|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, December 22, 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: None.
2. Public
Comments
No one appeared to speak.
3. Approval
of November 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Felice
seconded, approval of the November 24, 2009 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
• Page 6,
2nd full paragraph (Stenlund)
Correct to read:
“Mr. Schwartz addressed…
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 0
Motion carried.
4. Communication
Items
Project Updates
Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bloom
reviewed the status various projects, including Phase I of the Twin Lakes
Infrastructure Project; grant award from the Department of Education and
Economic Development (DEED) in the amount of $1 million for Phase II
infrastructure improvements at Twin Lakes, with staff anticipating seeking
City Council direction in early January of 2010 for Phase II construction
proposed for the summer of 2010; Rice Street Bridge Reconstruction and
upcoming public open house scheduled on January 20, 2009 at the Skating
Center from 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. to solicit public comment and review of the
project in final stages; 2010 Budget Update with the City Council adopting
the final budget at their meeting held the prior evening with the only
revision from the City Manager-recommended budget a reduction of $17,000, and
impacts to the Public Works Department previously having been discussed by
the PWET Commission (i.e., reduced funding for streetscape and r-o-w
maintenance; and reduced funding for sidewalk and trail maintenance) and
property tax impacts for Public Works expenses reduced by shifting to a
fee-based administration cost for plan review of new developments; and the
December newsletter for the Churchill / Oxford Watermain Replacement Project
with the work essentially completed and operational, but complete restoration
of yards pending.
Ms. Bloom advised that the
Watermain Replacement project had been challenging, but served as a learning
experience; and would allow staff to regroup over the winter and better
understand expectations of residents for the next project.
At the request of Member
Vanderwall, Mr. Schwartz offered to provide an updated budget to the PWET
Commission once line items have been reformatted and updated based on City
Council action.
5. Illicit
Discharge (Stormwater) Ordinance
Ms. Bloom provided an updated
redline version of the proposed Illicit Discharge Ordinance based on
discussion at the November meeting, as well as input from individual members;
and sought direction from the Chair as to how to proceed with this month’s
review.
Chair DeBenedet noted that staff
had provided an edited copy for tonight’s review; and suggested members
provide their questions and/or comments on this draft.
Ms. Bloom briefly provided those
revisions, including adding a number of definitions; areas needing consistent
language and intent; clarifying the authorizing facility as the City of
Roseville; clarification of the appeal process and who was the authorized
representative is; minor grammatical revisions; and inclusion of federal and
state law references governing waste.
Various sections of the revised
ordinance were reviewed, and discussion included the draft ordinance’s
consistency as to form with other City ordinances; current rewrite of the
entire zoning code with the stormwater chapter also undergoing revisions that
will make it consistent with this proposed ordinance; and references to “The
City” as the municipal organization itself.
Other areas
for reconsideration:
• Page 1,
A. Purpose Statement (Stenlund): Change “effects” to “caused”
• Page 4,
H. General Provisions: link #1’s 1 and 6; change language to “leave, store or
deposit discharge…”
Consider
linking # 1 and #6 under Item #5 to address leakage? (Vanderwall)
• Page 5,
Section J, subsection 1 (Vanderwall); grammatical correction
• Page 5,
add #1 (iv.) and bring forward portions of #6 (i) (Felice)
Further discussion included
staff’s ability to reasonably enforce the ordinance; definition of potential
discharges for determination by a court of law; unsealed containers
containing chemicals or other hazardous materials; timing of chlorine
disposal based on dissipation and potential ambiguity of specific language
for seven (7) days; adding language to page 5, Section 7 (ii) that materials
shall be contained immediately and removed as soon as possible; and the
intent of page 5, Section 7, subsection I. related to industrial or
construction activity discharges and acceptable forms for review.
Ms. Bloom noted that the intent
of that section of the code was that anyone discharging for industrial
activities would provide the Public Works Director with a copy of their
permit; but that there was no intent to set up a separate review process for
the City beyond that of the MPCA.
Member Vanderwall suggested that
language be changed to remove “form” and add “manner” to clarify that it was
not about the documents available, but what actions satisfied the City to
ensure them that you’ve met the requirements of your permit; about action,
not the permit itself.
