Roseville MN Homepage
Search
 

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission


Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, September 28, 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; Jan Vanderwall; Dwayne Stenlund; and Joan Felice

 

Staff Present:         Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke

 

2.                 Public Comments

None.

 

3.                 Approval of July 27, 2010 Meeting Minutes

Member Vanderwall moved, Member Felice seconded, approval of the July 27, 2010 meeting as amended.

 

Corrections:

§         Page 1 (DeBenedet)

Identify Eureka Recycling Represent present at the meeting

§         Page 3 (DeBenedet)

3rd full paragraph: identify as removal of “…3,000 [feet] of older lines.”

4th paragraph: reference MPCA audit as “… [constructive] rather than construction…”

§         Page 4 (DeBenedet)

Item 4, last paragraph – further discussion at the [September] meeting

 

Ayes: 5

Nays: 0

Motion carried.

 

 

 

4.                 Communication Items

Mr. Schwartz provided an update on ongoing 2010 construction projects, including the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Phase II Construction Project and the Rice Street/TH 36 Interchange Reconstruction Project;

 

Discussion included weather-related delays and issues; erosion control; status of the Rice Street bridge beams and decking over Highway 36 and anticipated opening of the eastbound lanes; progress made; ongoing communication between the project team and area residents and businesses; traffic controls and handicapped accessibility challenges with the Rice Street project as well as bus stop access considerations; temporary pathways provided by Xcel Energy and corrections; and challenges for pedestrians over walkways during the construction; with recognition of the complexity of such major road projects and coordination with utility and underground infrastructure work and phasing of portions of the work.

 

Further discussion included an update of the Fairview Avenue pathway project entering its final design state.  Staff is working through easement and cost issues and doing some value engineering with anticipated early spring 2011 construction.

 

Member Stenlund stated some follow-through is needed for removal of erosion control from pipeline work on Victoria Street adjacent to Prince of Peace Lutheran Church.

 

Member Stenlund mentioned a workshop he’d attended earlier today with Roseville resident and former PWET Commission member Randy Neprash and representatives from Sweden for alternative use of trees and rooting soils adjacent to roadways and other cold climate issues, and suggested a future presentation and discussion with Mr. Neprash at a PWET Commission meeting on options available for future livable green space.

 

Member Vanderwall noted a recent Rotary Club speaker on organized collection efforts of adjacent communities, including the City of Falcon Heights, and suggested that the community’s Public Works Directors get together to share information and potential parallel committee research and cooperative ventures with other area metropolitan comities based on past history and lessons learned.

 

6.                 Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Update

Parks and Recreation Department Director Lonnie Brokke distributed a bench handout entitled, EAB Management Program, attached hereto and made a part thereof.

 

Mr. Brokke provided a brief presentation on the status of the EAB disease in this area and steps the City is taking to complete a tree inventory of trees on public property as well as recommendations for treatment and response, training of employees, and additional data becoming available from other agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Natural Resources.  Mr. Brokke noted the EAB Management Plan components, including the tree inventory; management options; ordinance; wood handling; planting; outreach, education, training, and monitoring; and budgeting.

 

Mr. Brokke reviewed the anticipated presentation of findings to-date to the Parks and Recreation Commission, who also serves as the City’s Tree Board, in the immediate future, and staff recommendations regarding diseased and hazardous trees in the community, as well as steps for their removal and replacement.

 

Discussion included parks and golf course properties; public rights-of-way; a status of each of the plan’s components following award of the grant from the Department of Agriculture in January of 2010; identification of an inventory of 1740 Ash trees on boulevards in Roseville, not inclusive of other public properties; width of average rights-of-way between 12 – 15’ behind the curb line; approach for diseased trees on private property to avoid spreading; and impacts of EAB on declining trees, with healthy trees having better stamina.

 

Mr. Brokke reviewed various management options as outlined in the Management Plan and anticipated combined removal and/or treatment, with grant funding providing for removal of up to twenty-three (23) trees, with analysis of the inventory to determine those most declining Ash trees and their systematic removal, with others being treated, and then replanting of various species.

 

Mr. Brokke reviewed the proposed ordinance updating current City Code, Chapter 706, as part of the requirement of the grant funding.  Mr. Brokke anticipated a Public Hearing to be held on the proposed ordinance by January of 2011; and provisions for licensing tree companies working in Roseville required to sign a compliance agreement, in accordance with state and federal guidelines.

 

Further discussion included identifying species not subject to infestations, with Mr. Brokke advising that the tree inventory had identified appropriate species, and recommendations that no more than 10% of one species be planted on one street, to avoid losing significant tree canopies within the community.

 

Additional discussion included unauthorized people going door to door offering to do tree trimming and/or removal, and the need for citizens to be aware of scams in the area and educational information available from City Hall to use caution in selecting contractors and making sure they’re licensed by the City of Roseville to avoid issues and fraud, especially for the senior population in the community.

