|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, April 27, 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; and Joan Felice;
with Member Dwayne Stenlund arriving at approximately 6:35 p.m.
Members Excused: None.
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz.
2.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak.
3.
Approval of March 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Felice
seconded, approval of the March 23, 2010 meeting as presented.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Schwartz
summarized written items included in meeting materials as noted in the agenda
packet. Discussion items included:
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area Update Meeting Notice
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
meeting was well-attended, and provided an update of grant funds and their
allocation; and recent approval by the City Council of amendments to the
allocation agreement.
Green Community Awards
Member Vanderwall provided a
personal perspective from his townhome association and public interest and
attendance at tours, providing positive results in addition to environmental
benefits.
Twin Lakes - Phase II
Mr. Schwartz noted City Council
approval of an amendment to the Consultant’s contract for Phase II.
Pavement Management Program
(PMP)
Mr. Schwartz noted award of the
2010 contract since the last PWET Commission meeting, with a preconstruction
conference scheduled next week, and construction scheduled to begin in
mid-May.
Member Vanderwall requested that
a list of those contractors and subcontractors and contact information be
provided to the School District for traffic routing during the construction
period.
2010 Contract B Award
At the request of Chair
DeBenedet, Mr. Schwartz advised that, following a meeting with the low bidder
for this project and prior to award, staff and the contractor met to discuss
concerns with previous work and on-site personnel, with acknowledgment of
previous issues, a different and better set of subcontractors, and a renewed
commitment from the contractor, and staff providing notice to the contractor
that the work will be closely monitored during 2010, and if no improvement,
there was sufficient information to reject future bids from this contractor.
Mr. Schwartz advised that sewer
lining projects were on track at this time.
Ramsey County’s Rice Street Interchange Project – 2010
Mr. Schwartz advised that there
had been a delay in bidding the project due to the demise of the Construction
Bulletin, and Federal Highway Administration Rules related to advertising
requirements, it was anticipated that the bids would be awarded in late May
or the first part of June. Mr. Schultz noted that current technology had
changed the way contractors subscribed to bidding information via electronic
plan houses, and would need further refinement of requirements for this type
of project.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed challenges
in connecting sidewalks and pathways along the west side of Rice Street up to County Road B-2, given major intersection configurations and
rights-of-way.
Utility Undergrounding – Rice Street Corridor
Mr. Schwartz further advised
that, when the final estimates had gone before the City Council for
undergrounding by Xcel Energy of electrical lines, there was a lower
estimate, with the estimated cost now projected at $.44 (residential) per
month for three (3) years; and a maximum for large industrial users at $1.76
per month for that same time period. Mr. Schwartz advised that the City
Council approved a resolution to move forward, and that staff would negotiate
and draft a cost-sharing agreement with the City of Little Canada.
Mr. Schwartz advised that a
public hearing was scheduled at the City Council meeting on May 10, 2010
related to the Fairview Pathway, with subsequent approval of plans and
specifications.
Churchill/Oxford Watermain
Maintenance Project Newsletter
Member Stenlund discussed the
process for hydro-seeding as opposed to hydro-mulching to avoid confusion for
the public.
General discussion included the
location of the utility undergrounding on Rice Street (from County Roads B to
B-2 and inclusion of east/west lines on County Road B-2 as well); joint
trenching for other utilities; next section of Rice Street scheduled for
reconstruction in 2012 from north of County Road B-2 to Little Canada Road,
with the design process anticipated this fall, at which time additional
undergrounding would be considered; Public Utilities Commission (PUC) rules
on community-requested facility surcharges, stacking and overlap of those
charges on customers; and triggers to consider undergrounding of utilities.
5.
Horizontal Directional Boring Safety Discussion
Considerable discussion was held
following presentation by Mr. Schwartz related to safety concerns of members
related to horizontal directional boring due to recent explosions in the
Cities of St. Paul and Edina.