Additional discussion related to
Page 5, Section J and language revised by the City Attorney to the process
and how staff is able to enforce the ordinance through a court order, based
on a recent lawsuit in Little Canada during their I & I inspections, with
a search warrant required if staff has probable cause and is denied access;
with Section M suspending access to the storm sewer system still applicable
based on recommendation of the City Attorney and in emergency situations
until the City has made their determination.
Further discussion included Page
4, Section 4 related to non-commercial washing of vehicles; bench handouts
provided by Member Stenlund related to this issue and the number of potential
identified pollutants coming from cars.
Mr. Schwartz noted that staff
perceived that this would be a difficult area to enforce and questioned the
response and/or support of the City Council if staff suggested enforcing this
for those individuals washing their cars.
Member Felice, while recognizing
the potential pollutants and importance of the issue, suggested educating
people may be more effective than immediately penalizing them, allowing for a
more phased approach to inform of the consequences of their actions and to
avoid their rebelling if overly contentious.
Mr. Schwartz concurred and noted
that the intent of Item H, Section 2 was intended to be more advisory.
Further discussion ensued
regarding concerns of pollutants entering waterways; the need to allow staff
language they could effectively enforce, while recognizing principles and
execution of those principles; the need to educate versus issuing citations;
and applicable groups within the community that could partner with the City
to educate the public in how to properly wash a car to avoid pollutants
entering the storm water system.
Member Felice advocated that a
group be found to show how to correctly wash vehicles, followed by an article
in the newspaper to motivate others to follow suit; and have educational
materials available for distribution at the car wash, as well as additional
information and ongoing articles.
Additional discussion included
MPCA response versus local response and available resources, enforcement and
roles of involved parties in enforcement and reporting; criminal actions for
public nuisance violations based on legal lexicon and statutory references;
and further consultation with the City Attorney on Page 7, Section 9 for
remedies with the City working in concert with other agencies; and based on
various thresholds.
Further discussion related to
Page 5, Section L on notification of spills and how to prevent recurring
spills or repeat violations; and the addition of the statement “according to
applicable state and federal laws, similar to page 7, Section 9; and addition
of an additional subsection (vii) on page 6, Section N, Enforcement or a
separate roman numeral that additional language to Section 6, Compensatory
Action that would require violators to “develop and implement a corrective
action plan for that activity” for review and approval by the Public Works
Director.
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Felice seconded, recommending to the City Council the proposed ordinance,
with amendments as discussed tonight and corrected by staff.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 0
Motion carried.
6. Overhead
Electrical Undergrounding Discussion (Rice Street Interchange
Project)
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
from the Rice Street Interchange Project Design Committee attended by Chair
DeBenedet and him, with pictures provided to the PWET Commission along the Rice Street corridor of existing overhead electric lines; and visual impacts of those power
lines. Mr. Schwartz noted that this was a local issue, and unfortunately all
the lines were located on the Roseville side, but serving Little Canada as
well.
Mr. Schwartz noted that Xcel
Energy had been asked to provide a cost for undergrounding the lines, with
their estimate at $574,000, subject to approval by the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) for Xcel to recover their cost, when required by a local
municipality as part of a road project, with a process laid out by the PUC
for a surcharge to be applied across the entire City, based on customer class
(residential or business). Mr. Schwartz further noted that those surcharge
rules would not allow for the Cities of Roseville and Little Canada to
cost-share them equally, even though the feeders from those lines served
Little Canada. Mr. Schwartz noted that discussions on this option had only
been held at a staff level to-date, but that both cities anticipated going
before their City Councils in January. Mr. Schwartz provided an option,
approved by Xcel, for Little Canada to reimburse their portion to Roseville via other payment methods, and paid for upfront to facilitate a portion of the Roseville surcharge. Mr. Schwartz noted that, if Little Canada responded negatively and
only paid for their side, Roseville’s share would be approximately $478,574,
with a three (3) year payback with $0.76 per month on residential customer
bills, with businesses paying depending on their size, projected at $2.28 -
$3.04 per month. Mr. Schwartz noted that it applied throughout the entire
community, anticipating future projects. Mr. Schwartz further noted that
Ramsey County anticipates that the project could be started as early as 2010,
with construction of B-2 to Little Canada Road (on Rice Street); and that
this may be a consideration for the entire Rice Street corridor. Mr.
