|
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 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
Others Present: None.
2. Public Comments
No one appeared to speak.
3. Approval of December 22, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Stenlund seconded, approval of the December 22, 2009 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
· Page 6, Second Paragraph (Felice and DeBenedet)
Correct to read:
“Further discussion included the reluctance of cable companies undergrounding in the immediate proximity of electrical, based on their experience with fiver [fiber] and electric issues that [lines being] close together.”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 0
Motion carried.
With consensus of the Commission, Chair DeBenedet reordered tonight’s agenda to hear the Park Master Plan referendum first, then the update from the Roseville Citizen League.
4. Park Master Planning Presentation
Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Mr. Brokke advised that a 28-member Citizen Advisory Team (CAT) had been convened in September of 2009 for a ten (10) month review of the Roseville Parks and Recreation System to process situational discussions, receive community input, and facilitate professional findings; and was a direct outcome of the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process to facilitate serving vital community functions, framing future investments and community-defined goals, and shaping the City’s Parks and Recreation System over the next twenty (20) years.
Mr. Brokke presented an update to the Commission on the status of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan planning process to-date, including a history of the original Master Planning dated in 1960, in addition to several updates since them specific to particular facilities. Mr. Brokke reviewed the purpose of the Master Plan process in ensuring the future investment by the community in its parks and facilities, as well as meeting current and future community needs and priorities.
Mr. Brokke reviewed goals of the Master Plan process to engage the community to frame the plan and establish standards or reinforce existing standards to perpetuate a high-quality system, which took in to account societal and community changes, allowing the City to be responsive, and to provide an intergenerational park system.
Mr. Brokke reviewed other avenues being undertaken Community Advisory Team (CAT) that would continue through mid-2010 with a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Brokke noted distribution of questionnaires and briefly summarized comments received to-date; use of “meetings in a box” to engage residents at meetings already scheduled by other groups and organizations within the community, including affiliated meetings; and sector listening sessions, and community workshops.
Mr. Brokke reviewed community meetings held to-date, and those scheduled in the coming months, with the next meeting scheduled at the Fairview Community Center on February 2, 2010 at 6:30 p.m., and a second Community Meeting scheduled on February 10, 2010 at the Roseville Skating Center from 7:00 – 9:30 p.m., and encouraged public attendance and participation. Mr. Brokke advised that more detailed information was available on the City’s website at www.cityofroseville.com and encouraged everyone’s attendance at public meetings and/or to provide their comments to him directly by phone at 651/792-7101
Mr. Brokke noted that the planning process had become more than just parks and recreation, but about the community and integration of various areas through connectivity and gathering places. Mr. Brokke advised that, once public input is received, Technical Advisory Team advisors comprised of City Department Heads, City Manager Malinen, Moundsview and Roseville School District representatives, Watershed District representatives; the Minnesota Parks and Recreation Association; surrounding community representatives, as well as business community representatives, would then weigh into the process.
Discussion among Commissioners and staff included the role of the PWET Commission to the Parks and Recreation Commission particularly if parks are to achieve walkway connectivity as the Master Plan process was completed; involvement of Watershed Districts on the Technical Advisory Team for the Master Plan process to discuss opportunities and concerns based on impacts and relationships throughout the metropolitan area and it’s storm water systems; and the intent to have a future listening session of all Advisory Commissions to further communication.
Member Vanderwall noted the previous data collected by the City Center Task Force that may be useful to the Master Plan CAT.
Further discussion included recognizing that amenities, such as a community center, will require resources, and whether a Park bond referendum was indicated, similar to that done in 1960.
Mr. Brokke noted that it would take the entire community working together cooperatively with heavy citizen involvement and support.
5. Roseville Citizens League Transportation Update and Discussion
The Roseville Citizen League (RCL), represented by RCL Transportation Subcommittee Chair Roger Toogood (601 Terrace Court), had identified a number of intersections that they felt needed additional consideration for improvement to function at an improved service level. A promotional brochure on the work of the RCL was distributed by Mr. Toogood as a bench handout.
Mr. Toogood presented the PWET Commission with background information on their efforts and their suggestions for prioritizing the improvements; and staff provided the status of future projects that may impact some of the perceived needs. Mr. Toogood advised that transportation had been an area of focus over the past five (5) years, with members of the RCL actively involved in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and supporting the five (5) goals outlined in the final document. Mr. Toogood advised that the RCL had held a Transportation Forum on October 14, 2008, seeking citizen input; and prompting the RCL responses for intersections of concern.
