|
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
1. Introduction / Call Roll
Chair DeBenedet called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Members Steve Gjerdingen; Jan Vanderwall; Joan Felice; and Dwayne Stenlund.
Members Excused: None.
Staff Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz.
Others Present: Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt; Eureka Recycling representative Christopher Goodwin
2. Public Comments
No one appeared to speak.
3. Approval of February 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Stenlund seconded, approval of the February 23, 2010 meeting as presented.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 0
Motion carried.
4. Communication Items
Written reports were provided for the following projects:
Information on Sales Tax for Infrastructure
Chair DeBenedet noted the restrictions on use of a special sales tax for reconstruction of existing infrastructure, with legislative approval necessary for each project following a referendum.
Mr. Schwartz noted the moratorium ending in June of 2010 for this use.
2010 Contract B project newsletter
Mr. Schwartz advised that bids had come in at approximately twenty percent (20%) under the engineer’s estimate; and noted that the low bidder had been last year’s successful bidder, given a number of challenges with that project, and staff’s negative experience with that bidder, they may recommend the second lowest responsible bidder for this year’s project, pending further review of the bids.
Discussion included the extent and type of workmanship challenges; additional costs to the contractor in correcting problems; and other incentives for the previous project.
Fairview Pathway Improvement Open House (NESCC) Notice
Projects Update
Mr. Schwartz advised that the City Council approved plans and specifications for the City portion of the Rice Street Improvement Project, and estimated costs, with an assessment hearing to be scheduled upon project completion in 2011 based on actual construction costs.
Discussion included other 2010 projects, including lining of sanitary sewer lines; upcoming presentation to the City Council on the possible future implementation of a automated meter reading system for water meters; current status of the bonding bill and inclusion of the Rice Street Bridge project; utility undergrounding and cost sharing by the Cities of Little Canada and Roseville once Xcel Energy completes detailed engineering estimates and final City Council approvals.
By consensus, Chair DeBenedet amended tonight’s agenda, moving Item No. 9 entitled, “Organized Collection Focus Group Discussion” immediately following the Annual Recycling Report.
5. 2009 Annual Recycling Report
Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt and Eureka Recycling representative Christopher Goodwin, a representative from Eureka Recycling were in attendance to present their annual report.
Mr. Goodwin reviewed highlights of the report relative to economic impacts during 2009 affecting recycling programs and marketing of materials nation-wide. Mr. Goodwin noted the high participation level and healthy reputation of collectables from Roseville’s curbside recycling program; the quality of materials provided to end markets by Eureka; current demands and impacts on revenue sharing; existing and future markets of materials; and the value of the education provided to residents in their recycling efforts.
Mr. Goodwin further reviewed the reduced tonnage during 2009, down significantly based on fewer materials being received from consumer due to fewer newspaper and magazine subscriptions, less purchasing of big box items, in addition to changing behaviors and technologies, and lighter volumes of materials being recycled; and assured members that this did not indicate that people were recycling less or fewer people were recycling, just an indication of the materials they were recycling. Mr. Goodwin advised that Roseville’s participation, while down approximately four percent (4%), was still high at seventy-eight percent (78%). Mr. Goodwin noted that this could be based on vacant and/or foreclosed properties; and advised that additional research would be available on that trend during 2010.
Mr. Goodwin noted that recycling followed economic trends, with manufacturers considering recycled stock as part of their economic viewpoint; and further noted that environmental benefits remained significant in impacts to the planet. Mr. Goodwin further reviewed the ever-changing end markets for recycled materials, and the unique sorting provided by Eureka to ensure the quality of those materials in the market place.
Mr. Goodwin noted that tonnage was down in Roseville, with a slight increase seen in the multi-family program, based on education provided to that group, even during the economic downturn.
Mr. Goodwin provided recommendations for the coming year in cooperation with City staff to improve the program, including Eureka’s participation in National Night Out block parties with their trucks and educational materials available and targeting specific areas in the community with the lowest participation rates based on their studies; additional work with staff and volunteers to review routes needing increased participation; and their intent to participate in several additional community events, including Earth Day and Run for the Roses Event, providing workshops on backyard and worm composting.
