|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
at 6:30 p.m.
1. Introduction
/ Call Roll
Chair DeBenedet called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Joan Felice;
Dwayne Stenlund; Steve Gjerdingen; Jan Vanderwall; and Chair Jim DeBenedet.
Members Excused: None.
Staff Present: Public
Works Director Duane Schwartz; City Engineer Debra Bloom
Others Present: Three
members of the public were in attendance.
2. Public
Comments
No one appeared to speak.
3. Approval
of October 27, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Member Felice moved, Stenlund
seconded, approval of the October 27, 2009 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
Page 5 (clarification of
current/proposed design and visibility related to Reservoir Woods Park;
Reconstruction of County Road B-2 from Snelling to Fairview Avenue); Page 6
(first paragraph: Member Stenlund speaking rather than Chair DeBenedet); Page
7 (clarify and separate paved areas and driveways); and Page 12 (second
paragraph: clarify cost-effectiveness of seal coating when a street is
scheduled for mill and overlay in the future)
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 1 (Vanderwall)
Motion carried.
4. Communication
Items
Project Updates
City Engineer Bloom provided updates
on various projects, including Street Reconstruction / Mill and Overlay;
City Engineer Bloom and Public
Works Director Schwartz detailed work completed on the project to-date and
being finalized before winter on the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project,
detailing work completed to-date before winter, and that work deferred until
the 2010 construction season, with the majority of the project completed by
the December 14, 2009 deadline and scheduled grand opening for the Park and
Ride Facility by Metropolitan Transit. Mr. Schwartz discussed Phase II of
the project, with receipt by the City of a $1 million Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) for Twin Lakes Parkway from the
existing round about to the next round about and signal at Prior and County
Road C; with preliminary costs going before the City Council in December for
a potential 2010 project, requiring a city match component. Mr. Schwartz
advised that, while approximately $1 million of the $3 million total project
cost remained unfunded for the next phase, the project was still included in
the Federal Appropriation Bill currently before Conference Committee in the
House, anticipated for a decision by year-end.
Discussion included reallocation
of project costs based on grant funds received; advertising to the public by
Metro Transit of the new Park and Ride facility and its location.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that
staff look into pavement design for round abouts, noting his observation of
some pavement breaking up at other round abouts (i.e., Hudson, WI and Medford, MN) and based on pavement stress based on truck movements.
Other project updates included TH
280 / Paper Calmenson Sanitary Sewer with completion of the gravity line
connecting Paper Calmenson to the City of Lauderdale; pending demolition of
the lift station; Watermain Replacement Project and connection of new service
lines and abandonment of backyard service lines; and the Rosewood
Neighborhood Drainage Improvements south of Midland Hills Golf Course
retrofitting twenty (20) raingardens in a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
of the Rice Street Bridge Reconstruction with review completed of the
60% plans and a management meeting scheduled in December with anticipated
completion of review of the 90% plans by year-end.
Discussion included clear zones
and delineating sidewalks; median construction and aesthetics; inclusion of
trees in wider median areas; cost participation for on-street bike
accommodations based on previous discussions of the PWET Commission and City
Council with the first iteration allocating those costs to the City of
Roseville for additional street width and associated costs.
Further discussion included
sidewalk design and bicycle lanes; and general consensus of the Cities of
Roseville, Maplewood and Little Canada that Active Living Ramsey County dollars should be applied to the project before state and federal dollars, and
prior to allocating costs to respective cities.
Commissioner Vanderwall
volunteered to make contact with his government contacts and the Bike Path
Committee that Ramsey County become part of the design and cost-sharing for
the project, rather than making additional demand on local government.
Consensus of Commissioners was
that cost sharing was part of Ramsey County’s responsibility, or the project
could be deferred; and staff was requested to provide additional information
to individual Commissioners to advocate for cost sharing for sidewalk
construction and related safety amenities.
The remaining project update was
on the Churchill / Oxford Watermain Replacement Project with the
November Newsletter included in the agenda packet.
Chair DeBenedet requested staff
to review the status of opening the sidewalk along Hamline Avenue at the
Ramsey County Library renovation project, noting the need for safety for
pedestrians and bicycles, even with the ongoing construction.