Mr. Toogood advised that the RCL’s motivating findings from the forum indicated that the basic concerns were those of: too much time spent stacked at intersections waiting to make a left and/or right hand turn, due to the lack of turn lanes; safety concerns, as well as pollution and fuel costs and concerns related to delayed idling at those intersections; and the need to improve traffic flow overall in the City of Roseville. Mr. Toogood noted that the RCL was aware of the lack of funds to pursue all of the proposed improvements; however, he advised that the RCL had attempted to prioritize the sixteen (16) intersections identified as “problem intersections” into a plan to allow addressing them over a matter of time, from the most critical ones to those less problematic.
Mr. Toogood advised that staff recommended that the RCL present their proposal to the PWET Commission prior to the City Council, allowing the PWET Commission to review the information and make a jointly supported recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Toogood advised that the RCL had worked with Joe Lux from Ramsey County and presented aerial photos of three (3) of the sixteen (16) examples, some that would require complicated resolution, and some only requiring additional signage.
Mr. Toogood concluded his presentation by seeking support from the PWET Commissioners in working with the RCL on this and other transportation-related issues. Mr. Toogood referenced the recent 2030 Comprehensive Plan update and its five goals, and how this proposal was relevant to Goals #2 and #3 of the Plan.
Member Vanderwall questioned if the RCL had access to various traffic studies when bringing forward their recommendations to the PWET Commission.
Mr. Toogood advised that the RCL had access to accident reports from 2002 – 2006 that had been made available during the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, also showing the future capacity of intersections, and those already at capacity and those projected to be over capacity in the near future; and opined that having an intelligent priority plan as a base seemed to be the prudent way to move forward.
Mr. Schwartz advised that in his discussions with Ramsey County Public Works Transportation staff regarding a right turn lane at County Road B-2 and Fairview Avenue, that intersection had initially been included as part of the Ramsey County funded reconstruction in 2011 of Snelling Avenue through County Road B-2, from Fairview Avenue to Snelling Avenue. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that, upon further modeling of traffic at that intersection, indications were that the Wells Fargo Bank property would have to be demolished; and at the request of Roseville staff of Ramsey County for a cost benefit for each of the proposed improvements, modeling indicated that little improvement to the operation of the intersection would be realized, and that it was a part of the project Ramsey County was considering eliminating from the project. Mr. Schwartz advised that, at a cost of $3.5 – 4 million for the Wells Fargo property, added rights-of-way and other impacts to properties, and only an additional minimal delay eliminated, a southbound two-left turn lanes had a higher priority and impact.
Mr. Toogood opined that the high accident rates and concerns at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Woodhill could be eliminated through simple and inexpensive signage.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he and City Engineer Debra Bloom had reviewed various problem intersections, using both past and present accident rates, and noted that the reconstruction of Snelling Avenue and County Road C had reduced accidents 50% or more due to turn lanes.
Discussion among members, Mr. Toogood and staff included the value of the PWET Commission taking this under consideration for further discussion; the need to coordinate the RCL information with the information referenced and used as supporting documentation for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, including accident information, safety and cost benefits; pending improvements by Ramsey County on County Road B-2 and Fairview, as well as the Rice Street corridor, both of which would include intersection improvements; and examples of other intersection improvements that appeared to be poorly conceived and/or corrected.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he had been a member of the Citizen Technical Committee working on the Rice Street corridor design plan, and their concern was impacts to businesses as well as accommodating all users of the corridor, and recognizing the limited rights-of-way available to facilitate various users, and the need to use those rights-of-way efficiently and cost-effectively, as well as intersections needing to be designed to function at their highest level of service possible.
Further discussion included which projects are programmed for the near future, the need for more safety related to pedestrian and bicycle traffic; and consideration that the wider the road, the faster the cars unless traffic calming issues were included; difficulty in crossing intersections safety as they were widened; and increased impervious surfaces that impact storm water collection and treatment.
Additional discussion included some interest of the PWET members in further consideration of this issue; reconciling pathways for a more walkable community rather than encouraging additional vehicle use; the walking bridge concept over Highway 36 from Hershel to Rosedale; conflicts in safety and speed issues; logical connection points for intersections; and recognizing the challenges in a fully-developed community such as Roseville.
