|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at
6:30 p.m.
1. Introductions/Roll
Call
Commission members present: Joan
Felice; Dwayne Stenlund; Steve Gjerdingen; and Chair Jim DeBenedet
Commission members absent: Jan
Vanderwall
Staff present: Duane Schwartz, PW Director, Deb Bloom, City Engineer
Others present: Mike Beraopce,
representative of Ace Solid Waste
2. Public
Comments
None
3. Approval
of Meeting Minutes
Chair DeBenedet noted that he and
Member Stenlund were the only two members present at the September meeting.
Member Stenlund moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded, approval of the Public Works, Environment, and
Transportation (PWET) Commission meeting minutes of September 22, 2009 as presented.
Ayes: 2
Abstentions: 2 (Gjerdingen and
Felice)
Motion carried
4. Communication
Items
Street Reconstruction / Mill
and Overlay Update
Ms. Bloom provided an update on
variety of street reconstruction and mill and overlay projects nearing
completion for the 2009 construction season.
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area
Ms. Bloom advised that the Phase
I portion of the Twin Lakes Parkway was nearing completion; with landscaping
hopefully being finalized before weather caused any deferral, with plantings
in from the round-about to Twin Lakes Parkway. Ms. Bloom further advised
that Iona Lane would be open by November 25, 2009 for buses and parking; and
pending weather cooperation, should be available for traffic, meeting the
city’s commitment.
Discussion included whether
additional roundabouts were being considered in the community; whether they
were more environmental friendly due to less vehicle idling; capacity of
roundabouts based on traffic volumes; types of accidents reduced and less
severity of those accidents based on slower traffic speeds; reductions in
idling, stopping and starting noises; no signal lights at intersections; and
substantial reductions in speed; potential impacts to other modes of
transportation (i.e., bicycles, slower-moving vehicles, pedestrians);
perceptions versus realities of roundabouts; right-of-way considerations at
each throat of the roundabout, with pedestrians better protected at the
island refuges.
Further discussion included
pedestrian safety; merging into flowing traffic; location of the crosswalks
setback from the lane; and easier visual awareness for pedestrians in those
crosswalks.
Consensus of PWET Commissioners
was that roundabouts were good, but that there was a need to educate the
public and make them more familiar in driving roundabouts.
Ms. Bloom advised that, as part
of the announcement and celebration of Twin Lakes Parkway’s Phase I
completion, staff would include the PWET in future announcements and ways
that educational information can be incorporated (i.e., local media; cable
access channel).
Member Stenlund noted his
favorable impression with the work performed by Eureka Contractors, and
suggested possible ways to acknowledge their cooperative partnership with the
City, especially the water feature systems and their awareness of resource
protection and sensitivity to tree issues. Member Stenlund sought staff
comment related to stability and protection measures for rain garden
plantings.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff’s
goal is to get them planted where possible (excluding Rosewood), planning to
plant the Twin Lakes area with the exception of perennials.
TH280 / Paper Calmenson
Sanitary Sewer
Ms. Bloom addressed other
projects and their status, including coordination with the MnDOT project at MN Trunk High way #280, with Broadway Avenue closed due to a deep sanitary sewer section
replacement
Watermain Replacement Project
Ms. Bloom reviewed the
directional drilling for watermain replacement at Lexington and Woodhill, as
well as Churchill and Oxford St. Ms. Bloom noted that the PWET packet
included recent informational communication with those neighborhoods.
Rosewood Neighborhood Drainage
Improvements
In conclusion, Ms. Bloom noted
the Rosewood Neighborhood Drainage Improvements, east of the Midland Hills Golf
Course, and the twenty (20) rain gardens installed to alleviate water volume
issues for storm sewer, and resident enthusiasm for them.
Rice Street Bridge Reconstruction
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
the status of design of this project, and submission of proposed utility
replacements as part of the larger project, with staff recommending
replacement of all watermains along the Rice Street corridor and within the
reconstruction project area. Mr. Schwartz noted other discussions included
improved aesthetics of medians, with a potential for wider medians that could
contain trees, or considering paving the medians with a type of concrete
treatment. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was scheduled to meet with the
City of Little Canada yet this week to discuss a potential partnership for
border maintenance. Mr. Schwartz reported the percentage of completion of
the MnDOT plans, estimated cost of the project at $20 million, and
preliminary funding commitment; with possible start date in June of 2010.
