
Mr. Culver
commented the Metropolitan Council model is not going to put 5,000 cars on a
roadway that cannot handle it. There may be 5,000 additional cars that want
to go somewhere, but they cannot because the roadway cannot handle it, and
then they end up on a larger road. They also have to look at the larger
picture to see how growth in other cities affects Roseville’s traffic
patterns. Mr. Culver stated there is a plan to add a lane to Highway 36.
Member Seigler
stated that is why he is concerned when the focus on transit and bicycles. As
other Cities grow and Highway 36 continues to get worse, everything will
continue to flood onto Roseville’s streets.
Chair Cihacek
commented the methodology does not have a predictive value for them. They can
agree the numbers are conservative and congestion will continue to increase,
and they need to use that information to find a solution. They also need to
understand what the assumptions are regarding volume of traffic. Mr. Culver
suggested they discuss these issues further outside of this meeting.
Mr. Mareck
stated this is a capacity constraint model that restricts the traffic flow to
what the capacity is to the existing roadway lanes or to what is known to be
added in the future. It is done this way so that they understand how a road
will function if no additional funding is available. The City can then find
solutions with the County and Mn/DOT with any available funding.
Member Seigler
inquired why they do not just have the road show it will not function instead
of changing the number to reflect what the road can handle. That way they
can focus on Highway 36.
Member Misra
suggested they broaden their explorations of assumptions. Not all young
people are buying cars and baby boomers will not be driving in 2040. Mr.
Culver pointed out understanding the assumptions will be part of their
response to the Transportation Plan.
In response to
Mr. Culver, Mr. Mareck stated the model does not directly consider
self-driving cars or any other technology that is not fully integrated at
this time. It is hard to know what impact it will have, but it is important
to acknowledge through a narrative in the plan.
Member Wozniak
stated some reports show that self-driving cars are only 10 years away and
insurance rates will be too high for regular drivers that it will push them
into self-driving cars.
The Commission
directed Mr. Mareck to include a narrative regarding self-driving cars in to
the Transportation Plan.
Mr. Mareck
provided an overview on the crash data provided in the meeting packet on
pages 41 and 42. On page 42, the colors that are yellow and above are
considered the high crash problematic locations. The three intersections with
the most injuries are County Road B and Snelling Avenue, County Road C and
Snelling Avenue, and County Road C and Cleveland Avenue. He noted in a recent
report issued by Metropolitan Council that highlighted the freight system and
crashes, County Road C is ranked number 3 in the Twin Cities for truck delay
and County Road B2, County Road C, and New Brighton Boulevard are all in the
top 20 for truck crash locations in the Twin Cities region. Some factors that
may contribute to this are amount of trucks, their speeds, high traffic
volumes, and unexpected stop times.
Member Misra
inquired if the roads leaving Roseville that are coded blue are accurate. Mr.
Mareck responded it is coincidental. The colors represent the crashes at
locations which are typically higher at high volume intersections.
Mr. Mareck
continued his report on the freight infrastructure and transit services pages
43 through 45 of the meeting packed. Lack of service has been identified in
the Larpenteur Avenue corridor east of Victoria Street, along with the need
for additional bus shelters and east/west transit service. Mr. Culver
advised they will also add the concerns about senior transit and on-demand
service.
Mr. Mareck
reported it is required by the Metropolitan Council that a bicycle/pedestrian
component be submitted with the Transportation Plan. They have been directed
to review and update the previous plan, and these are highlighted on pages 47
and 48 of the meeting packet. He requested feedback on what is represented on
the maps, to be discussed at a later date. As they consider the broader
regional system and their own community system, they are required to have conversations
regarding connections with neighboring communities.
Member Heimerl
inquired if they are tracking an increase in bike travelers that are going on
the paths being constructed and the demographic of bikers that are choosing
to bike commute. They need to determine if the amount of money they are
putting into the bike lanes makes sense. He expressed concern that Roseville
has different values than the Metropolitan Council, and because of that, they
may not represent Roseville’s interests.
Member Wozniak
agreed that the demographic of bikers seems to begin around the age of 30 at
the youngest and goes up from there.
Mr. Culver
stated they are able to collect data, but it is much more labor intensive
since a road tube cannot differentiate between a biker or a car. He agreed
they do need to make an effort to collect this type of data in Roseville, and
St. Paul and Minneapolis may already be doing in it certain parts of their
Cities.
Member Heimerl
expressed concern that Roseville has different values than the Metropolitan
Council and there is no governing body to keep it in line with Roseville’s
plans for how the City needs to grow. Member Seigler agreed and stated it
seems they are doing what the Metropolitan Council tells them to do, instead
of doing what is best for Roseville.