Chair DeBenedet requested that staff keep the Roseville Citizen’s League informed on proposed and pending projects as they became finalized.
6. Organized Waste Collection Next Steps
Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt was present, at the request of the PWET Commission, and provided options to solicit public input on garbage services.
Discussion among members and staff included proposed size and content of a mailed survey, utilizing a template developed by the International City/County Management Association, with 3-5 questions targeted specific to garbage service; study done to-date by the PWET Commission for background information, and the need for the public to have the benefit of that information to respond to questions rather than basing their responses on misinformation; other options such as a newspaper article defining the options being considered for recommendation by the PWET Commission; with focus groups developed from those in the community expressing interest in the subject to receive their collective input.
Member Felice expressed her preference for starting out with the focus groups to provide an overview of the extent of knowledge on the subject and what additional information was needed for an informed recommendation. Member Felice noted her favorable impression with the Parks Master Plan visioning meetings, while time-consuming, but still providing significant public input.
Further discussion included how residents were chosen for a survey and/or focus group by random selection, with a 10-20% estimated response rate;
Member Gjerdingen opined that the approach was the most important, no matter the method used, recognizing past experience with community sensitivities, reinforcing that fact that this is under discussion, not planned and not being put in place at this time.
Chair DeBenedet opined that a mailed or on-line survey would be the least useful, and spoke in support of a focus group, with open meetings, similar to those the City had held last summer, even though not well attended given the amount of advertising they’d received.
Further discussion included the advantages of an on-line survey allowing more questions to be asked and massive amounts of data made available; potential of focus groups being held first, then public comment at a regular PWET Commission meeting; with the focus group provided the information from staff to the PWET Commission to-date, as a sufficient starting point for their discussions, with that information provided to them in advance for preparation for discussion at the focus group meetings.
Additional discussion included how to ensure the validity of participants in an on-line survey; engaging people by asking the right questions; using the on-line survey after the focus group to allow the group to sharpen the questions and on-line information.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that a schedule for potential focus groups seemed to be the next step.
Mr. Pratt advised that February or early to mid-March would be best to accommodate other staff work projects.
Member Vanderwall noted that the weather would be more favorable for attendance at the focus groups at that time as well.
Chair DeBenedet suggested the end of March or early April for focus group meetings, with the public invited to attend.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that the PWET Commission appoint a small subcommittee or committee liaison for that group as an observer; and Mr. Pratt suggested the need for a note taker at those meetings to generate data.
Member Vanderwall spoke in support of an open-ended discussion at the focus group level to determine the best ideas, and then from that have the focus groups prepare the issues by topics or next steps in a more organized way.
Member Felice suggested polling the focus group to see what they needed to make a better decision, after their review and discussion of the initial background information provided by the PWET Commission.
Member Stenlund suggested that the focus group be tasked to define questions for the on-line survey and that they also lead discussions at a regular PWET Commission meeting.
Staff was so directed to proceed as indicated.
George Walters, Walters Recycling and Refuse
Mr. Walters provided a bench handout for staff to forward to PWET Commissioners by e-mail and for the public to have benefit of that information as well.
Mr. Walters sought the objective of this discussion: whether it was for them to focus on the road wear and tear from refuse and recycling trucks or a broader issue.
Chair DeBenedet advised that the discussion was broader, and was seeking to obtain more competitive rates for citizens based on other community data for an organized collection system. Chair DeBenedet noted that road wear and tear was a huge item, given street maintenance budget constraints.
Mr. Walters provided past data, detailed in his bench handout, from past studies by surrounding cities in the area, and engineering studies to determine the impact of refuse trucks on roadways.
Mr. Walters advised that the conclusions of those past studies were that the main source of road wear and tear was Mother Nature, and the frost/freeze cycles; while admitting that heavy trucks did have an impact, but that engineers could not provide actual measurements of that impact.
Discussion included road wear in addition to livable communities and quality of life to decrease traffic and noise pollution; improved technologies on trucks over the last fifteen years; Walters Company storm water technologies in washing and sanitizing recycling and garbage carts through recycling the wash water rather than dumping that water in storm sewers; and Roseville’s development of a new ordinance related to storm water discharge.
Mr. Walters assured members that his firm was working hard to find solutions to environmental problems.