Mr. Schwartz discussed ongoing
discussions and preliminary designs in conjunction with Xcel Energy related
to undergrounding utilities; and their request of a commitment of $2,500 from
the City of Roseville to continue pursuing the prospect. Mr. Schwartz advised
that he would be seeking interest from the City of Little Canada as to
whether to pursue the undergrounding option, and their interest in
cost-sharing.
Discussion included sources of
funding for the overall project consisting of Ramsey County turn back funds,
based on legislative commitments for those funds; MnDOT’s Bridge Fund;
Cooperative Agreement Fund at MnDOT; State DEED monies; and potentially
federal solicitation through the Metropolitan Council; potential consequences
of City actions based on past rulings related to a surcharge for rate payers
and depending on language in Franchise Agreements; the need for other
utilities to agree to bury their lines as well; and the location of the power
line entirely on the Roseville side, necessitating the need for financing
agreements to be drafted for cost sharing between Little Canada and Roseville
to reduce Xcel’s costs and refund their upfront costs.
Further discussion included
pathways and sidewalks along Rice Street and some areas that may prove more
difficult for their installation than others on the Roseville side of the
corridor based on the location of overhead power poles, allowing for
perception by the public in general of shared benefits for both communities;
willingness of Little Canada staff in discussion options at this point; and
other options besides trees for medians, such as salt-tolerant vines over a
steel framework (such as on I-35E in downtown St. Paul) for easier
maintenance and to block headlight glare.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that additional
discussion be held at the November PWET meeting, as additional information
and cost estimates should be available at that time, with eventual
determination made at the City Council level for both communities.
Additional Written
Communication
Staff noted inclusion in the
agenda packets of recent mailings to residents, including an educational
residential pool drainage and disposal mailer to those pool owners on
file with the City, and in conjunction with the pending mandated ordinance
related to Illicit Discharges and Connections; and the October newsletter
for residents impacted by the Churchill / Oxford watermain replacement
project; and an update on staff’s REACT efforts to reduce energy
usage for city facilities.
Discussion on pool water included
Member Stenlund’s concern that the PWET Commission could develop a written
action plan for draining of residential pools, beyond the brief informational
piece prepared by staff to-date, to include a checklist.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff had
sent out 600-900 mailings modeled on that used in another metropolitan
community, and based on the list of pools of which staff was aware. Ms.
Bloom welcomed any commentary to improve future information, including
development of a checklist to assist residents.
Further discussion included
possible filter screens for garden hoses and disposal in residential garbage,
following neutralization and once chlorine-free; including a typical drawing
to eliminate confusion; with suggestions of Chair DeBenedet for Member Stenlund
to return to the November meeting for further discussion and to allow
development of that information prior to staging in spring of 2010.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
would be able to refine its database for residential pools, based on current
permit information and the phone calls received from those residents on the
original mailing that no longer had existing pools.
Ms. Bloom requested that Member
Stenlund provide additional information to staff outside the PWET meeting for
future implementation.
Chair DeBenedet spoke in support
of a checklist and graphics to make it easier for residents to implement.
St. Paul Regional Water
Service / Reservoir Woods Park
Mr. Schwartz reported on the
first project meeting held related to planned demolition and reconstruction
by St. Paul Regional Water Service of the Reservoir Woods water treatment
facility on Dale Street and Alta Vista Drive, with plans to take the old one
out of service as early as January of 2010. Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed
operational concerns of the City of Roseville and ongoing discussions;
potential design issues that could aesthetically change the Roseville
skyline, based on the current design on top of the hill overlooking Highway
36 at 30’ and talk of increasing it by another 10’ to a total of 40’, and
existing of a very visible 10,000,000 gallon, 220’ diameter, concrete tank,
raised 12’ over the existing reservoir.
Discussion included the current
square structure type and capacity (30,000,000 gallon capacity being reduced
to 10,000,000 gallons), as it currently doesn’t operate as a significant part
of the St. Paul Regional system, and only dedicated to Roseville and Arden
Hills supply needs.
Further discussion included
impacts to water pressures in Roseville, with cost implications to boost
flow, with further analysis pending when their design is determined; need for
review and approval of an application for a onsite crushing permit from the
City of Roseville’s Planning Commission and City Council, as well as issuance
of Building Permits. Other items under discussion are impacts to the
immediately adjacent neighborhood; and recommendation for them to make a
preliminary presentation in the near future to the PWET and City Council.