Schwartz advised that PUC rules indicate that only up to $4.50 per month in
surcharges could be applied within a certain time; however, he noted that
this didn’t appear to be a problem, as one surcharge could expire before
another was added depending on construction cycles.
Discussion included total
projected costs for the entire corridor; portions and differing costs based
on the number of transformers impacted; benefits of this section on the
northern end where single family homes didn’t have a lot of room in their
existing rights-of-way for sidewalk construction where overhead power poles
were located, diminishing the ability to provide pedestrian accessibility.
Further discussion included costs
to individual homeowners in future segments for overhead residential services
being undergrounded and potential city-participation with the homeowners for
those costs, and the need to find another revenue source, with projected
costs estimated at up to $2,000- $3,000 depending on how it was connected.
Mr. Schwartz noted that one good
thing was that, along the current project, most of the businesses have
underground services to their buildings, so there would be no cost to them
for this first phase.
Additional discussion included
any costs for relocating other underground services, with specific franchise
agreements addressing their relocation; easements and right-of-way challenges
for transformer equipment at an additional cost; and distribution by staff of
bench handouts providing summary information from other studies available on
line of benefits for a “Scenic America” by relocating and undergrounding
utilities, and conclusions of an organization of electrical utilities as to
cost benefits and/or aesthetics from their industry perspective.
Further discussion included the
reluctance of cable companies undergrounding in the immediate proximity of
electrical, based on their experience with fiber and electric issues that
close together.
It was the PWET Commission
consensus that based on comments heard in the Imagine Roseville 2025
community visioning process, this would be supported by the community and
would serve to benefit the entire community in getting power lines in major
corridors underground, even if at a cost. Further consensus recognized the
public benefit to be realized to enhance pedestrian access and aesthetics
from such undergrounding for the entire community, whether living along a
major corridor such as Rice Street or elsewhere.
Mr. Schwartz noted that, in his
rough calculations, if Little Canada was agreeable to cost-sharing, it would
reduce the cost for a residence from $0.76 to approximately $0.45 to $.50 per
month for three (3) years.
Member Vanderwall moved, Member Stenlund
seconded, recommending to the City Council that this proposal for
undergrounding along the Rice Street corridor move forward, and recommending
that the City Council direct staff to seek out the interest in the
cooperation and partnership of the City of Little Canada as a partnership,
but that the project move forward nonetheless.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 0
Motion carried.
Member Stenlund noted that the
City of Taylors Falls requires undergrounding of utility lines, and observed
that Xcel Energy has done a great job in protecting resources in that area
and that it had proven to be an interesting process with other benefits.
7. Agenda for
Next Meeting – January 26, 2010
Mr. Schwartz noted that the next
step in the garbage collection issue would be he and Recycling Coordinator
Tim Pratt to coordinate an outline, with that item scheduled for the January
2010 agenda.
Mr. Schwartz further noted that
the January 2010 agenda would include a request of the Parks and Recreation
Commission for input from this group on the Master Plan process.
Chair DeBenedet referenced a recent
article in the Roseville Review (November 24, 2009) and noted that he had
received a request from the Roseville Citizens League (RCL) to talk to the
PWET Commission about intersection improvements, following their initial
discussions with staff related to traffic safety enhancements at certain
intersections at a reasonable cost.
Member Vanderwall expressed
concern that the PWET Commission hear solutions, which limited options for
consideration; and strongly encouraged the RCL to approach the PWET Commission
with a list detailing their concerns and observations prior to the meeting to
allow staff and traffic consultants to provide their input for the benefit of
all.
Chair DeBenedet concurred that
this was a good suggestion.
8. Adjournment
Chair DeBenedet adjourned the
meeting at 8:08 pm
|