Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, July 27, 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:   Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Members Steve Gjerdingen; Dwayne Stenlund; Jan Vanderwall; and Joan Felice.

Staff Present:         Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; City Engineer Debra Bloom; and Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt;

Others Present:        Eureka Recycling representative Christopher Goodwin; City Council Candidate Bob Venters.

2.                 Public Comments

None.

3.                 Approval of June 22, 2010 Meeting Minutes

Member Stenlund moved, Member Vanderwall seconded, approval of the June 22, 2010 meeting as amended.

Corrections:

§         Page 9, Snelling Avenue and County Road C-2 Discussion; Intersection #10 (Gjerdingen)

Correct sidewalk location to south, rather than north side of County Road C-2

Ayes: 4

Nays: 0

Abstentions: 1 (DeBenedet)

Motion carried.

4.                 Communication Items

City Engineer Debra Bloom and Public Works Director Duane Schwartz summarized ongoing infrastructure projects.  Written attachments included in agenda packet meeting materials included the 2010 Contract B newsletter; Roseville Citizens League (RCL) Intersection Requests Summary; Rice Street Noise Variance Public Hearing Notice; and Twin Lakes Noise Variance Public Hearing Notice.

City Engineer Debra Bloom briefly reviewed the Contract B Cleveland service drive from Lincoln to the Snelling Drive north of Byerly’s between Lydia and County Road C and at Cleveland off 36 and B-2 frontage road; and completion of a shared project administered by the City of St. Anthony bordering the west side of Roseville on Highcrest south of County Road B.

Member Vanderwall noted two road closures around McCarron’s Lake over the last week, with no advance notice given to the School District for adjusting their transportation routes, as he had previously requested.

Ms. Bloom apologized for this omission and advised that she would personally remind the Street Maintenance Supervisor of the need to provide advance notice to the School District.

Discussion of other construction projects including reconstruction of the south OVAL parking lot; additional follow-up pending by staff from recommendations at the June PWET Commission meeting related to RCL intersection concerns and noting that the there were two (2) driveways close to the intersection of County Road B and Lexington for discussion with the property owner (Intersection #12); and corrections at problem intersections in conjunction with future construction projects by the City or other agencies.

Mr. Schwartz advised that once corrections had been made to the meeting minutes and the staff-developed intersection chart for Intersection #10 as previously noted, staff would forward both to RCL Chair Roger Toogood along with a cover memorandum.

Chair DeBenedet requested that staff provide a copy of those materials to Ramsey County as well to alert them to Roseville community discussions that may impact their future construction projects.

Further discussion ensued related to written communication materials in the packet for various construction projects, including the pending public hearings for variances to extend work hours at the Rice Street Corridor and Highway 36, as well as the Twin Lakes – Phase II project. 

Ms. Bloom noted that on the Rice Street project, Lunda Construction, the contractor was requesting working dual shifts to facilitate a quicker construction schedule, and revised completion of roadwork north of Highway 36 this year, rather than the proposed two-phase approach.  Ms. Bloom noted that the original phased project anticipated completion of the east side in 2010 and the west side in 2011, with the bridge remaining open for the majority of that time with one lane; but that the contractor was looking at a more aggressive schedule to complete both sides by November 30, 2010. 

In explaining the contractor’s rationale, Mr. Schwartz noted that work had been slow to begin due to various utility issues, and that Ramsey County was currently reviewing the potential traffic and neighborhood impacts with a more aggressive work schedule.

Ms. Bloom advised that the reason for the extended work hour variance for the Twin Lakes – Phase II project was due to multiple contaminants being found at the work site and their proper removal and disposal; and noted that the variance would allow installation of the water main along the Twin Lakes Parkway right-of-way on Prior Avenue and connecting to County Road C to be completed during the night and early morning to facilitate minimal disruption of water service to area businesses during that construction work. 

Ms. Bloom noted completion of the water main project on Churchill Avenue and commended the neighbors for their patience during this project for successful removal of 3,000 feet of older lines.

Further items of discussion included the current review of final plans for the Fairview Pathway project pending resolution of easement issues, at which time the project will go before the City Council for final approval to go to bid.

Mr. Schwartz summarized the City’s two-day audit of its storm sewer system by the MPCA; and the favorable results, with no written violations received..  Mr. Schwartz advised that the City would be receiving a written report in several months on areas for improvement, but that overall, it was very constructive and performed in a way that encouraged staff, and should also encourage the PWET Commission and Roseville residents on the City’s compliance efforts for stormwater management. 