Discussion among members, staff and Mr. Goodwin included, the number of compartments (2) on trucks with trucks not currently equipped with mechanical compaction; how to encourage manufacturers to make their packaging materials recyclable and marketable in today’s market; differences in many items marked “1” or “2” but not suitable for recycling due to the methods and/or additives used in their manufacture and their actual melting point during the recycling process; and ongoing searches by Eureka for additional markets and tracing materials up the chain to manufacturers seeking changes in their materials.
Mr. Goodwin assured members that Eureka was motivated to continue working toward long-term solutions through their company mission, and their commitment to the end result; and encouraged consumers to contact their hot line with specific concerns and/or questions to work toward mutual solutions.
Further discussion included results of research from the plastic container collection held in 2009 at the Nature Center; discussions with specific manufacturers and alerting them to consumer desires for their packaging materials; differences in types of glass in the melting process; reduced operating costs initiated by Eureka to address current economics and reduced revenue sharing concerns; renegotiated contracts with other communities that were served by Eureka; and how to determine the limit of Roseville’s participation rate.
Additional discussion included possible and additional educational and marketing efforts of Eureka to school students in understanding the recycling process and taking that education home for practical implementation and education of their entire household; the changes in print materials with publishers changing their business models and going on-line based on consumer trends, but significantly impacting tonnage collected; changes sought in state mandated glass products rather than plastics; how to determine and alert the public to carbon release numbers; and how Eureka’s program compares to their competitors.
Mr. Goodwin responded by reviewing Eureka’s business model and their company’s mission and ultimate goal to see everything recycled into new products, and their commitment to providing a high-quality end product to the marketplace with the highest level of participation based on the convenience and environmental benefit to consumers, while allowing for program flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of the recycling marketplace, indicated by the mechanical design of their receiving and sorting plant.
Mr. Pratt noted the specific data included in the annual report, not previously available to the City to determine the affects of its recycling program.
Further discussion among the group included, revenue sharing changes in relation to collection fees; billing errors found in the City’s individual unit billing for multi-family buildings and rate increases to correct that inadvertent error; additional materials including in current collections; ongoing education and tracking of participation throughout the community; gross weight of trucks (28,000 GW unloaded and rating at 33,000 GW when loaded, but averaging at approximately 31,000 GW loaded); day-to-day operations for Eureka trucks; and benefits of weekly recycling versus other another collection schedule.
Mr. Goodwin offered to provide comparison information to the commission between original collection studies and testing of bi-weekly to weekly collections.
Chair DeBenedet thanked Mr. Pratt and Mr. Goodwin for their report and comments; and referenced an e-mail from resident Bob Willmus received by members earlier today and related to the City’s current recycling contractor Eureka, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof. Chair DeBenedet noted that, while the e-mail referenced the Commission’s review of the rebid process for this contract expiring year-end, the Commission had yet to be charged by the City Council in actually participating in that process.
9. Organized Collection Focus Group Discussion
Mr. Pratt provided, as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof, an overview of the proposed focus groups and the process to implement them.
Discussion included proposed implementation in April of 2010; geographical areas of the City for random selection within those areas for a representative sample; process for that selection; anticipated response rate of approximately twenty percent (20%); and proposed membership of the focus group at ten (10) or fewer residents.
Further discussion included the make up of the focus group(s) to ensure a cross-section of the community is represented and not participating only to dominate and/or advocate specifically for their cause without fair consideration given to the broader issues; benefits or disadvantages of hearing from those having an established opinion; using the PWET Commission as a forum rather than specifically at the focus group level; rules of engagement outlined in advance by participants and facilitated accordingly; and pending development of questions for the focus group, based on the 2001 focus groups.
Chair DeBenedet, with consensus of members, requested that the Commission be provided with the questions and detailed nature of the proposed focus group discussion prior to a meeting being scheduled, even if that meant another month’s delay in forming the focus groups.