Ms. Bloom noted that the proposed
footprint of 205’ in diameter, versus the current 400’ x 400’ square
footprint would be significantly different.
Mr. Schwartz noted that staff was
also reviewing any potential impact to the pathway and/or park in that area.
Ramsey County / County Road B-2 Potential Reconstruction
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
would be meeting with Ramsey County related to the County’s proposed design
and reconstruction of County Road B-2 from Snelling Avenue to Fairview Avenue. Discussion included road conditions and the need for upgrading the
capacity of County Road B-2.
- Proposed Illicit Discharge Ordinance
Ms. Bloom presented a revised
draft Ordinance, Section 803, as it related to Storm water Illicit Discharge
and Connections within the City of Roseville, as federally mandated; having
incorporated those revisions made by the PWET Commission at their May 26,
2009 meeting.
Chair DeBenedet noted that, at
the May meeting, the PWET Commission had suggested that a more comprehensive
look be given to various provisions dealing with storm water in various
ordinances, bringing them to one place for better efficiencies for staff and
making it easier and more understandable for property owners in Roseville for compliance purposes. Member Stenlund spoke in support of staff preparation
of an information packet, including graphics that would go beyond the legal
language of the ordinance, but provide the public with more realistic
information. Member Stenlund noted one glaring omission was the lack of a
definition of “Water.”
Ms. Bloom advised that staff had
been discussion staging of the information, with the ordinance serving as a
foundation, similar to that of the recently-adopted ordinance on fertilizer,
the door hangers that were provided, and additional information developed for
practical use; as well as the previous discussion on the pool drainage issues
and process needing to be developed. Ms. Bloom noted that property owners
needed to be aware of the code, issues, and their actions needed for
compliance. Ms. Bloom sought input from Members, keeping that process in
mind, as to whether this ordinance language was moving in the right direction
in defining an illicit discharge, with staff continuing to train with Rice
Creek Watershed District to work through discharge and detections issues.
Discussion among Members and
staff included adding to the “Purpose” statement for the goal of preserving
the Central Park Water System, based on the interconnectivity and need to
preserve this fragment of the 10,000 lake system in MN; and providing for additional
definitions that may seem obvious, but not so to residents.
Ms. Bloom advised that the draft
ordinance was based on language modeled after the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) Illicit Discharge Ordinance; and that , while the City’s existing
ordinance provisions were based on best management practices, following
review and enforcement attempts over the last year, it was found that the
ordinance language wasn’t strong enough to enforce; and that an ordinance was
needed to expressly apply to that area, based on the annual permit for the
City with the MPCA, with language updated based on the MPCA webpage
ordinance.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Attorney is currently reviewing the ordinance language as well, based on
the City’s overall storm water ordinance provisions; with the goal for
attachment of this section to the overall storm water ordinance by year-end
to meet the City’s commitment.
Ms. Bloom advised that, when
performing her annual audit for this report in future years, she would like
to be able to find the City’s goals adequate.
Further discussion
included:
Page 1, Section B, Definitions
Additional definitions to
consider:
Water
Water courses
Conveyance system
Maximum Extent Possible (MEP)
Paved Areas (driveway washing)
Car Washing
Impervious Surfaces
Pervious Surfaces
Page 2, Section D,
Administration
Discussion included how the City
was set up to administer implementation and enforcement; defining which
department is the umbrella department, based on standard ordinance language;
and intent that the City as an organization is responsible.
Page 5, Section L,
Notification of Spills
Noting cooperation and
coordination of City Officials and empowering them to be noticed for
resolution.
Discussion included recognizing
how even changing oil, or washing concrete or paint into storm basins from
private property is illegal and damaging, making them all public obligations
for reportable offenses.
Further discussion included Page
3, Section E, Exemptions, in addition to Sections F, G, and H, specifically
addressing pools.
Member Stenlund opined that a
missing piece is reference to Roseville’s Best Management Practice and
Guidance Documents.
Additional discussion included
permit application requirements for standards on treatment of soapy water
before it enters the sewer system by youth car wash groups, based on
an action plan, application for a permit, and treatment prior to entering
regional ponds, or performing it on grass or plastic pads; permitted or
non-permitted activities and how they would be defined as related to
oversight of the City’s MS4, how to make it enforceable and how to
differentiate specific activities; and the lack of enforcement by the City
to-date of their erosion control permits and how to ensure that this will be
more enforceable and better monitored; and making it easy for residents to
comply with action plans without exceeding government interference, based on
the tools provided to them by the City.