Discussion of the MPCA audit clarified that it included discussion of all six (6) minimum control measures; review of record keeping, with MPCA staff going through that documentation; reviewing forms and processes; and included a tour of City facilities; street sweeping practices; and a field tour of four (4) open permits in the City; and thorough review of best management practices for pre and post construction activities.

Mr. Schwartz advised that items of note in the verbal comments received from MCPA staff included suggestions on areas where consistency could be improved; where staff resources were committed and whether those resources were adequate, noting that the City’s resources were tight, but still received favorable comments on day-to-day operations and comparables to other metropolitan communities. 

Ms. Bloom noted their favorable impression of the City’s public education efforts, and expressed interest in staff’s work to assist citizens in establishing rain gardens, and encouraged use of rain barrels.  Ms. Bloom noted that the MPCA also reviewed the City’s hazardous spill response preparation, with the Fire Department also included in the audit.

Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would share the written report with the PWET Commission upon receipt from the MPCA.

5.                 Follow up from meeting with City Council

Members briefly discussed follow-up items from the recent annual joint meeting with the City Council; with Chair DeBenedet noting that no progress was made to-date on including the PWET Commission in reviewing land development applications.

Mr. Schwartz noted the City Council’s suggestion for the PWET Commission to meet jointly with other Commissions (e.g. Planning Commission and/or Parks and Recreation Commission) to share roles.

Chair DeBenedet suggested that individual members consider some ideas for further discussion on the September meeting agenda.

6.                 Recycling Community Values Discussion (continued)

Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt summarized best value contracting approach for renewing the Recycling contract to provide more opportunities for evaluation, not entirely based on price; and provided an example that included performance structure, performance evaluation; current capability factors and other categories.

Tonight’s discussion focused on the list developed by members of various community values they felt should be incorporated in an RFP for recycling services; to proceed in ranking scores based on their importance related to those values.

Initial categories grouped together by staff based on the bullet points were as follows:

Members reviewed, both individually and corporately, the list and determined those items needing further clarification and/or combined with another category.

Discussions included intent of those values and overall benefits; environmental issues versus efficiencies of the program; preference that products entering the recycling stream become useful products at the end of the process; route efficiencies and frequency; need to establish a threshold for the RFP while allowing for flexibility and creativity among vendors; and keeping those options open for the benefit of the City and its residents.

Further discussion included the Commission’s interest in collection of compost by vendors on bicycles; range of materials; collection criteria; environmental benefits; convenience of collection; service to businesses and multi-unit properties; separation of colored glass; need for the City Hall Campus and City-owned and/or operated facilities to initiate EPP; considerable interest of members in the ongoing educational aspects of a program for residents; knowledge of end markets by large and small vendors and closing the loop for sustainability; following the market of Roseville’s recycled materials as part of the best value process; and how to determine the success of the recycling program based on participation by residents.

Additional discussion included business models of hauling companies as opposed to recycling companies; marketing as a goal of environmental stewardship; additional information needed from staff for review by the members to facilitate their desire to recommend and encourage the City Council to consider adopting a policy for implementing an EPP program in order to put value on the City’s recycling program; identification by individual vendors of who they market materials to and whether the end use is sustainable or only a one-time re-use and points weighted according to how often materials can be recycled.

Further discussion ensued related to the need to pare the list to ensure it was not so detailed that it didn’t address those significant items or become too complicated; environmental benefits of local or metropolitan area companies for curb-side pick-up as well as delivery of materials to their respective markets; with members paring the list and renaming categories of importance, based on a 100 point scale.

Items considered were short-and long-term benefits of various functions; reiterating the benefits of education and outreach on an ongoing basis for the public to fully participate in any recycling program; recognition of ever-improving technologies and building that flexibility the program and subsequent contract terms; return on investment for the program and benefits to individual residents and the community as a whole; and ensuring that vendors be allowed to display their creativity through the best value process and financial motivations.

Further discussion included the core recycling program and whether it was imperative that curb-side organics collection be incorporated as part of that core program or would serve as an additional value component and showing initiative of respective vendors; and efficiencies evidenced in prices.

Mr. Pratt advised that City Manager Malinen had identified the makeup of the committee for reviewing proposals, consisting of one member of the PWET Commission; and reviewed the proposed timetable for responses and review and anticipated recommendation to the City Council in late September.