Further discussion included the merits of the focus group having access to the same extensive research and information studied by the PWET Commission; knowledge base of the focus group based on that information or their general public knowledge and personal experience; whether more than one focus group was indicated; effectiveness of the focus groups based on perception, education needs, and determining the base level of knowledge.
Members concurred that this item be tabled until the May 2010 PWET Commission meeting to continue discussion on what education materials should be developed; and a more specific plan developed and proposed for the focus group(s); and suggested individual members submit potential questions to staff, with no individual ownership on which questions made the final cut.
Mr. Schwartz noted the need to tailor the questions to achieve the objective of the Commission, by determining their goal, whether to understand baseline information needs of the general Roseville population, or to educate the public. Mr. Schwartz suggested that additional discussion was needed to determine that actual goal before deciding on the process to achieve the goal, at which time questioned can then be developed by Mr. Pratt and returned to the Commission.
Chair DeBenedet declared this item be tabled for one (1) month, and requested that individual commissioners e-mail their comments and/or questions related to the process specifically to Mr. Schwartz; with next month’s meeting looking at specific questions for consideration.
6. Intersection Improvements Needs Discussion
Chair DeBenedet noted that no one was available from the RCL to attend tonight’s meeting, and they had requested tabling this discussion until the next PWET Commission meeting, agreed upon by consensus.
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 8:04 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:13 p.m.
7. Imagine Roseville 2025 Action Item Review
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the City Council’s 2010 Budget process and history of the development of strategies and action steps for the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process, previously reviewed by the Commission and now brought forward once again to determine which items remained relevant and which had been accomplished or were no longer applicable. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the status of each category related to public works, and the four (4) categories for their status: “done;” “in process;” “ongoing;” and “not yet;” with each annotated with staff’s comments on that status. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was looking for comments of the Commission, and was available to provide any additional information to commissioners on any items listed.
Discussion included the need to include educational components in fostering an environmentally healthy community (Item #7), specifically addressed in the MS4 and Illicit Discharge ordinances; inclusion and encouragement of bicycling and/or walking as an alternative to single-occupancy vehicles (11.B.6, as well as in the Transit Section and related to trails and pedestrian safety); clarification of ADA compliance (Sections 1.A.4 and C) based on current application as reconstruction occurs (specifically in re-striping lanes) and the original specific intent of the visioning process; safety and options available for implementation to facilitate or improve those safety concerns (Section 1.A.4, Section A); coordination with Ramsey County and the State of MN where applicable to improve safety concerns; references to “Complete Streets” concepts (Section 12.B.1.a) and specific action steps for delineating areas for vehicular traffic versus pedestrians and related to infrastructure (Section 2.A.4, action steps 2-4.a) with stronger emphasis throughout the various sections above and beyond redeveloped areas; and funding sources and options for maintenance and reconstruction of the infrastructure.
Further discussion included redesigning and reconstruction streets in addition to other budget items; and painting options for bike and/or pedestrian crossing to provide additional alerts for vehicles and representing an inexpensive method for providing that alert for drivers in addition to installation of better signage (Section 11.A.4.b).
Chair DeBenedet provided a copy to staff of information from the MnDOT Traffic Fundamentals Workbook and asked staff to e-mail it to members, as it outlined impacts on marking streets and demonstrated statistics versus public demand.
Further discussion included investing in a Police Officer at $90,000 annually for better crosswalk protection safety (Section 5.A.5.c) versus using funds for infrastructure corrections; parallel information with the City’s Police Department on their perspective and action steps related to pedestrian safety; needed city-wide traffic improvements based on traffic models and tied into specific concerns of the Roseville Citizens League (RCL) dangerous intersection priorities (Section 11.A.3.a) and the need for a thorough study by someone with expertise and interest, and potential grant funding sources; identification of segments of the community with poor or no connection to parks and open spaces to address the community’s wellness (Section 8.B.3.a) and potential solutions and the pending Parks Master Plan process addressing those overlapping areas of interest, as well as the Pathway Master Plan; rails to trails options in the future and continuing delays in attempting to facilitate those opportunities; adding “arterial” language to that action step; pedestrian refuges and/or crosswalks (Section 5.a. and 3) and whether additional pedestrian crosswalks in key locations were sufficiently addressed (Sections 5 and 11); potential tunnel(s) for trail access (i.e., under Dale Street) and accessibility of those amenities; the need to strategize specific main corridors for bicycle traffic and make them the best rather than attempting to facilitate too many options while unable to sufficiently maintain them and provide for their safety, and defining east/west and north/south arterials and identify those routes best for business, commuter or recreational use.; and also making streets “Roseville-friendly,” identifying corridors for vehicular traffic through the community for commuters.
