|
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 22, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
1. Introduction / Call Roll
Vice Chair Jan Vanderwall called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Vice Chair Jan Vanderwall, Members: Steve Gjerdingen; Joan Felice; and Dwayne Stenlund.
Members Excused: Chair DeBenedet.
Staff Present: Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt; City Engineer Debra Bloom; Public Works Director Duane Schwartz.
Others Present: City Council candidate Michael “Mick” Hawton; Roseville Citizens League (RCL) Chair Roger Toogood
2. Public Comments
Mr. Hawton advised that he was attending for informational purposes.
3. Approval of May 25, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Member Stenlund moved, Member Gjerdingen seconded, approval of the May 25, 2010 meeting as presented.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 1 (Felice)
Motion carried.
4. Communication Items
City Engineer Debra Bloom and Public Works Director Duane Schwartz summarized ongoing infrastructure projects and written attachments items included in meeting materials as noted in the agenda packet. Discussion items included:
Churchill/Oxford Watermain Maintenance Project
Ms. Bloom, at the request of Vice Chair Vanderwall, advised that staff was finding the contractor more responsive to expectations following recent discussions with staff; and was currently completing outstanding 2009 punch list items.
2010 Contract B Street Maintenance Project
Dale Street Reconstruction Project
Discussion included this project moving up to 2011 in response to a petition received from residents for construction of a sidewalk along Dale Street between County Road C and South Owasso Boulevard, in conjunction with reconstruction of this segment due to poor pavement conditions.
Additional discussion included construction funding; swale location on the southwest side and monitoring construction to determine its effectiveness; determination of which side to upon which to locate the pathway following informational meetings with residents, as well as other considerations; definition of a swale; in-house designs for reconstruction; 690 household mailing list for this project.
Oasis Pond Maintenance and Water Quality Enhancements
Staff stated Rice Creek Watershed District is contemplating a maintenance project for Oasis Pond.
Twin Lakes – Phase II
Ms. Bloom summarized this phase of the project, and advised that bids had come in at $1.573 million, lower than the engineer’s estimate of was $1.6 million, with apparent award to low bidder, Veit & Company. Ms. Bloom noted that a pre-construction conference would be scheduled immediately following the July 4th holiday; anticipating that this consultant-designed project would be approximately a sixteen (16) week duration due to soil contamination and storm water items to be addressed.
Fairview Pathway Improvements
Ms. Bloom noted that final drainage plans were anticipated for completion by the end of June; and following concerns raised at the last public meeting held, she and Mr. Schwartz advised that the staff was investigating some unique drainage designs, including porous pavement drainage strips or curbing between County Road B and Roselawn Avenue to address some of those relevant concerns.
Rice Street Interchange
Mr. Schwartz advised that Ramsey County was still tabulating bid items; however, it appeared that the low bid was from Lunda Construction from WI in the amount of $16,590,000, coming in approximately $4 million under the last engineer’s estimate; ensuring that state and federal funds could be used for more of the project, and significantly reduce the City’s cost share portion, with the City remaining responsible for the watermain portion of the project, with that cost closer to $100,000 rather than the original estimate of $200,000.
Ms. Bloom noted that the City’s funding source would be state aid and assessments, so that any reflected cost savings would favorable impact those costs.
Discussion included different funding sources for undergrounding of utilities; anticipated schedule for the first half of the bridge construction starting after the July 4th holiday weekend for completion of that phase by fall freeze-up and demolition of the old bridge during the winter months. Mr. Schwartz further advised Vice Chair Vanderwall that he had requested that School District No. 623 be added to the project update list for their transportation considerations and logistics, as well as notice of the upcoming preconstruction conference.
Capitol Region Watershed District
Ms. Bloom briefly summarized this agency’s project installing a new force main at the Gottfried Pitt at Larpenteur Avenue.
Reservoir Woods – St. Paul Water Utility
Mr. Schwartz advised that this project had yet again been delayed due to expiration of their Interim Permit for concrete crushing activities and their need to go through the application process at the Planning Commission and City Council levels again, causing service of the new tank late this summer or early fall.
Sealcoating
Ms. Bloom noted that this inconvenient, but necessary annual maintenance project was currently underway and that staff was utilizing multiple sources to keep the public aware of those areas impacted, and subject to weather-related delays.