Member Stenlund nominated Chair DeBenedet to serve as the PWET Commission representative.

Recess

Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 7:59 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:07 p.m.

Members individually ranked categories on the revised table, and then compared those rankings and their rationale for that ranking.

At the conclusion of this significant discussion, with members agreeing on comprises and coordinating their individual ideals for the overall intent, members weighted the community values, through the assistance of and development by Member Vanderwall of a more cohesive schedule for weighting the functions as follows:

Outreach

Member Stenlund noted that the annual report was of vital importance to him.

Member Vanderwall noted that the educational component versus community involvement was most important to him, meaning frequent education proactively lead by the vendor; with residents recycling correctly being recognized as an example or challenge to potential recyclers.

Member Vanderwall advised that he would e-mail the completed document to staff for distribution to all PWET members for one last review.

7.                 Budget Update

Public Works Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the City Council’s progress on the 2011 Budget; with work still underway on ranking programs and services; additional clarification by staff through preparation of summary descriptions of each program/service; and subsequent development based on those rankings of the City Manager-recommended budget.

8.                 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and financing discussion

Mr. Schwartz reviewed the background information provided by staff for the City’s ten-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) related to those functions within the Public Works Department management realm.  Mr. Schwartz provided maps of major street, water, sanitary sewer, and storm water infrastructure systems in the City that were supported by capital expenditure projects, requests, stresses to resources, and ultimate funding.

Mr. Schwartz proceeded to review each function as follows, with related discussions.

General Facilities

Discussion included providing totals for roof replacement in the next printing; most CIP expenditures in this category supported with property-tax funds, with currently little money set aside for funding some, and others included as part of other buildings projects, such as the recent City Hall campus upgrades funded through referendum debt service.

Public Works Administration

Discussion included noting the vital need during current budget decision-making to consider impacts of deferring capital needs on the ten-year, long-term picture.

Street Lighting

Discussion included pay-as-you-go; failure(s) of aerial street lights to-date; previous presentation of a proposed draft Street Light Utility Fund to the City Council and their request for additional information from staff and further discussion and a public hearing for public comment on a draft ordinance; 1200 Xcel Energy-owned lights, plus a number of others; power on traffic signals and re-lamping those as part of the City’s cost and responsibility; charges from Xcel Energy to the City for monthly maintenance fees; and lack of a well-defined capital improvement program for life cycle lighting for city-owned street lights.

Member Vanderwall suggested including “traffic signals” as part of the title rather than just “street lighting” to provide a broader understanding for the public.

Mr. Schwartz noted that a Light Utility Fund would be an Enterprise Fund with any funds restricted for that purpose, in accordance with State Statute.

Streets/Equipment

Discussion included projected costs over a ten (10)-year period and depreciation during that period; cost of replacement; funding proposed for 2010 at 50% of projected depreciation and attempts to increase those funds in 2011 to bring funding up to levy limits; and potential for several community partners (municipalities or agencies) to purchase heavy, unique equipment cooperatively as an option not available for day-to-day operational equipment.

Central Garage

Mr. Schwartz advised that this was primarily related to the City’s fuel system, lift station maintenance, and other items where periodic and emergency maintenance was performed on city equipment.

Pavement Management Program (PMP)

Mr. Schwartz reviewed the successful history of this program, originally funded by gas tax dollars and infrastructure funds; with capital improvement levels determined by PMP software and budget modeling, with the program working well overall, especially when interest rates were higher.  Mr. Schwartz noted that there were now some funding shortfalls based on reduced interest earnings, with additional review needed for potential revision to achieve the goal to maintain current overall pavement conditions throughout the community.

Discussion included clarifying that CIP monies covered reconstruction and/or mill and overlay of residential streets; with the regular operating budget only covering crack sealing, crosswalks, messages, and seal coating.

Pathways/Parking Lots

Mr. Schwartz noted that this was for management of all pavements, currently funded at $140,000 annually, with pavement software used to maintain conditions and utilize resources, with predictions that increased funding levels were indicated; and that this was only for management and reconstruction of existing pavements, but didn’t include build out of pathways identified in the Master Plan or new pathway construction.

Member Vanderwall noted the City’s Policy supporting Complete Streets, and the need to fund accordingly.