Additional discussion included the need to focus on the future environmental health and maintenance of the community through minimum or low-impact design or development (Section 7), whether through “complete living” options versus high-density housing; rain gardens; rain barrels; various housing options clustered around green space; identification of hazardous trees and provide additional funding for those trees through a management program and addressing invasive or diseased species; and addressing preservation of the City’s park system rather than “loving our parks to death,” due to a lack of long-range planning and maintenance (i.e., stresses of Oak trees at the Frisbee golf course), utilizing available urban forestry programs offered by the University of MN to return soils to a healthy status, noting the impacts on the health of the community, its history, as well as current and future storm water impacts.
Further discussion included how to make Roseville fun (i.e., educational environmental opportunities throughout the community’s trail system, historic markers); minimum impact design standard protocols; LEED standards; addressing any city-supported funding of development/redevelopment by their use of LEED standards; safety issues for uncontrolled crosswalks (Section 5.A.5.b) and timing for those activated lights; visibility issues at the Central Park Victoria Trail crossing and unsuccessful attempts to fund it over the last 2-3 years; consideration of implementation of additional roundabouts (Section 11.A.1.a); and implementation of certain amenities considered as a standard in day-to-day operations of the department.
Members requested that any future drafts include page numbers for easier reference.
8. Public Works Budget / Program Overview
Mr. Schwartz provided a brief review of the 2010 Public Works Budget/Program Overview and breakdown as included in tonight’s agenda packet materials, as it related to the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process and revisions from its initial implementation in 2009, and recently-completed time spent profiles and allocation to each category. Mr. Schwartz noted that the Public Works Department, since the 1980’s, had tracked those allocations through the use of 30-40 time sheet job codes during a given day, making implementation of the BFO process easier to implement. Mr. Schwartz noted that each category and/or level had certain organizational supervision, management, budgeting, and allocated employees attributable to each. Mr. Schwartz further noted that the department is creating performance measurements in as many areas as possible, similar to the twenty (20) year tracking for the Pavement Management Program (PMP), in addition to measuring customer complaints. Mr. Schwartz spoke in support of the department’s process, allowing the City Council to make decisions based on not just dollars, but actual services and programs for the department, as well as providing a better way to measure effectiveness of the City’s limited resources, both financial and personnel.
10. Agenda for Next Meeting – April 27, 2010
· Intersection Needs Improvements Discussion
Member Stenlund requested scheduling a Saturday meeting for a tour of problem intersections in lieu of a regular meeting, and inviting representatives of the Roseville Citizens League (RCL), in order to actually observe problematic intersections, specifically those with the highest safety priorities.
Member Gjerdingen suggested video taping the tour for public information by delayed broadcast.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that the meeting be convened at City Hall, then the tour, and meeting back at City Hall to allow the public to hear the discussion on cable.
Member Vanderwall suggested prioritizing those 3-5 highest ranking safety concerns for an actual visual inspection, rather than the entire 16 suggested by the RCL.
Chair DeBenedet suggested, as part of next month’s discussion, to review the traffic section of the Comprehensive Plan that flagged city-controlled intersections with high accident rates; and to hear staff’s response to RCL concerns. Chair DeBenedet noted that several of the problematic intersections are county or state-controlled, with little corrective action available to the City of Roseville.
· Member Vanderwall suggested that the next meeting include discussion on what educational materials needed to be developed for the Organized Collection Focus Groups; and whether 2 separate groups were indicated: one with background information and one without those resources.
11. Adjournment
Chair DeBenedet adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:25 pm
|