Chair DeBenedet asked Mr. Walters if his firm served all of Roseville; and if he could retain the same number of customers in one section of Roseville, with fewer road miles, could that be more economical for them and in turn that savings passed on to the customer.
Mr. Walters responded affirmatively to both questions, noting that the more dense their routes, the fewer drivers were needed.
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 8:07 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:11 p.m.
7. Communication Items
Mr. Schwartz provided project updates as follows:
Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project
Mr. Schwartz provided an update on the second phase of the Twin Lakes Infrastructure project, and the appropriation from Congress of $1 million toward that infrastructure improvement, combined with the DEED grant award of the same amount to be used in 2010. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was moving forward with final plan completion, and that it would be on the February PWET Commission agenda for their review. Mr. Schwartz noted pending action from the MPCA for the Response Action Plan (RAP) to proceed and one additional right-of-way needed for this next phase, with construction tentatively planned for the summer of 2010.
Rice Street Interchange Reconstruction
Mr. Schwartz anticipated that the 95% plans would be completed next week for another review by the various agencies, including all three (3) cities. Mr. Schwartz advised that the City Council had authorized staff to pursue undergrounding of electrical utilities along the Rice Street corridor as recommendation by the PWET Commission; and that the City of Little Canada had taken similar action and concurred that the cost should be shared 50/50 between the two cities; and that staff would be meeting with Xcel Energy to proceed with detailed designs as part of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) process, anticipated to be available within a month, for presentation and review by the City Council to proceed with authorizing the surcharge.
Member Vanderwall requested that staff provide the PWET Commissioners with the bill number and contact information for the legislative delegation for their advocacy of the upcoming bonding bill and remainder of funding for this project.
Capitol View Area/Highway 36 Project
Mr. Schwartz noted the receipt of a petition presented to the City Council from citizens in single-family homes adjacent to Highway 36 for reconsideration of installation of a noise wall along the north side of Highway 36; with the majority of the properties now opposed to the noise wall.
NE Suburban Campus Trail
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff as finishing the plans and anticipated a community meeting in the next three weeks, with an easement from Macy’s required on Fairview Avenue.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that members contact staff with any additional input (i.e., crosswalks) for those plans as soon as possible.
2010 Pavement Management Plan (PMP)
Mr. Schwartz advised that the 2010 PMP project plans should be completed later in February, with bid letting in March, for approximately three miles of mill and overlay and related improvements in 2010.
Storm Water Illicit Discharge and Connection Ordinance
Mr. Schwartz advised that the ordinance was presented for consideration at the January 25, 2010 Roseville City Council meeting; and they had requested several language clarifications related to runoff from car washing directed to pervious surfaces, expressing concern with exemptions and more instructive language for commercial and advisory to exempted car washing; and who would be the ultimate appeal person, whether the City Manager or City Council, with additional discussion necessary with the City Attorney.
Discussion included City Council review of the chlorine pool discharge, with Mr. Schwartz advising that he had suggested language such as “detectable levels” since most pool owners already having a test kit.
Mr. Schwartz advised, that overall, the City Council had been receptive, with those minor changes.
Member Vanderwall requested that staff provide him with an outline of the proposed summer construction projects as soon as they were available for his review for summer school and bus routes for District 623.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that City staff formally communicate directly with the School District staff.
Chair DeBenedet noted that his capstone Master’s Degree program project was approved, which would be to develop a Public Utility Maintenance Plan for the City of Roseville, which he anticipated finishing in November or December of this year; and suggested that City staff and the PWET Commission may be interested in reviewing it to review possible minimum standards of service and maintenance in the most cost-effective manner.
8. Agenda for Next Meeting – February 23, 2010
Chair DeBenedet noted that the Annual Recycling Report should be on the February meeting agenda; but that there would be no need for further discussion on organized collection at that meeting.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he planned to present three plan sets at February’s meeting: Ramsey County interchange; Twin Lakes Phase II infrastructure; and the NE Trail Plan.
Mr. Schwartz also advised that he would be providing the 2010 Budget to the PWET Commission over the next few days, as it had just been converted from program to accounting line items.
Member Vanderwall requested that staff provide an overview at the next meeting of the seven (7) different fund budgets for the Public Works area.
9. Adjournment
Chair DeBenedet adjourned the meeting at 8:39 pm
|