Commissioner Vanderwall noted
that installation of sod was just completed, and up to that point, there was
a substantial drop-off, which may have prevented opening of the sidewalk
previously.
Commissioner Stenlund noted how
well the medians along County Road C looked and complimented the contractor,
opining they had both nice color and texture.
Ms. Bloom reviewed the new MnDOT
landscape specifications being used and required contractor maintenance for
two years, with the contract remaining open until that time (June 24, 2011),
and requiring them to continue maintenance, including applying wrap on trees.
Commissioners requested, and
staff provided, an update on the Ramsey County reconstruction of the
intersection of Fairview Avenue, as well as at County Road B-2 and Snelling Avenue, and staff’s request for further review of cost benefits and modeling
options for turn lanes based on significant right-of-way impacts to some
property owners. Staff advised that they would return to the PWET Commission
for further discussion as more information was made available.
At the request of Commissioner
Gjerdingen, staff updated the Commission on the Fairview Corridor project,
with the technician initiating drafting designs, once completion of the
observation of two other projects was completed, with involvement of the
Commission at that time, anticipated in early 2010.
5. 2010
Budget Update
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
of ongoing Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) budget discussion by the City Council
and revised spreadsheets based on those discussions and the City
Manager-recommended 2010 budget. Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed how those
discussions may impact the Public Works Department, and additional
information being provided at the City Council’s request specific to the
department.
Discussion included tax-supported
funds versus enterprise funds and fee-supported areas; interest earnings;
differentials in the Storm Water Utility Fund reflecting variations in the
Capital Investment Program (CIP) Fund; reserves; individual and composite
rankings of staff and the City Council; impacts to the City’s Pavement
Management Plan (PMP) and street maintenance levels being brought back up to
normal levels with reserves in place; reductions in streetscape maintenance
of $20,000; identification of potential revenue sources with new fees
approved by the City Council for development plan review by the Engineering
Department; and a two-year contract for Building Maintenance services.
Additional discussion included
identifying the allotment to the Pathway Maintenance Fund; and Diseased and
Hazardous Tree Removal allotment that would cover removal but little if any
for replacement.
Mr. Schwartz noted one
significant area in the City Manager-recommended budget that had received the
most discussion and controversy had been the elimination of outdoor skating
rinks.
Mr. Schwartz addressed other
areas related to public safety and subsequent impacts, such as zero COLA for
employees, with the City Council requesting additional cost-savings if step
increases were frozen for new employees and impacts to existing union
agreements; request to review potential elimination of all or non-essential
overtime, which would impact snowplowing operations; reduced training and
conference attendance other than that needed to maintain licensing
requirements; and requested review of additional inflationary costs projected
for street maintenance supplies. Mr. Schwartz advised that there was little
room to maneuver given past budget cuts and lack of evidence of reduced
supply and fuel costs at this time. Mr. Schwartz noted that City Council
level discussions continued as to the projected levy increase, whether it
would remain at 8.8% as projected in the preliminary levy. Mr. Schwartz
reviewed potential revenue sources, such as gas/electric franchise fees and
street light utility fees that could be billed on utility bills, and reducing
tax-supported needs that could be used for other programs and services.
Commissioner Vanderwall
questioned if consideration had been given for using local athletic
associations as volunteer labor for maintaining outdoor skating rinks, with
proper training and supervision provided by City staff under some
circumstances.
Bob Willmus, Representing the
Parks and Recreation Commission
Mr. Willmus noted that outdoor
ice rinks are intended to service neighborhood areas surrounding those parks,
and were not intended to be a branch of the Roseville Youth Hockey
Association. Mr. Willmus advised that annual costs of operating and
maintaining those outdoor rinks were $40-45,000, basically consisting of 80%
labor in addition to use of City equipment and the tanker truck to flood
them. Mr. Willmus noted that, while identified as a dollar figure, it
translates into an employee who was also utilized to other duties when not
maintaining outdoor rinks, with those impacts and ripple effects recognized
by the City Council in their budget deliberations. Mr. Willmus advised that
impacts of the ripple effect were of great concern to the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
Discussion among PWET
Commissioners and Mr. Willmus included recognizing those items appearing to
be cost-saving measures may not prove beneficial to the overall day-to-day
operations within and among departments; similarities in deferring annual PMP
maintenance activities shortening the life-span of roadways and costing more
in the long run; level of service for snow plowing frequency impacting risk
management, such as icy intersections, with snow and ice chemical response
and environmental impacts; policies matching practices; impacts to the School
Districts and bus routes; and reduction of salt and sand usage over the last
decade saving time and equipment costs by managing the rate of application
based on amount of precipitation in ice and snow, air and pavement
temperatures, and advances in technologies for the type of materials and its
applications.