 

Further discussion included a temporary emergency site to be determined for proper quarantine of diseased trees; provisions of storm water action plans for tree disposal according to MS4 requirements; additional resources for tree replacement; experimental injection system treatment and research underway by the Cedarholm Golf Course Superintendent and Greens Committee at the Golf Course; nursery stock owned by the City behind the arboretum and long-term treatment to expand stock; and staff versus outsourcing treatment.

 

Member Stenlund suggested that staff not restrict themselves in considering future potential infestations by providing flexibility and using resistant varieties.

 

Member Gjerdingen noted the need to replace the City’s tree inventory to maintain shade, energy savings, community health and quality of life, as well as aesthetics.

 

Member Stenlund noted the additional benefits and value of trees beyond their monetary value, including traffic calming, storm water drainage, and less crime.

 

Additional discussion included tree replacement costs based on the diameter of trees; community’s value of trees based on their interest when a developer proposes removing mature trees; controlled landscaping needs and considerations in urban areas; hazards of trees reaching their maturity and/or becoming diseased.

 

Further discussion included displays from the Department of Agriculture located at City Hall and the Harriet Alexander Nature Center (HANC) to educate the public and provide outreach on the value of trees and recognizing diseased species; additional plans for meetings throughout the community and training of staff; ongoing monitoring of the purple traps around the area and frequency of that monitoring; 2011 budgeting proposed for the EAB Management Program requesting $100,000 annually for various components, and considered an ongoing budgetary need.

 

It was noted that of the total boulevard trees in the community, Ash trees made up approximately twenty percent (20%) of that inventory.

 

Mr. Schwartz advised that, once the data had been entered and information completed, reports and maps would be available, and could be shared with the PWET Commission at their request and based on their interest.

 

Member Vanderwall suggested that, as money is available, it seemed prudent to purchase small trees now for future use and less initial expense for purchase of larger trees in the short-term.  Member Vanderwall further suggested that there may be some community clubs, organizations, or school groups that may be interested in assisting with planting the stock.

 

Member Vanderwall asked that Mr. Brokke share this EAB Management Plan with Mr. Schwartz electronically for forwarding to PWET Commission members.

 

5.                 Recycling Contract Outcome

Chair DeBenedet advised that both he and Mr. Schwartz had been involved in the Recycling provider interviews, and they would report rather on that process.

 

Mr. Schwartz advised that the City Council had awarded the contract to Eureka Recycling, based on the information they received, which was also included in tonight’s PWET Commission agenda materials, with ranking information based on community values provided by the PWET Commission, using the Best Value scoring approach.  Mr. Schwartz reviewed the comprehensive process used in evaluating the four (4) proposals received, criteria used for ranking, and their subsequent ranking; and the determination that Eureka was the overall best value after taking into account different financial analyses.

 

Chair DeBenedet reviewed the bids, revenue sharing; quality of proposals received and the amount of detail; presentation of documentation; and supporting data provided; and the superiority of the Eureka proposal compared to the other proposals.  Chair DeBenedet opined that it was obvious that Eureka was serious about the entire recycling process to the end product.

 

Discussion included continuation of the single-stream recycling process at this time; submission of more than one proposal by several of the firms based on term of service and type of collection and whether or not they included revenue sharing; trends for future bids and validity of criteria for ranking those bids; compliance with community values in reviewing those bids; and how proposals were scored and ranked based on the Best Value process and individual interpretations.

 

It was the consensus of members that they were pleased with the outcome, and about their participation in the process.

 

Recess

Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:57 p.m.

 

7.                 Follow-Up Discussion on Library Tour

Chair DeBenedet sought comment from members on their tour of the Roseville branch of the Ramsey County Library last month; and future storm water management options for Roseville in encouraging developers to be proactive in similar management practices.  Chair DeBenedet suggested that City Engineer Debra Bloom and local Watershed Districts encourage developers to pursue Leadership, Energy, Environmental Design- (LEED)-certified projects, particularly in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area.

 

Member Vanderwall suggested that developers, early in the application and/or permitting process with the City, be made aware of exemplary sites already in the community and/or area, such as the library, established rain gardens, and other areas providing proactive site water management systems for their consideration on their projects.

 

Mr. Schwartz noted that developers have contact early in the design process with the City and Watershed Districts; and potential financial partnerships with those agencies.

 

Discussion included development of educational materials for those remodeling or building new single-family homes that highlighted new technologies in site water management; zoning code rewrite including Best Management practices and recertified periodically and recorded with the property for future information; potential recognition of those property owners using proactive techniques; and potential tours of those sites to provide examples.