Further discussion included
sample scenarios of the difficulty of enforcement by staff when they are
alerted to a non-compliant activity by phone, with the activity no longer
evidenced when staff is able to respond; educational information for
suspected violations based on present practice, based on a “carrot” rather
than a “stick,” when a situation is no longer legally enforceable.
Member Felice suggested the need
to educate groups (i.e., Boy Scouts or other youth groups doing car wash
fundraisers), who could in turn serve as examples to others based on their
understanding of the importance of water quality and their visual example for
easy compliance. Member Felice opined that, if this started as an
educational process, with them seeking permits to hold the car washes, it
could become common practice after 2-3 years.
Mr. Schwartz noted that this was
a good question for the City Attorney, whether educational or permitted
activities were included; how to distinguish one from the other; and how to
define by the number of vehicles.
It was the consensus of members
that most residents wanted to do the right thing, but may be unaware of the
impacts to water quality of their personal or individual actions and
activities.
Additional discussion included
the compliance of mobile washing trucks; compliance needed for carpet
cleaning businesses with tanks on their trucks; whether community-based
groups, earning money, should be exempted if they could prove that they had a
process in place to manage suds, and had sought a variance or permit from the
City to wash cars in a community space; and clarification that it was not
illegal to wash a car, only to discharge the water into the sanitary storm sewer
system to educate people that they needed to implement a system in washing
cars to keep the water from entering the sanitary system.
Page 3, Section H, General
Provisions
Add an additional exemption: …
unless the discharge conforms with the approved City of Roseville Plan to
manage it. OR … community-based organizations proposing car
washes, or other similar activity, shall submit an action plan to the Public
Works Director.
Add to #5 … car washes, or
including but not limited to carwashes; to include washing siding (i.e., lead
paint); service-groups; non-commercial entities; community groups…
Additional discussion included
how the educational materials and fact sheet could address residential
infiltration systems (addressed in Section I?); with staff encouraging the
PWET Commission to provide additional to the City Council for response action
plan or storm water system prevention plan.
Further discussion of Section H
included providing for any machine or equipment cleaning, including
equipment, cars, or vehicles, confined to pervious areas.
Ms. Bloom advised that she would
review other language for consistency.
Further discussion included
clarifying that on the industrial side, no chemicals could be exposed to the
storm water system at all (addressed under Section I – industrial swift?);
ensuring that Section H or I included references to unused oil, used motor
oil, chemicals or fertilizer and their storage containment.
Noting the additional agenda
items on tonight’s agenda, Chair DeBenedet suggested that individual members
provide additional comment for revision to Ms. Bloom for her submission of
those revisions to PWET members by e-mail for their further individual review
and commentary before the November meeting to keep the process moving forward
within the time constraints for City Council consideration and approval
mid-December for publication and implementation of the ordinance by year-end.
Additional discussion included
the City Attorney’s review of Section M.1 related to issues, enforcement, and
protection of the City; including language in the Purpose statement on Page 1
providing the rationale for this unfunded federal mandate and delegation to
the Regional EPA in Chicago and State MPCA.
Page 4, Section J, Access to
Facilities
#6 – City access and probable
cause – is the entire paragraph necessary, or only a portion thereof; with
consensus that this language tied into the industrial and commercial permit
inspection language, with the MS4 umbrella covering this and allowing for
further inspection by City staff.
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Felice seconded to TABLE future discussion to the November 2009 meeting.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Staff was asked to revise the
document based on tonight’s discussion, as well as input from the City
Attorney; and if possible return the document to the PWET Commission prior to
the November meeting to allow additional review prior to discussion at the
meeting, in consideration of the timeframe for mandated adoption.
Chair DeBenedet recessed the
meeting at approximately 8:04 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:12 p.m.
Chair DeBenedet amended the
agenda, with Member consensus, to receive public comment from a
representative of Ace Waste Management, in attendance at tonight’s meeting.
- Additional Solid Waste Collection Information
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
had provided additional media updates related to previous discussions on
solid waste collection, for background purposes, in tonight’s packet for
review by members; but had no specific action or task in mind for tonight’s
meeting.
Chair DeBenedet noted a recent
editorial in the Star Tribune newspaper referencing the MPCA Organized
Collection Report study and findings, providing interesting information
similar to that being discussed by the PWET Commission to-date. Chair
DeBenedet invited public comments at this time.
Public Comment
Mike Beraopce, Ace Waste
Management
Chair DeBenedet advised Mr.