General Discussion
Member Stenlund requested information to the Commission from staff related to the Dale Street swale; and to advise of the Commission’s role following construction.
Ms. Bloom advised that she would provide information to the Commission, as well as other projects of interest, but that she saw no future oversight role for the Commission following construction.
5. Recycling Community Values Discussion
Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt briefly reported on the success of the recent sale of rain barrels, with 559 sold, as well as 350 compost bins; with plans to repeat this promotion given its current public interest and success.
Mr. Pratt, as background for this discussion, provided several handouts to members based on previous discussions, including recycling charges and revenues, attached hereto and made a part thereof.
Mr. Pratt and Mr. Schwartz summarized the Best Value Contracting process itself, based on scoring criteria in weighting bids and proposals. Mr. Pratt noted specific considerations in the case of recycling, and what was important to the community on which to base the proposals beyond pricing.
Mr. Pratt led members through a brainstorming exercise to address community values in developing the Request for Proposals (RFP) for a future Recycling Contract.
What does “value” mean to you in general?
· Something to enhance quality of life or area
· Something making citizens feel that we’re being productive
· Something working efficiently
· Return on Investment (ROI) and Sustainability
What does Roseville value about recycling and other environmental programs?
· A wide range of materials for curb pickup
· User-friendly participation for residents
· Observation by residents that people are using the program and that the materials are being efficiently recycled
· High percentage results in the end product
· Good end products versus damaged materials having to be land filled as refuse
· Single sort or other options
· ROI – investing community time, buckets as part of the process
· Would use of a local vendor be a high or low value to the community?
· Ability to recycle a broad range of materials without worrying if they fell into a certain category
· Clean, quiet operations of the vendor scaled to neighborhoods versus larger heavy trucks
· Ability to recycle glass into an end product, and that product affecting vehicle weight for vendors
· Education/Community involvement – where recycled items go, the process, and available markets, as well as how consumers can participate in reducing their initial consumption of materials, and how they can participate in purchasing recycled end products
· Additional public education and promotion of zero waste events and what it means for the City and residents to participate in them
NOTE: Mr. Pratt advised that a goal of the upcoming “Run for the Roses” event was intended as a zero waste event.
· Public awareness of the availability of Ramsey County’s hazardous waste disposal sights; and whether cost-effective options were indicated for curbside vendor pickup periodically of those materials, specifically fluorescent light bulbs and/or batteries and computer mother boards
· Future trends and developing markets for recycling additional materials, such as aluminum storm doors or vinyl windows
· Building flexibility into the contract to address future market trends and to be able to adjust it with the economy and market for the benefit of the City as well as the vendor
· Problems with rain and wind on those days allotted for recycling and issues with blowing debris from recycling containers and/or vehicles
NOTE: Mr. Pratt advised that the City had covers available at City Hall for recycling containers at no charge.
· Does vendor equipment use fossil fuels or recycled, clean diesel or electric engines
What changes do we need to make in contracting and/or our personal behaviors as a City and residents in order to bring about some of these changes?
Vice Chair Vanderwall noted that this question implied some familiarity by the Commission of the existing contract, which it did not have.
· Term of the contract: long enough for the vendor to invest in good equipment and depreciation
· Ability for annual rate negotiations within the confines of the contract, depending on competitive markets and economic conditions
· NOTE: Mr. Pratt advised that the City Council had recently adopted a Professional Services Contract currently dictating that the term of those contracts would not exceed three (3) years, with a one time three (3) year renewal option.
· Award to vendor for their flexibility and their proactive work in finding new markets for recycled materials
· Clarity in the contract of the benefits to the City and vendor to balance the highs and lows, benefits and barriers, available periodically during the term of the contract
· Commercial recycling considerations as well as residential needs
NOTE: Mr. Pratt noted a new state ruling in 2003 that counties made sure that all residents had access to curbside recycling services, no matter their type of dwelling; and subsequent expansion of the program to apartment buildings. However, Mr. Pratt noted that commercial entities such as Har Mar Mall and strip malls, as well as local restaurants, had no such stipulations to follow and their recycling was based on their own preferences or economic considerations.