Further discussion included
public perception of changing policies based on budget limitations creating
situations impacting their driving habits; loss of life or major accidents
based on reduced service levels; trade-offs in property taxes versus level of
services provided; annual cost of snow plowing at this time estimated at
$130,000; costs and other service levels of street sweeping funded through
the stormwater utility fund, and cost considerations of the Discharge
Ordinance currently being drafted; and possible revenues from a street light
utility fee.
Chair DeBenedet opined that some
costs are impossible to control based on increased inflationary rates that
served to cause issues with other aspects of the budget that made it
challenging for the City to keep taxes at inflation or below.
Mr. Schwartz advised that it
wasn’t so much inflation driving the need for increased taxes at this time,
but major cost impacts due to spending decisions made in the past, such as
depletion of the Equipment Replacement Fund over the last decade, with
depreciation funds not being funded, and new spending in 2010 due to the
skating center geothermal refrigeration replacement project coming on board,
as well as impacts from the state’s reduction in Market Value Homestead
Credit funds (MVHS) that alone is $450,000 for 2010. Mr. Schwartz noted that
these are just a few of the larger items creating competition for funds in
the 2010 budget.
Commissioner Vanderwall requested
that Mr. Schwartz provide the PWET Commissioners with an electronic copy of
the 2010 proposed budget sorted by department; opining that comparison of the
individual and composite City Council rankings would be good discussion items
before the next joint City Council/PWET Commission annual meeting.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he
would provide that breakdown via e-mail.
6. Additional
Solid Waste Collection Information
Mr. Schwartz indicated that staff
had prepared no additional information for tonight’s meeting, but sought
direction on the next step.
Discussion among Commissioners
and staff included whether the Commission felt it had received sufficient
research and comparison information to-date from staff to facilitate their
decision-making; assumptions of the MPCA report referenced by the hauler at
the October PWET Commission meeting; “boogey” tires on trucks and
distribution of the load on the wheels and how much of a difference that made
related to damage to roads or if this was simply used to meet weight
requirements and stay below design capacity of a roadway; and similar torque
effects to pavement friction with braking to stop a mass being stopped
whether additional axles were used or not.
Commissioner Vanderwall opined
that sufficient information-gathering had occurred, and that now that
information needed to be quantified with the PWET Commission working on a
proposal to improve conditions in the community.
Further discussion included
whether the body was ready to begin working on preparing an outline of a
proposal to be publicized to receive hauler and public comment to allow
drafting a more formal proposal.
Commissioner Gjerdingen opined
that, in order for others to understand the benefit of organized waste
disposal, they needed to be provided as much information as possible to see
the rationale of such a proposal.
Commissioner Vanderwall opined
that the public could follow discussion by viewing the PWET Commission
meetings; and that the next step would be to get their involvement and
comments, allowing the PWET Commission to respond to their comments; but
further opined that, while recognizing the need to encourage participation, a
dialogue was needed with a broader portion of the population.
Chair DeBenedet asked staff to
draft an outline of a proposed plan as to how to proceed, allowing the PWET
Commission to kick ideas back and forth for further fine-tuning, for
consideration of a city-managed trash collection with specific geographic
areas zoned throughout the City allowing current haulers to retain their same
number of customers, but for the purpose of minimizing vehicles on the road
for traffic, noise and street maintenance considerations. Chair DeBenedet
noted that this would apply only to residential customers.