Beraopce of ongoing discussions related to various community-wide issues
related to solid waste collection for residents, in an effort to reduce wear
and tear on local streets from multiple and repeated garbage trucks on those
streets, given current budget constraints for repair or replacement of those
streets. Chair DeBenedet recognized the need for any action to preserve
market shares for each hauler, and asked Mr. Beraopce to comment from his
perspective on how the City could do so, while allowing competition to
continue. Chair DeBenedet advised that, following additional research, the
PWET Commission would invite all haulers to the table to hear their
individual and collective perspectives before making any recommendation to
the City Council.
Mr. Beraopce opined that, from
his perspective, it came down to a belief system: whether you believe in the
competitive market and how it works in specific communities. Mr. Beraopce
advised that in Roseville, as well as most communities in the metropolitan
area, the open market system was in place, with haulers earning their
customers one at a time, and developing serving relationships one on one with
them. Mr. Beraopce advised that this was how his company had based their
reputation over the last 55 years; and that the type of discussion being held
at the PWET Commission level threatened that competitive market system. Mr.
Beraopce addressed the freedom of choice and reluctance to involve government
in the relationship of service provider and customer; impacts to pricing
structures; political considerations; choices currently available for
residents in “shopping” for a refuse hauler competitively and service-wise;
and considerations of residents in their choice.
Mr. Beraopce also addressed road
wear and tear, noting that over the years, those vehicles had evolved, with
more axles spreading the weight; and other issues with road maintenance based
on normal frost/thaw cycles, not just vehicle weight and type.
Mr. Beraopce specifically
addressed the MPCA report, noting that it was very controversial within the
refuse industry, with the report originally commissioned to look at
greenhouse gas emissions, and costing $90,000; while making numerous
erroneous or poorly-researched assumptions. Mr. Beraopce briefly reviewed
the report, and provided a summary of the industry’s trade association
comments for member review, which had been submitted to the MPCA in response
to various assumptions in the report. Mr. Beraopce also provided information
on his company, showing alternatives to organized collection that are being
followed for residents in the community of Roseville.
Mr. Beraopce advised that the
competitive market industry was moving forward environmentally as well; and
asked that they be included in future discussions by the PWET Commission on
waste collection.
Discussion between Mr. Beraopce
and members included concerns with multiple braking and starting of the
trucks, putting friction and wear on roadways, as well as creating additional
noise in residential neighborhoods; potential benefits to individual haulers
to be guaranteed a given segment of customers within a community, providing
the same market share and potential for growth, with guaranteed revenue
without commensurate expenses; city involvement in grading service for
individual residents; assumptions for fuel usage calculations; and greenhouse
gas emissions coming from 75% other uses, with only 25% represented by
transportation, with most of that coming from passenger vehicles, aviation,
marine and rail, with diesel trucks representing 18% of that 25%
transportation number.
Further discussion included how
to reduce truck mileage; all diesel trucks representing 17% of the 25%
transportation calculation, not just garbage trucks, and not substantiating a
significant portion of overall greenhouse gas emissions; current zoning in
Roseville by various garbage collectors; additional bureaucracy versus
current open market competition; current relationship between customers and haulers,
with no government interference; loss experience of haulers on unpaid bills
for residential customers as a cost of doing business; and minimal impacts if
the City were to require garbage trucks to be double axle, with some
legislation already in place.
Mr. Beraopce advised that the
open market system breeds innovation, and they were supportive of reasonable
technical regulation versus market manipulation.
Further discussion included costs
for organized versus same open market service ($17 versus $25); lack of a
scientific method and numerous variable assumptions shown as a disclaimer in
the MPCA study, with the industry contending that the prices were based on
random sampling rather than reality across the board, with the number closer
to the organized number for the open market price. Mr. Beraopce reviewed
various options from a pricing perspective (i.e., senior discount; annual
payment discount) to customize different needs for individual or neighborhood
groups or collectives.
2010 Public Works Workplan
Ms. Bloom and Mr. Schwartz
provided the 2010 Public Works Workplan as adopted at the October 26, 2009
City Council meeting; listing various infrastructure improvements planned in
2010, and briefly highlighted those items of significance.
Discussion included availability
of the document on the City’s website; comparisons with 2009 costs, as well
as five-year averages for mill and overlay.