· Whether costs for commercial recycling should be mandatory or remain voluntary; and associated costs; and how to encourage and/or reward participation by commercial enterprises
· Whether the contract should include a pilot program to involve commercial businesses
· Funding for the residential curb side recycling program, funded through annual tax dollar subsidies and SCORE grant funds through Ramsey County; and funding gaps in the current program and how that ration of revenue and expense could be addressed
· Revenues from the sale of materials
· Environmentally preferred purchasing by the City and residents, currently under discussion at a City staff level for City purchases, with consideration given to overall current City budget constraints
· Opportunities for waste food opportunities, whether composting or re-use
NOTE: Mr. Pratt noted that Byerly’s had recently switched to PLA clam shell forms, fully compostable; and was considering other organic collection options, such as mandated in the City of San Francisco. Mr. Pratt noted that Eureka Recycling and the City of St. Paul were kicking off a pilot program the following day in the Mac/Groveland area for that type of organic collection.
Decision Phase for Ranking Values as Discussed
By consensus, members determined that staff rank the above-referenced items in approximately five (5) various categories, such as: range of materials; ease of participation; education; funding (ROI); and community involvement, and then return those categories to the next PWET Commission meeting for review of staff’s assignment of priorities.
Discussion included the Commission’s desire for city-wide recycling – residential and commercial – whether mandatory or voluntary, encouraging every business in the community to show good faith efforts to reduce or eliminate materials going in to landfills. The Cities of Bloomington and Farmington were noted as examples of communities with commercial businesses included in their recycling program. Members noted the substantial quantity of materials from the Rosedale Shopping Center alone in comparison to the entire community.
Further discussion included the difficulties in reliable tracking of data by the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) for waste and private business data unavailable as they were not required to report, with only gross weight of trucks dumping in landfills available, but obviously not broken down by city due to routes of trucks between cities and areas.
Vice Chair Vanderwall, with Commissioner consensus, amended the agenda to discuss the recent intersection tour at this time.
7. Discussion of Observations from Field Tour of Intersections
Ms. Bloom and Mr. Schwartz provided several bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part thereof, consisting of intersection reviews by the Roseville Citizen’s League (RCL) and PWET Commission/staff comments on each of those fifteen (15) specific intersections of concern. Staff comments included identifying those intersections not within the jurisdiction of the City of Roseville; and providing short- and long-term solutions based on staff’s understanding of the identified problems. Ms. Bloom displayed aerial photos of each intersection. Ms. Bloom advised that staff, in their review of each intersection, had reviewed them based on strengths, opportunities and threats (SWAT).
The information gathering was the result of staff investigations and RCL observations, and a intersection tour held as part of the May PWET Commission meeting and attended by staff, commissioners, Mr. Toogood and a concerned citizen.
RCL Chair Roger Toogood was in attendance and participated in discussions with the PWET Commission, noting that the RCL Transportation Subcommittee’s original intent was to lay out a ten (10) year improvement program for identifying and prioritizing problematic intersections to allow for vigilance and opportunities to address those safety concerns for citizens.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff’s list of fifteen (15) intersections incorporated those identified by the RCL in addition to two (2) other intersections that were added during the tour.
#1 – County Road B-2 and Fairview Avenue
Discussion included priorities and geometrics to be implemented as part of a future Ramsey County project slated for 2012 and addressing a left turn lane for eastbound traffic rather than a right turn lane for westbound traffic.
Recess
Vice Chair Vanderwall recessed the meeting at approximately 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:55 p.m. due to a brief power outage.
#2 - Rice Street at County Road C
Ms. Bloom advised that this intersection as programmed by Ramsey County as part of the 2012 Rice Street project.
Discussion included the right turn lane easement required as part of recent redevelopment at Walgreens; ongoing congestion along the Rice Street corridor; and evaluation of intersections as part of the overall design process and weighting of operational trade-offs and cost benefits.
Ms. Bloom assured Mr. Toogood that staff would continue to serve as strong advocates for the safety interests of and benefits to the City of Roseville in working with other agencies.
Mr. Toogood noted that the goal of the RCL was for the City of Roseville to be proactive to ensure wise and cost-effective decisions for short- and long-term planning for the transportation infrastructure.
#3 – Rice Street and County Road C-2
Staff noted that this intersection would be part of future Rice Street corridor phased construction projects; with members noting the ongoing safety concerns at this intersection
#4 – Rice & First Bank (in Little Canada)
Ms. Bloom noted that this intersection was under the jurisdiction of the City of Little Canada and Ramsey County; but advised that staff would provide comment to those jurisdictions, with potential resolution for future access limited from private businesses and/or right-in-right-out access similar to that achieved at the redeveloped Walgreen’s site.