Discussion included the process
in developing and organizing a proposed system prior to receiving input from
haulers and the public; suggestions for a “20%” plan; determining a revenue
stream, whether through the City as a fiscal agent or direct billing by
haulers to residents; how to handle those not participating (i.e., those not
using any trash hauler); available statistics from the City’s Recycling
Coordinator Tim Pratt; onus on haulers to provide a counter study to the
flawed assumptions of their perceptions of the MPCA study; and review of the
Fort Collins study provided in the September agenda packet as a model.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he
would consult with Mr. Pratt for his suggestions, potential questions and
responses, various issues to consider; and also with City Manager Malinen on
the process and how it may potentially work; as well as consulting with those
other metropolitan communities having considered such implementation since
1991, with none of them moving toward organized hauling due to hauler
opposition, and other rationale they considered in not pursuing organized
collection, as well as where those process are currently in those other
cities; and how the City of Roseville can shape a program to be more
successful. Mr. Schwartz advised that he would bring that information to the
next PWET Commission meeting.
Commissioner Stenlund opined that
this is not about saving as much as it is about the City’s ability to
fully-maintain their roads, given the limited funds available for investment.
Further discussion included wear
and tear of residential roads from truck traffic versus normal freeze/thaw
and any data that would be applicable, but limited availability of that
information due to street designs based on traffic levels (low versus high
volumes); and whether cost differentials could be outlined based on low
versus high traffic volume and reconstruction costs.
Bob Willmus
Mr. Willmus, speaking as an
individual citizen, commended the PWET Commission for looking at this option,
opining that the number of garbage trucks on city streets on a daily basis
was excessive. Mr. Willmus, however, opined that if considering a change,
the PWET Commission not consider a zone system, but go to a single-provider
system. Mr. Willmus reviewed his rationale for this request, opining that
having 9,000 homes provided a much better bidding position than just a
specific area, and would prove more saleable to the general public in having
a city-wide bid process rather than defining zones. Mr. Willmus further
opined that, if there was a resident experienced a problem with their
specific hauler, they had no options. Mr. Willmus provided an example of a
property in Blaine, MN with comparisons for a single-hauler system with 40%
less rates than those of Roseville. Mr. Willmus opined that single hauler
rates would be significantly less than an average homeowner would experience
in a multi-hauler city; in addition to the cost savings for the City’s
infrastructure, and ultimately its taxpayers. Mr. Willmus further opined
that, based on just the advantages to the City’s PMP, it was a good route to
go. Mr. Willmus suggested that the PWET Commission and staff review those
other metropolitan cities using a single-hauler system and their programs.
Mr. Willmus recognized that the biggest obstacle would be people speaking to
competition and their freedom of choice; however, opined that by bidding out
the services periodically, the city would be demonstrating that they were in
a stronger position city-wide than as individual residents may be.
Additional discussion included
the City’s provision of water, sewer and snow plowing services without free
market competition; consensus to review those other metropolitan communities
with successful programs; impacts of recent hauler legislation and lobbying;
and the need to have data available and provable for public consumption.
Commissioners noted that there
had been past criticism on the 96 gallon rates, since that was not the
container size used by all residences; and asked that Mr. Pratt provide
comparison tables with a range of rates at every level.
Mr. Willmus suggested that the
City of Roseville look at the City of Little Canada’s program for comparison
and competitive rates. Mr. Willmus asked if the City would be saving him
taxpayer money or providing him with better service by going to a zoned
service, or was that simply to accommodate a number of haulers.
Further discussion included the
politics and emotions of the issue; quality control if multiple haulers were
used in a zoned system allowing them to maintain a market share; retaining a
maximum number of bidders periodically (3-4 years?); and previous work of the
City’s Solid Waste Commission resulting in the residential curbside recycling
program.
Staff was directed to provide a
one-page draft proposal concept for organized collection for Roseville.
Chair DeBenedet recessed the
meeting at 8:07 p.m. and reconvened at 8:11 p.m. In order to accommodate
audience members, Chair DeBenedet amended the agenda to discuss the proposed
illicit discharge ordinance upon reconvening (Item #8).
8. Proposed
Illicit Discharge Ordinance
Ms. Bloom provided a revised
draft of the Storm Water Illicit Discharge and Connections Ordinance, based
on comments since the November PWET Commission meeting, and incorporating
comments from the City Attorney, the Commission and staff. Ms. Bloom noted
that those areas needing further discussion, as detailed in the staff report
dated November 24, 2009.