Enterprise Funds

Water, Sanitary Sewer

Mr. Schwartz reviewed the enterprise funds and rates for each program; and provided maps of existing pipe materials and replacing the old water system of cast iron pipes built in the early to mid-1960’s; new materials and respective depreciation, all built into the rate structures. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the phasing for replacement of infrastructure components and ongoing financial analysis by staff as well as ongoing technological and product improvements.  Mr. Schwartz noted that it would require a 2.5 – 3% increase in utility fees over and above operational costs over the next ten (10) years to maintain funding for those items identified on the CIP.

Discussion included lining of existing lines versus open cutting and replacements for water mains as well as sewer lines; any reconstruction projects within the City having cast iron lines automatically replaced as part of those projects to take advantage of cost-sharing opportunities; as well as replacing those lines in areas experiencing frequent breaks  

Member Vanderwall noted the need to proactively educate the public on these funds for their awareness of the rationale behind rate increases.

Chair DeBenedet noted the human health and safety situations addressed as part of these vital considerations for a community’s water and sewer systems.

Mr. Schwartz noted the need for future discussion at the PWET Commission level related to the City’s current utility rates, cost of infrastructure replacement, and current assessment policy, and identification of additional resources, as part of future recommendations to the City Council.  Mr. Schwartz noted the challenges and competition for resources for these Public Works needs along with those needs of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process as well ad day-to-day operations of City government, and core services of the Fire and Police Departments.

          Storm Drainage

Discussion included no equipment identified verbally, pending a written report, by the MPCA during their recent audit of the City’s operations other than their comments related to staff resources available for inspections and record-keeping; costs and advantages of a steamer for addressing continuous thaw/freeze cycles for storm sewers; and the need for additional utility software for efficiently and effectively tracking basic infrastructure, similar to the PMP software model.

Members discussed the role of the PWET Commission in the budget process; additional information needed from staff depending on the role defined for the Commission by the City Council; the need to provide additional education to the public on core functions and infrastructure of the City; review of the City’s Assessment Policy; and recognizing the need for the City Council to charge the Commission with their duties.

Further discussion included the City Council’s support of staff presentations from a Public Works Department perspective; success of the PMP program to-date; financing options available including bonding due to gaps from lower interest rate returns and pressures on the PMP infrastructure fund; and recognizing that the public is able to observe conditions of the City’s streets, but the underground utilities are not so easy to observe unless they don’t work.

Mr. Schwartz advised that he had asked Finance Director Chris Miller to attend a future meeting to provide a broader perspective on challenges for the City’s infrastructure.

Additional discussion included improved software tools to track data and estimate percentages and identify infrastructure areas having worse problems and stresses; learning from past experiences; and the need for Commissioners to interact with citizens and let them know the rationale for staff recommendations and subsequent City Council actions related to infrastructure needs.

Members again expressed their interest in assisting the City Council in educating the public, as repeated in the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process for additional communication; and beginning with a review by the PWET Commission of the current Assessment Policy and recommendations to the City Council.

Member Stenlund expressed interest in staff initiating a dialogue to partner with other cities on sharing specialized equipment.

Member Vanderwall concurred, and suggested including School Districts in those discussions as well.

Member Vanderwall thanked staff for providing a longer-term view of City obligations through a ten-year Capital Improvement Plan, providing a more informed basis for discussion.

9.                 Agenda for Next Meeting – August 24, 2010

a.      Formal tour of the Roseville Ramsey County Library storm water plan. 

b.      Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had included that site in the MPCA audit field tour.  Discussion included logistics for such a tour in conjunction with the meeting

c.      Mr. Schwartz advised that the Recycling Contract RFP was not meant to return to the PWET Commission for review, only for additional information.

d.      PWET role in land development review

e.      Emerald Ash Borer discussion and update on the tree inventory data

f.       2011 Budget Update

g.      Assessment Policy – with the City Manager recommending review of the Policy by the PWET to determine if revisions or updates are indicated

h.      Update on the proposed asphalt plan following MPCA public hearings and EAW review

i.        PWET Commission role in development of an RFP to hire a consultant for the 2011 MS4 review

Mr. Schwartz anticipated that topic at the September/October meeting following completion of 2010 construction projects; and noted that a determination needed to be made as to the amount of work required to update the previous plan and how to view regulatory standards applied today versus in the past; development review process to encourage new development and redevelopment projects to meet City storm water management standards.  Mr. Schwartz suggested consideration of whether this was the year for a major overhaul of the plan, given that watershed districts needed to have their plans submitted prior to the City in meeting their goals.

10.             Adjournment

Chair DeBenedet adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:20 p.m.