Chair DeBenedet expressed concern
that the City was being required to scale back on mill and overlay projects
as a result of reduced interest earnings in the Pavement Management Plan
(PMP), which increase maintenance and/or reconstruction costs in the future
due to deferral of maintenance; and opined that the City’s budget model
should maintain current average conditions, by allotting $.75 million/year.
Discussion included interest rate
comparisons over the last 15-20 years; when a street exhibits surface
distresses and more intense block cracking it is a candidate for mill and
overlay; seal coating is no longer cost-effective on mill and overlay
candidates.
Chair DeBenedet spoke in support,
subject to the City Council’s final 2010 budget decisions, to return to a
pre-2009 level of investment on infrastructure maintenance.
- 2010 Budget Update
Mr. Schwartz provided, as a bench
handout, materials utilized by the City Council at their meeting held the
previous night, for the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process in determining
the 2010 budget and levy, and based on profiles completed by staff, with
assistance by a consultant, for staff time, purchases and supplies, based on
2009 dollars and allocations to 160 various programs and services. Mr.
Schwartz briefly highlighted the process used in ranking and providing value
judgments from 1 – 5 and compiled by both staff and the City Council, and
representing individual and composite rankings. Mr. Schwartz addressed the
proposed 2010 budget increase at 9% of 2009 budget; defined Public Works’
“other” category (Item #104) and what that represented based on time spent
profiles applied to all General Fund areas; and the upcoming City
Manager-recommended budget to be presented at the next meeting, that will
take into consideration staff knowledge of those items necessary for
day-to-day operations, but not necessarily ranked high by City Council members,
as well as contractual obligations and new spending mandates.
Mr. Schwartz noted the line item
for inflationary expense for street maintenance materials, with that
representing the amount of money submitted in May to get the City’s pavement
maintenance program fully funded again.
Discussion included the BFO
process and assumptions; imperative to return the PMP Fund to it’s original
endowment figure; limitations of the available budget; and potential revenue
sources that could help balance the budget and still under discussion (i.e.,
street light fees moving out of the property tax-supported area and into a
utility bill format, similar to the formula used for storm sewer utility,
based on residential and commercial units); and how individual Council members
had ranked various services and programs based on their perspectives,
interest levels, and their perception of the ranking process itself.
Further discussion included
individual and collective ranking rationale; how the public survey
information from the four community meetings was incorporated into the
ranking process; the need to provide greater detail and description of each
program for the ranking process before and after editing; level of
understanding and additional education needed as the BFO process continues
over the next few years; and the entire process being a learning curve for
all parties.
Mr. Schwartz noted several areas
that staff may combine, such as project support for engineering, in future
years to allow more refined project delivery cost representation.
Additional discussion included
employee costs assumptions (benefits, COLA); debt service; and projections on
the Emerald Ash Borer and additional Dutch Elm diseased tree costs and
impacts.
- Agenda for Next Meeting on December 22, 2009.
Chair DeBenedet noted that, even
though it was Thanksgiving week, the PWET needed to meet for further
refinement of the illicit storm water ordinance for recommendation to the
City Council to meet the end-of-year deadline requirements as set forth.
Chair DeBenedet also noted the
November agenda would also include additional discussion on the 2010 Public
Works Budget; garbage collection; and undergrounding utilities and power
lines on Rice Street.
Member Felice requested how the
PWET could address the condition of medians and plantings along Snelling and
other major thoroughfares in the City of Roseville to improve aesthetics.
Mr. Schwartz advised that this
was an ongoing problem of maintenance, due to the lack of maintenance
resources of the State of MN and Ramsey County for periodic maintenance.
Discussion included areas where
weeds were overgrown; whether a permeable surface was called for; expected
levels of maintenance by the public; development of costs prepared by City
staff for the City to take over mowing, based on numerous citizen comments to
the City Council, in addition to some Councilmember interest in additional
maintenance along Snelling being included in the budget process.
Ms. Bloom advised members that MnDOT
is looking at an overlay project, not a reconstruction project, in the area
of Snelling from County Road B to Larpenteur Avenue potentially for
consideration in 2010, but that the project would not include landscaping and
only consist of pavement maintenance. Ms. Bloom advised that a meeting with the
MnDOT was pending, and that MnDOT was aware of the City’s request for
including public notification and information as part of that discussion.
Further discussion included how
to balance a beautiful gateway with water quality (aesthetics versus
herbicide use); and safety considerations for pedestrians, bicycles and
vehicles.
Chair DeBenedet suggested
including further discussion on the November meeting agenda.
- Adjournment
|