 

Member Felice suggested, and Member Stenlund expressed support, for educating the public on these ideas and recognizing citizens who took the initiative to “think green;” and the value of visible examples, since many of the storm water management systems are underground and part of the unseen infrastructure.

 

Chair DeBenedet expressed his interest in hearing from City Engineer Bloom at a future PWET Commission meeting the process for developers to receive such information and how the City encourages positive storm water treatment on properties.

 

Member Vanderwall noted the need to raise awareness in the residential and business community; and provide links on the City website for easy reference for the public, with ongoing monitoring of the website information to ensure it doesn’t become obsolete.

 

Member Stenlund noted the need to recognize the audience by providing different materials, whether for the general public or “as builts” or technical information for developers for commercial projects.

 

Members concurred that there needed to be future discussion and brainstorming of ideas at a future PWET Commission meeting.

 

Chair DeBenedet noted previous discussion for storm water credit fees built into the fee structure, with Mr. Schwartz advising that is still a consideration being considered by staff if and when the storm water ordinance is rewritten, since it’s initial enactment in the 1980’s and given changes in storm water management today.

 

Chair DeBenedet suggested that discussion of those credits be included in future PWET Commission discussions to achieve a sustainable storm water system.

 

8.                 Preliminary 2011 Infrastructure Work Plan

Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed the proposed 2011 work plan for infrastructure replacement, including 15.37 miles of seal coat; 2.71 mill and overlay; 0.47 miles of reconstruction; 0.50 county reconstruction; and 0.76 miles of potential state mill and overlay; all detailed in the staff report dated September 28, 2010.

 

Mr. Schwartz noted that the associated Aladdin Street storm water project would receive funding assistance from a grant received by the Grass Lakes Water Management Organization (GLWMO) partnering with the City of Roseville, for treatment of storm water through a series of rain gardens.

 

Discussion included additional state and county projects and involvement of the City for portions of those projects; Engineer’s cost estimates for the various projects; funding sources; replacing utilities and underground infrastructure as part of some of the projects; and projected annual maintenance funding to retain actual needs.

 

Member Vanderwall, in his role with the School District’s transportation routing, requested that the Dale Street project plans provide keeping the road open through the end of the school year if at all possible.

 

Mr. Schwartz reviewed reassessment of pavement conditions and some past pavement applications that were failing prematurely, requiring more frequent mill and overlay applications at added cost; state studies looking into those failures during the early 1990’s to determine the cause of failure, whether oils used or mix designs, given the extent of failures beyond those in Roseville; and adjustments to the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) annually as failures are observed.

 

Further discussion included short- and long-range planning and adjustments accordingly; some older pavement applications performing better than those installed in the 1980’s and 1990’s, with additional research being performed to determine the reason for that improved performance; petition received for installation of a sidewalk by residents on Iona and Dale based on safety and speed, moving that segment ahead of the Victoria project, even though their pavement conditions were similar; types of soil impacting the type of pavement distresses found.

 

Chair DeBenedet opined the need to take speed study and citizen concerns seriously and increase the police presence and issuing tickets as indicated.

 

Mr. Schwartz noted that the Police Department was aware of various speed studies, and were very cooperative to citizen concerns and stepped up their presence and enforcement as warranted. 

 

Additional discussion included how utility needs are incorporated into street projects; televising lines to determine flow; water line break history on cast iron water mains and their sizes and flow rates; replacement of all cast iron 6-8” water mains during reconstruction projects as a cost-effective consideration; and new technologies being developed.

 

Mr. Schwartz reported that the City of Roseville is being considered for a pilot project with the 3M Company to test a new water lining product they’ve recently developed and tested in Europe for several years and now available in the United States, and their willingness to line 2,000 feet at their cost, provided the City do the excavation work. 

 

Mr. Schwartz noted staff’s anticipation of receiving favorable bids on various seal coat projects, based on combining with projects in other communities, providing for larger quantities and economics of scale.

 

9.                 2011 City Manager Recommended Budget

Mr. Schwartz highlighted the Public Works portion of the City Manager’s recommended 2011 budget and City Council ranking of programs and services in tax-supported funds; with a five percent (5%) proposed increase in the Preliminary Levy.  Mr. Schwartz reviewed challenges in maintaining necessary funding in light of ongoing state cuts; new mandated budget expenses as detailed in the staff report dated September 28, 2010; and major personnel expenses, including wages and benefits, with the exception of the Public Works budgeted personnel expenses at 18% versus that of public safety at 85%.

 

Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed the ongoing process to achieve program-based budgeting and individual and composite rankings. Mr. Schwartz encouraged members to offer their feedback to staff prior to final budget and levy adoption.

 

Discussion included reductions in maintenance of City Hall, with PWET Commission members expressing concern in reducing custodial costs (#85) with higher paid engineering staff providing those services rather than using their expertise as needed; duties incorporated into organizational management (#76); staff hours in supporting various Commissions and their related budgets; and difficulties in PWET Commission review of the budget based on their limited information.