Discussion included additional
definitions needed, as suggested by individual Commissioners and those
indicated and cross-referenced in other portions of the proposed ordinance,
with Ms. Bloom tracking those items as applicable, and including; surface
water versus ground water; chlorides being pushed into infiltration
facilities; geological terms; vehicles (i.e., concrete trucks) versus construction
equipment (i.e., wheelbarrows or other non-motorized equipment); construction
activities covered under the NDPES, with this ordinance attempting to address
residential activities; nuisance as defined under MN Rules; illegal versus
illicit and their interchangeable and/or conflicted use throughout the
document; rooftop connections; ditches and channels; definition of sanitary
sewage; tidal versus non-tidal surface water; county ditches; and INI
reduction program connecting pump sumps to the sanitary sewer system.
Further discussion included the
need for educational information process through door-to-door attempts, media
and on the City’s website; ability of staff to respond to illicit discharge
complaints and to enforce the ordinance; areas of flexibility based on common
sense versus blatant and continuing illegal practices; pervious and
impervious surface considerations; and using drywall as an example of a
substance that could become a chemical pollutant if left outside over a
period of time without proper containment.
Duane – degree call
Given the numerous revisions
still under discussion, discussion ensued regarding the timing process in
recommending a final draft ordinance to the City Council, their adoption and
subsequent publication; based on Ms. Bloom’s certification in March of 2010
of the City’s SWPPP and its intent. Ms. Bloom advised that she could report
that a re-write was in process if this ordinance remained incomplete at that
filing; however, she expressed concern in a potential audit. If this
ordinance were adopted in January of 2010, she expressed her support for that
timeframe.
Further discussion included MPCA
guidelines or requirements needing clarification by the City Attorney (i.e.,
page 4, #7 (properly disposed of…”); and the need for definition of
“structural versus non-structural” based on best management practice (page 5,
Section I).
Ms. Bloom noted that a number of
those items identified could be further discussed by staff and the City
Attorney, and refocused Commission discussion to those items identified in
the staff report. Some of those items were removed and others revised, with
Ms. Bloom noting each specific item, and advising that she would return to
the next meeting incorporating those specific items.
Public Comment
An audience member, preferring to
remain off-mike, expressed appreciation of what the PWET Commission and City
was attempting to accomplish with this ordinance. The speaker reviewed their
personal situation over the last 18 months in front of their residence based
on the practices of a neighbor, and the polluted situation they’d
experienced, without recourse for them due to the City not having an
enforceable ordinance in place, during that time of illegal dumping. The
speaker opined that the situation had impacted the value of their home, based
on first impressions and curb appeal. The speaker advised that they took
pride in their home and their neighborhood on Belmont; however, this isolated
situation had negative impacts on their home and quality of life, that of the
neighborhood, as well as impacting pedestrians and bicyclers in that area.
The speaker opined that the resulting ordinance needed to be enforceable; and
again expressed appreciation for the work of the PWET Commission and staff.
Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed the
continuing monitoring by staff of the situation, and attempts to address the
situation under the City’s current nuisance ordinance, with limited recourse.
With individual Commissioners
each having additional typographical and grammatical revisions for staff on
the draft ordinance, as well as several potentially substantive revisions,
Chair DeBenedet advised that the item would be tabled until the next meeting
for further discussion. Chair DeBenedet respectfully requested that individual
Commissioners forward their revisions to Ms. Bloom as soon as possible to
allow all of those revisions to be incorporated into the next draft at the
December meeting.
Ms. Bloom concurred, and asked
that specific substantive comments be provided to her via redlined copy by
e-mail directly rather than to other Commission members, to her to allow her
to be prepared with staff responses at the December meeting, as well as to
avoid Open Meeting Law provisions. Individual commissioners provided their revisions
to Ms. Bloom before leaving the meeting.
9. Rice Street Utility Undergrounding
Postponed to the next meeting.
10. Agenda for
Next Meeting – December 22, 2009
It was the consensus of
Commissioners to keep the December meeting agenda light, with continuation
and conclusion of discussion of the proposed Illicit Discharge Ordinance as
the top priority; along with discussion of Rice Street Undergrounding; Bridge
Project Update under Communication Items; and taking up discussion of the
Solid Waste issue again in 2010.
11. Adjournment
Chair DeBenedet adjourned the
meeting at 9:10 pm
|