#5 – County Road B-2 and Hamline Avenue (Cedarholm Golf Course – west of High School)
Ms. Bloom noted that this intersection was skewed, adding to sight line issues and impacting safer geometric designs; however, she advised that having already held numerous discussions with Ramsey County, this was not under consideration before 5-10 years.
As a result of discussion, members asked that staff submit a formal written request to Ramsey County for modeling potential solutions for lane reconfiguration, possibly right-turn only for westbound traffic and left turn for eastbound traffic, with a left turn center lane north on Hamline Avenue. Further discussion included Ramsey County modeling a roundabout at the intersection adjacent to the High School to maintain flow and avoid installation of a signal, particularly during peak morning and afternoon bus routing; and in cooperation with School District safety concerns.
Ms. Bloom suggested that intersections #5 and #8 be considered in conjunction with the 2014 project for the Lexington Avenue bridge south of Highway 36 for further study of related impacts to County Road B-2. Ms. Bloom did advise that Ramsey County gave high priority to considering roundabouts. Ms. Bloom reviewed the process for modeling options, including traffic counts during a.m. and p.m. peak periods, as well as Saturdays and use of signal software to build a model using various intersection configurations and options and potential impacts to determine the optimum design indicated for cost, right-of-way availability, and other factors. Ms. Bloom advised that consultants were hired to perform modeling, and were an expensive process. Ms. Bloom further noted that in urban settings, intersections were the prime cause of bottlenecks for traffic.
#6 – Snelling Avenue at County Road C
Ms. Bloom provided background information from staff’s perspective, when the 2006 project was completed by MnDOT and Ramsey County and their modeling, with not enough right turns to warrant a right-only turn lane.
Mr. Toogood noted the frustration from the perspective of citizens with the resulting conclusions for this design and current and projected traffic flow. However, Mr. Toogood recognized the associated costs that would require relocation of the signal pole and right-of-way issues at this MnDOT-controlled intersection.
Discussion included lane change issues within signal light timing allowances.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that Ramsey County be enlisted by City staff to evaluate the timing of the signal at that intersection to see if an additional few seconds would alleviate some problems.
#7 Snelling and Hamline Avenues
Ms. Bloom noted that this intersection was controlled by the jurisdictions of Ramsey County and the City of Arden Hills.
#8 – County Road B-2 and Lexington (eastbound)
Ms. Bloom noted previous discussion in seeking review of the signage at this intersection for a short-term solution; with staff requesting that Ramsey County review this intersection as part of any future Highway 36 bridge discussions.
#9 - Snelling at Lydia Avenues – RC/MnDOT
Ms. Bloom noted that a right turn lane would require street widening and be ultimately cost-prohibitive due to relocation of the signal; and that staff would keep it under consideration as part of any future projects. Ms. Bloom advised that staff monitor traffic volumes as Northwestern College continues to implement their development plan.
Acting Chair Vanderwall opined that this would not be a personal priority from his perspective, based on traffic volumes compared to other intersections listed.
Mr. Toogood and members concurred that this intersection be put on the bottom of the list of priorities.
#10 - Snelling Avenue and County Road C-2
Ms. Bloom noted that a right turn lane would require street widening and be ultimately cost-prohibitive due to relocation of the signal; and that staff would keep it under consideration as part of any future projects.
Discussion included impacts to pedestrians with the addition of an additional lane; and availability of space for a sidewalk on the south side of County Road C-2.
#11 – Woodhill & Lexington Avenues
Ms. Bloom suggested a short-term solution by posting signs showing “lane ends” on the east side of the intersection. Ms. Bloom noted that a mill and overlay was scheduled for this street in 2014, and that improved and re-aligned striping, moving the parking lane and shortening it to the east, could be considered as alternatives at that time.
Discussion included the location of the Bike Shop parking lot within the right-of-way.
#12 – County Road B and Lexington Avenue
Discussion included the access at Super America and proximity to the intersection.
Staff advised that they would have discussions with Super America regarding designating entrance and/or exit only access in an attempt to alleviate safety concerns at that intersection.