 

Members concurred that, in order to make informed recommendations, it would be helpful to obtain additional information on what each line item encompassed and those areas that are sustainable and those that are not. 

 

Chair DeBenedet noted individual values for various services and/or programs, but lack of information on the actual cost of those services and programs.  Chair DeBenedet emphasized the PWET Commission’s repeated previous concerns for the need to ensure infrastructure maintenance is ongoing and proactive to avoid higher long-term costs through deferral of that maintenance or a lesser quality of the City’s infrastructure and those implications to the City quality of life and property values.

 

Further discussion included the long-term costs in deferring custodial services and/or maintenance issues through deferring ongoing short-term care and costs.

 

10.             Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Contamination Discussion

Chair DeBenedet led a discussion on member interest in prohibiting coal tar products on driveways and parking lots in the City; and how such a process could be facilitated.

 

Chair DeBenedet and Members Stenlund, Vanderwall and Felice each expressed their interest in pursuing such a recommendation to the City Council, noting the carcinogenic nature of the product, as well as detrimental effects to the environment.

 

Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was in the process of compiling a list of ponds where sediment is removed, and tests were performed to identify and classify the sediment to determine their source and impacts to water quality.

 

Discussion included those products and vendors involving coal tar derivatives and those using other by-products; and the need to educate and inform the public on what questions to ask vendors and/or licensed contractors offering sealing services.

 

Member Felice suggested a first step may be to alert citizens to staff’s evaluation in an upcoming City newsletter; and fellow members concurred.

 

Chair DeBenedet asked that Mr. Schwartz add further discussion to a future agenda; along with their finalized sediment study data; and additional information from the MPCA and other sources, along with model ordinances from other communities as an example in drafting a City ordinance for recommendation to the City Council.

 

11.             Possible Items for Next Meeting – October 26, 2010

Conservation Water Rate Review

Mr. Schwartz suggested requesting the City’s Finance Director Chris Miller to attend the meeting to discuss what, if any, effects were evidenced from the conservation water rates put into place two (2) years ago; and the appropriate timing since this was the time of year utility rates were reviewed by staff and recommendations made to the City Council for 2011, including funding for CIP needs.  Mr. Schwartz noted that determining a trend in water use based on conservation may prove difficult based on the rainier year and lower watering than compared to last year’s drier season and more use of water on lawns.

 

PWET Commission’s role in the Land Use Review process

Chair DeBenedet noted previous discussion at the City Council level for a potential joint meeting between the PWET and Planning Commissions regarding land use review.  Chair DeBenedet suggested that a stating point may be for the PWET Commission members to brainstorm with Community Development staff in how the PWET Commission could fit into the process to ensure storm water management goals were met, while not further delaying or complicating the process for developers within the State mandated 60-day review period.

 

Discussion included storm water management goals and how they’re being met in land use cases and their review.

 

DeBenedet Project

With the concurrence of fellow members, Chair DeBenedet requested time at a future meeting for presentation of his Master’s Degree program project.  Chair DeBenedet provided preliminary information in this infrastructure systems engineering study based on maintenance of municipal utilities and his work with Mr. Schwartz and GIS Technician in a review of the miles of water and sewer mains, pipe material and size and construction of the various portions of the system.  Chair DeBenedet provided comparisons of types of pipe material; infiltration data based on those materials; types of soil and impacts form frost heaves and soil movements; and age of the infrastructure.  Chair DeBenedet noted that his initial findings indicated a serious need in replacing the aging infrastructure, based on breaks and ongoing maintenance.

 

Green Streets

Member Stenlund reiterated his encouragement for members to hear a presentation by former PWET Commission member Randy Neprash on storm water management practices in Sweden.  Member Stenlund suggested that this could be incorporated into a broader discussion and review of street sweeping versus vacuuming; current snow plowing practices and how snow was winged off roadways in the community based on impacts to storm water, as well as boulevard tree maintenance and longevity.

 

Surrounding Communities

Chair DeBenedet expressed interest in comparing practices with Shoreview in their experience with a vacuum sweeper and how their pilot project with the pervious pavement was working.

 

Meeting Schedule for the Remainder of 2010

Chair DeBenedet noted the need to review November and December meetings in relationship to the upcoming holiday season.

 

12.      Adjournment

Chair DeBenedet adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:14­­ p.m.

 

 

 

  1. Roseville MN Homepage

Contact Us

  1. Roseville City Hall

  2. 2660 Civic Center Drive

  3. Roseville, MN 55113


  4. Monday - Friday
    8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.


  5. Phone: 651-792-7000

  6. Email Us

<---- Userway script----->
Arrow Left Arrow Right
Slideshow Left Arrow Slideshow Right Arrow