Mr. Schwartz provided a copy of
the Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) Rules related to digging and
trenching and excavator responsibilities for locating utilities.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the City’s
procedures related to locating and excavating for utilities by the City, as
well as contractors working within the community.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed how each
utility marked their lines in rights-of-way as well as lateral lines up to
the meter or building, but limitations for water and sewer lines marked only
to the property line due to those laterals in most communities not owned by
the city but the responsibility of the homeowner, with old limited location
information available in most communities. However, since 2005, Mr. Schwartz
advised that cities were responsible to keep records, even for private
lateral lines. Mr. Schwartz reviewed average depths for utilities in MN, and
noted that there were unfortunate exceptions, where excavators and
contractors were forced to work with the best information available.
Mr. Schwartz advised that there
is an effort by the Office of Pipeline Safety and the MN Legislators that
owners of water and sewer systems become fully responsible for laterals as
well. Mr. Schwartz advised that the position of both the Metropolitan
Council and League of MN Cities (LMC) is not supportive due to the cost to
local governments with this mandate to locate those laterals after the fact
through televise and trace every water and sewer service in a community, and
due to a lack of requirements to maintain any type of vertical alignment
standards for those laterals. Mr. Schwartz provided some examples of
problematic locates and resolution in determining the elevation of those
problematic lines to avoid catastrophic events such as those previously referenced.
Mr. Schwartz provided a synopsis
of a typical marking process and permitting required for utilities; those
excavations requiring meeting on site; and those excavations requiring hand
digging within certain parameters of an underground utility line; noting that
most accidents are due to an excavator violating the rules or not “potholing”
lines as applicable.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the
main concern is for public safety and how to ensure that safety in the
community.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, since
the recent explosions, Xcel Energy was being very pro-active and was
reviewing directional boring projects by their staff as well as their
subcontractors, and had requested sewer line “as-builts” from the City
accordingly in that review of depths of those lines and any indications that
they should suspect a conflict with sewer lines and was then televising those
laterals.
Chair DeBenedet suggested
requiring that the City be furnished with record plans at the completion of
an installation indicating the depth of the installation.
Discussion included tracer
location of plastic lines; recourse and liability issues; current practice of
referencing OPS rules for right-of-way permits; changes in topography
impacting utility locations; contractor and excavator responsibilities; and
research by staff on the responses of the Cities of St. Paul and Edina following the explosions.
Chair DeBenedet suggested
revisiting this issue in 1-2 months for further discussion.
Member Stenlund noted the changes
in design standards and structures (i.e., Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area) and
the need to protect the City’s underground stormwater system.
Mr. Schwartz noted that
management and maintenance of those public rights-of-way and location of
private utilities within them was handled by cities and counties through the
permitting process already in place and through maintaining utility easements
in a corridor to avoid conflicts.
6.
Pathway Ice Control Discussion
Mr. Schwartz apologized that no
staff from the City’s Parks and Recreation Department was available for
tonight’s meeting, but advised that he had discussed this issue with them,
including their current practices and challenges. Mr. Schwartz noted that
this past season was unusual, with the timing of a major ice storm on
Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, current overtime restrictions, and inability
to remove of slush before a major drop in temperature. Mr. Schwartz noted
that, when such a unique event happens early in the season, it is unfortunate
that it has ramifications for the remainder of the season. Mr. Schwartz
further reviewed the challenge for pathway ice control as it related to
resources and chemicals, as well as environmental issues associated with it,
since excessive sale use did extensive turf damage requiring replacement, and
even the use of sand resulted in that going into the storm sewers, becoming a
contaminant itself and creating additional clean up costs. Mr. Schwartz
advised that the City’s current policy is to salt and sand when notified of
an extremely hazardous situation, with some routine ice control on hills and
areas in parks with steeper trails; however, noted that even that ice control
had been impacted by recent cutbacks and budget issues with reduced overtime
mandates.