#13 - Lexington and Larpenteur Avenues
Ms. Bloom advised that the intersection was recently re-signed by Ramsey County, but any further changes would need to be studied further due to the proximity of buildings, a bus shelter, and sidewalk at that intersection.
Discussion included recognizing that the jurisdiction of St. Paul was also part of this intersection consideration; and given limited options available, this intersection didn’t seem to indicate a high priority.
County Road C-2 and Lexington Avenue
Ms. Bloom noted that this intersection was added to the list during the tour and on the recommendation of the resident attending the tour in May; with sealcoating being completed at this time, and clearing vegetation in both directions providing a clearer view for a quick and easy solution.
County Road C-2 and Hamline Avenue
Ms. Bloom noted that this intersection was also added to the list during the tour and on the recommendation of the resident attending the tour; and advised that additional signage indicating “Not a Thru Road,” could be installed to assist in educating the public.
Vice Chair Vanderwall opined that if a more expensive solution was indicated, it should be low on the priority list, given the numerous non-through streets in the community.
Conclusions
Ms. Bloom, in summary, advised that staff would follow-up formally with Ramsey County seeking discussions, consideration, and/or additional information for review of intersections at County Road B-2 at Hamline Avenue; County Road B-2 at Lexington Avenue, and County Road C at Lexington Avenue, to raise their awareness on safety concerns as part of any future modeling exercises; City staff follow-up with business owners at County Road B and Lexington Avenue; and recognizing that County Road B-2 at Fairview Avenue, while in design process, was a high priority concern.
Commissioners concurred that staff follow-up on intersections #5 and #8 for moving traffic in and out of the High School, including a possible roundabout at the school entrance/exit as part of any future modeling.
Mr. Toogood noted the PWET Commission’s recommendation that low priority intersections included #6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13.
Ms. Bloom clarified that intersection #12 was on the list for staff to meet with Super America.
Vice Chair Vanderwall thanked the RCL and Mr. Toogood for their study and input on intersection safety concerns to the attention of the PWET Commission, even those that were under different jurisdictions.
Mr. Toogood and PWET Commissioners concurred that the discussions and tour had been productive.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, following City staff’s discussion with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, staff would provide feedback to the RCL and PWET Commission.
Mr. Toogood noted that Ramsey County Commissioner Jan Parker was a participant in the RCL and was very supportive of transportation concerns.
Ms. Bloom expressed her appreciation that these areas of concern were citizen-sponsored, rather than coming from staff.
6. City Council Joint Meeting Agenda Items
Mr. Schwartz provided the 2009 joint meeting agenda items as background information for consideration of 2010 topics as the PWET Commission met with the City Council on June 28, 2010, for inclusion in the meeting agenda packet.
Possible topics from individual members included: status of the asphalt plant proposal and future role of the PWET Commission in similar land use application processes; whether there was City Council support for inclusion of commercial properties in recycling efforts and discussion of recycling in general; any expansion of the PWET Commission’s role based on current trends and benefits; potential tour of the OVAL’s geothermal system and stormwater or rain garden options; whether the City Council wanted the PWET to pursue Complete Street concepts, not just for trails but as part of livable community initiatives; transit goals and trends and impacts of the recently-constructed park and ride facility in the Twin Lakes redevelopment area by Metropolitan Transit and other options (e.g. the Circulator); evaluation of 2009 water usage recalculations to ensure that the biggest water consumers pay for that consumption; addressing leaking sewers as part of billing by the Metropolitan Council; and revisiting street sweeper technologies as part of the MS4; and priority assurance for sustained City Council funding for additional infrastructure and its maintenance throughout the community.
Accomplishments of the PWET Commission since the 2009 were discussed with staff asked to include them as part of the past year’s review.
Member Gjerdingen requested more frequent updates by staff to the PWET on Twin Lakes infrastructure design, improvements and environmental clean-up.
7. Agenda for Next Meeting – July 27, 2010
Vice Chair Vanderwall and Mr. Schwartz included the following items for the July agenda: recycling; budget update following submission to the City Council of the City Manager’s recommended 2011 budget and impacts of City Council priorities to Public Works’ programs and services; additional discussions of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funding and whether the current Assessment Policy needed adjustment; and a briefing from staff to the PWET Commission on a more clear understanding of fund balances.
8. Adjournment
Vice Chair Vanderwall adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:00 p.m.
|