Mr. Culver
pointed out that while they are required to have a bike/pedestrian plan, it
simply needs to address that element. The City’s response could be they are
still determining what will work best for them. Chair Cihacek stated it also
will include pedestrian connections, not just bike lanes.
Mr. Mareck
continued his report by highlighting the existing and proposed pathways as
part of the Pathway Master Plan. There are two types of bikers that use the
bike trails: hardcore and recreational users. Typically, the vast majority
of bicyclists are recreational users and they prefer safe environments.
While a plan may address both types of users, it can be created based on the
user the City wants to focus on. It is more about quality of life versus a
transportation benefit.
Mr. Mareck
reported upcoming program projects in the City includes improvements on
Interstate 35W, Snelling Avenue, and the MN Pass on Highway 36. These will
be incorporated into the Transportation Plan. In the State, most of the
investment will be into maintaining the system. They can document their unmet
needs, and include them in the Transportation Plan as a way to communicate
with State Legislators and Congress.
Mr. Mareck
highlighted the Summary of Focus Group Comments and pointed out there has
been a significant amount of comments from the citizens wanting multi-modal
improvements for the City long-term.
Given the
lateness of the meeting, Chair Cihacek recommended Commissioners send their
questions to staff, who will direct them to the consultant and address them
at the next meeting.
At the request
of Mr. Culver, Mr. Mareck provided an update on events related to the
Transportation Plan. He stated there is a Walkabout taking place tonight in
the Rice Street/Larpenteur area, which will be documented and part of the
final report. On July 20 at 6:00 p.m., there will be a Transportation Plan
Focus Group meeting in the Council Chambers. He encouraged Commission
members to let staff know if they recommend any people in the community that
would be a good addition to this group. On July 25, at the PWETC meeting,
they will talk more about the Pathways Master Plan and the prioritization
methodology for projects in the existing plan. They will consult with the Commission
over the fall, and sometime before Thanksgiving, there will an Open House
highlighting the entire Transportation Plan. Final Council approval is
targeted for December.
The Commission
thanked Mr. Mareck for his report. Ms. Misra requested the upcoming dates
highlighted by Mr. Mareck be sent out to Commission members. Mr. Culver
confirmed it will be sent out to everyone.
7. PWETC/City
Council Joint Meeting
Public Works
Director Culver stated he received feedback from one Commission member
regarding joint meeting discussion items.
Chair Cihacek
commented the ordinance changes and recycling RFP was not included in the
list of discussion items that took place this past year with the Commission.
City Engineer Freihammer responded the ordinance changes were related to sump
pumps, parking lots, private hydrants, and stormwater management standards,
ADA Transition Plan, and fines for companies and homeowners.
Mr. Culver
advised the Mayor will be conducting the meeting, Chair Cihacek will respond
to questions and direct Commission Members to respond as needed. He
recommended they highlight the recycling RFP and Ordinance changes.
Chair Cihacek
stated he plans to request clarification about solar. Mr. Culver responded he
thinks it is on hold because they are waiting to see what the facility study
shows for the maintenance facility.
The Commission
agreed the Water Plan and smart technology, Transportation Plan, and Pathway
Master Plan be discussed as Work Plan items for the upcoming year.
Mr. Culver
suggested under Questions and Concerns for the City Council, they discuss
solar to see if they are looking for something that is heavily subsidized and
if the City is willing to put money towards it. Chair Cihacek suggested they
also request additional guidance regarding sanitary sewers and what the City
is willing to invest. Mr. Culver stated they need further direction what
they would feel comfortable recommending as a cost from the City.
Mr. Culver
advised the PWETC/City Council joint meeting will take place on July 10 at
6:00 p.m., and he will let them know where they are on the agenda.
8. Items
for Next Meeting – July 25, 2017
Discussion
ensued regarding the July PWETC agenda and time required for each item:
§
Prioritization and Pathway Master Plan discussion with an
estimated time requirement of 90 minutes
§
Review the City Council joint meeting and establish a
preliminary calendar with an estimated time of 15-20 minutes
Mr. Culver
commented tours may be rescheduled to August, but it may depend on the
Transportation Plan discussion. He strongly recommended having a tour on a
non-meeting night because it allows them to be more informal. Chair Cihacek
stated the tour should be open to any Roseville resident, and Commission
Members should attend as part of their role with the City.
9. Adjourn
Motion
Member Thurnau
moved, Member Trainor seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately
8:49 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|