Chair DeBenedet noted that as
more pathways were constructed, it would become more of an issue; and with
these additional amenities for citizens, there was a higher maintenance
cost. Chair DeBenedet noted that this year was exceptional, and even with
melting due to warmer weather, the pathways became hazardous from the
thaw/refreeze cycle, even with sanding practices, and the sand becoming
encased within the ice and no longer useful.
Member Vanderwall noted that the
original construction location of a pathway is an important consideration,
whether on the south side of the road or not, and opined that the best use of
solar should be taken advantage of. Member Vanderwall further opined that
the long-term maintenance of pathways and sidewalks were not just a city
responsibility, but should be a consideration of residents as well, as part
of their civic investment and causing less government expense in the future
and ultimate lower taxes. Member Vanderwall expressed interest in the City
initiating a community dialogue on personal responsibility of sidewalks
and/or pathways adjacent to their property; and that perhaps an applicable
policy or ordinance requiring their attention was indicated.
Discussion included the City’s
priority system for clearing sidewalks to schools and other high-traffic
areas, with Mr. Schwartz advising that it was the City’s intent to get
through everything within a twenty-four-hour period, depending on the amount
of snowfall, usage and subsequent weather conditions.
Further discussion included
whether newsletter articles were appropriate requesting assistance from
citizens; does the community consider itself urban enough to take care of its
sidewalks; width of sidewalks and pathways and ultimate maintenance costs;
citizen concerns raised for businesses not keeping their sidewalks cleared
for their customers; need to update the snow removal policy provided on the
City’s website to make sure people are well-informed; and specific areas of
concern for those low-lying areas and ice build up.
Mr. Schwartz advised that
commercial properties are responsible for ice control; and members suggested
a reminder to them from staff.
Further discussion included
enforcement by the City’s Community Development Department for compliance of
commercial properties; human nature; citizen complaints driving enforcement;
and the need for the Parks and Recreation as well as the Community
Development Departments to be notified when there are areas of concern.
Member Stenland noted that pathways and sidewalks were designed for summer,
not winter; and addressed related issues with stormwater runoff; impervious
surfaces; and the typical Minnesota winter. Member Stenland suggested a high
school class project addressing wintertime design and how to solve some of
those prevalent issues; and noted the availability of high school students
for snow removal.
Further discussion included
sidewalk design and rights-of-way limitations; snow clearing zones; the
City’s general snow plowing procedures based on resource challenges of the
last few years; and the various jurisdictions impacted (state, county and
city).
It was the consensus of members
that additional public information and education was needed on the City’s
website, as well as the process for reporting those areas observed
out-of-compliance.
Mr. Schwartz advised that he
would pass that information along to the Parks and Recreation Department.
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at 7:47 p.m. and
reconvened at 7:53 p.m.
7.
Metropolitan Council Proposed Second Generation
Inflow/Infiltration Program
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
to the Commission on a metropolitan-wide task force on which he’d been
serving over the last six (6) months related to second generation inflow and
infiltration. Mr. Schwartz noted that this group, working with the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division, was made up of city
stakeholders in an effort to reduce inflow and infiltration of clear water
into the sanitary sewer systems, requiring treatment.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
task force was working on a draft policy, a working copy of which was
included in tonight’s materials, with phases to address and reduce inflow and
infiltration impacting the capacity of metropolitan area sewers; and
subsequent surcharges for exceeding capacity, computed based on a formula.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the current
program with the City required to spend at minimum approximately $90,000 per
year to reduce inflow and infiltration, with one (1) year remaining on that
existing program. Mr. Schwartz reviewed ongoing and proposed efforts to
narrow problem areas (i.e., sewer lining, manhole cover replacement and
inspections).
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the
challenges in resolving issues; system capacity and penalties to communities;
and how to measure success of work completed to-date during very dry
periods.
Mr. Schwartz noted the most
significant and successful change in direction was elimination of the demand
charge concept, in favor of GASB incentives to reinvest in infrastructure,
and how to achieve standards in maintaining a community’s investment in these
facilities.
Discussion included how best to
educate the public in advance of the rationale and reality for complying with
these initiatives; changes needed in current policies and ordinances;
point-of-sale or city-wide inspections to ensure compliance; new technologies
for private sewer lateral replacements and potential grant funds; past
practice by staff in metering problem areas, but cost-prohibitive issues;
areas identified for groundwater infiltration (i.e., manhole repairs and
cover replacements); and the need to continually reinvestment in capital
improvements to keep the system up to standard; and redirecting storm water
runoff away from the sanitary sewer to reduce costs that impact all
taxpayers.
Mr. Schwartz advised that further
discussion would occur in the future.
8.
Future Topic Discussion – combine with next agenda item
Mr. Schwartz suggested that the
Commission may want to consider larger efforts or topics for the year, rather
than just those addressed at the upcoming meeting.
Member Vanderwall suggested
consideration of discussions among the City and School District for potential
sharing of facilities and maintenance of those facilities between government
agencies to gain public efficiencies (i.e., vehicle maintenance).
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Manager had requested that the organized waste collection be put on hold
at this time. The PWETC could begin to provide feedback based on community
values as it relates to recycling in the next couple of months.
Chair DeBenedet suggested a
follow-up discussion on the recently-implemented water conservation rate with
one (1) year of operational data not available, and whether that structure
was progressive enough.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the City
Council had authorized the seven (7) year implementation of the Automated
Meter Read (AMR) program, and its new technology that would eventually
provide more detailed data on usage.
Member Stenland suggested that
the Commission invite Mr. Gary Johnson from the U of MN to address park
decompaction for Oak Tree root rehabilitation, similarly undertaken at Minnehaha Park, and various options to create healthy soil to preserve tree roots. Member
Stenland provided additional suggestions, including:
§
Development of a boulevard tree inventory for Roseville in lieu
of the recent Emerald Ash Borer problem, and implementation of an urban
forestry program to address various specimen trees
§
Green Streets/Complete Streets Programs, and how to educate the
public on those initiatives (Minimum Impact Design Standards)
§
Storm water quality system options and markets, with former
Member Randy Neprash invited to speak on current trends through the League of
Minnesota Cities (LMC)
§
Traffic control options at the design level through path design
standards and refuges based on nation-wide examples
§
Educational opportunities to engage students to provide
research as part of their Science classes and to keep residents informed
§
Additional public education and flyers for the public (i.e., sump
systems – what to look for and annual reminders; and industrial SWPP
implementation and sectors of businesses for administration of MS4)
§
Partnerships between the Commission and Parks and Recreation
Commission and how to make people aware of parks and the community’s
investment (i.e., new ponds, rain gardens, and other geo-caching) that are
currently popular with adults and children, and including that information as
part of the City’s history, culture and features, through making games of
them and making the entire City of Roseville a playground while teaching
residents about the issues impacting their community
§
Inviting staff from the City of Maplewood to present
information on the county-wide project in partnership with Maplewood Mall
owners for storm water mitigation and improved water quality
§
Update on the shared vacuum system with the City of Vadnais
Heights
Member Vanderwall advised that
research had been done on an accepted process to inoculate Ash trees, such as
at a park or golf course, at a cost of $15 per tree, per year; and offered to
forward that information to staff in order for them to provide additional
research to the Commission.
Member Gjerdingen suggested
consideration of the short- and long-term impacts of the area’s park and ride
facilities and levels of service to the community, as referenced in the
Transit section of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
9.
Agenda for Next Meeting – May 25, 2010
§
Bids for Highway 36 and projected schedules for summer 2010
construction
§
Fairview Bicycle Path updates and results of the Public Hearing
on May 10
10.
Adjournment
Chair DeBenedet adjourned the
meeting at approximately 8:33 pm
|