Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-24_PWETC_AgendaPacketRoseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 24, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 6:30 p.m. 1. Introductions/Roll Call 6:35 p.m. 2. Public Comments 6:40 p.m. 3. Approval of February 24, 2015 Meeting Minutes 6:45 p.m. 4. Recognition of Outgoing Members 6:50 p.m. 5. Communication Items 7:00 p.m. 6. Leaf Pickup Program Discussion 7:25 p.m. 7. Pavement Distress Issues Discussion 7:50 p.m. 8. Sewer and Water Utility Lateral Ownership Discussion 8:10 p.m. 9. Possible Items for Next Meeting —April 28, 2015 8:15 p.m. 10. Adjourn Be a part of the picture... get involved with your City... Volunteer! For more information, contact Kelly at Kelly.obrien(cbci.roseville.mn. us or 651-792-7028. Volunteering, a Great Way to Get Involved.) Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: March 24, 2015 Item No: 3 Item Description: Approval of the February 24, 2015 Public Works Commission Minutes Attached are the minutes from the February 24, 2015 meeting. Recommended Action: Motion approving the minutes of February 24, 2015 subject to any necessary corrections or revision. February 24, 2015 Minutes Move: Second: Ayes: Nays: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113® 1. Introduction / Call Roll Chair Dwayne Stenlund called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and Public Works Director Schwartz called the roll. 2. Members Present: Chair Dwayne Stenlund; Vice Chair Steve Gjerdingen; and Members Brian Cihacek, Joe Wozniak, Joan Felice, and Duane Seigler, Sarah Brodt Lenz Staff Present: Publi Marc Public Comment None. artz and City Engineer 3. Approval of January 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes k0 14, Member Felice moved, Member Cihacek seconded, approval of the January 27, meeting as amended. rrections: • Page 3, Line 117 (Stenlund) Typographical Error: change "models" to "mottled" • Page 5, Line 197 (Stenlund) Typographical Error: change "Ms." To "Mr.,, • Page 9, Line 378 (Gjerdingen) Change to read: "... additional comment be included on the hveb ite f r t J street policy, with his..." Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Abstentions: 2 (Lenz and Wozniak) Motion carried. 4. Communication Items Page 1 of 19 33 Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Culver each briefly reviewed project updates and 34 maintenance activities listed in the staff report and attachments dated February 24, 35 2015, including a solar update. 36 37 Discussion included potential impacts of construction related to implementation 38 of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with the only potential impact foreseen being for 39 the installation of fiber for immediate and future use; no further indication from 40 Metro Transit of their consideration of building the Roselawn Avenue station 41 until ridership warranted it; and status of final plans and bidding for the BRT, still 42 proposed for this spring and including two separate ign packages for station 43 design. 44 45 Further discussion included the status of design and specification work on the 46 Lexington Avenue Bridge project at Hihway 36 with utility meetings held in the 47 last week, and MnDOT anticipating pulic open house meetings in the near 48 future, possibly online versus a ph 'cal location if indicated. 49 50 Mr. Culver provided an update on the City Council's action last night in 51 approving plans and specifications for the Victoria Street project and as discussed 52 by the PWETC at their meeting last month, approval of staff s recommended 30 53 mph speed by declaring the roadway an urban section, a special condition under 54 state law based on geometric conditions along that roadway. Mr. Culver advised 55 that staff had received good public input on the reduced eed and parking ' 56 (favorable) and efforts to address wetland mitigation wit nstallation of the 57 sidewalk and stormwater treatments proposed aspf the project. Mr. Culver No, 58 advised that next st would be forward plaMnDOT for their 59 approval. 60 61 Discussion included the location of the trai on the east side and connected into 62 Reservoir Woods, with an 8' bituminous pathway and 6' concrete sidewalk 63 planned as applicable along the corridor; and the need to consider signage to alert 64 bicyclers to reduce their speed in those areas needing caution. 65 66 Staff was reminded by Member Gjerdingen to follow-up with MnDOT on railing 67 heights for safety considerations as previously brought forward. 68 69 At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Schwartz reported that staff had not heard 70 any reports of freeze -ups to -date. 71 72 5. Sanitary Sewer Ordinance Update 73 Mr. Schwartz presented the final revised language incorporating discussion of the 74 PWETC from their last meeting and review by the City Attorney as detailed in the 75 staff report dated February 24, 2015. With recommendation by the PWETC, Mr. 76 Schwartz advised that staff intended to bring the document before the City 77 Council at their March 2, 2015 meeting; and sought any further comment of the 78 PWETC based on this latest iteration. Page 2 of 19 WX 80 Section 802.11.13 81 At the request of Member Cihacek related to costs, Mr. Schwartz advised that he 82 would check to ensure this was typical ordinance language to define review of 83 fees on a periodic basis. 84 85 Member Wozniak asked if staff had any concerns with sump pumps draining onto 86 adjacent properties. 87 88 Mr. Culver responded that staff had discussed this with the City Attorney several 89 times, with their advice being that this was a grey area with property rights, and 90 more of a civil issue between property owners if and when it occurred. Under 91 current code requirements, Mr. Culver advised that drainage and utility easements 92 were required for most properties, allowing the City some control over that 93 drainage. However, Mr. Culver noted his surprise in reviewing plots, the number 94 of Roseville properties never having been platted and under Metes and Bounds 95 legal descriptions, making it much more difficult for the City to manage and 96 govern those types of situations. Mr. Culver clarified that a property owner had a 97 right to drain water awa*;eir hom o a street or stormwater system in 98 some fashion; but it becsue of neighbor rights versus homeowners' 99 rights in some cases. 100 101 Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting that a homeowner could not knowingly harm 102 their neighbor. 103 P44 VL 104 Mr. Culver concurred; however, he noted that if and when a neighboring property 105 may be in the low spot, it often was up to the courts to determine those issues. 106**%�:% 107 7nspections 2.11 C 108 jerdingen noted that the revised language now clarified sump pump 109 could be done by a State licensed plumber, and questioned how the 110 City documented that. 111 112 Staff responded that the register of licensed plumbers allowed staff to ensure they 113 were licensed and insured, and other qualifications, to protect its citizens. 114 115 MOTION 116 Member Feliceved, Member Gjerdingen seconded, recommending to the City 117 Council revisions and updates to Roseville City Code, Chapter 802, Sewer Use 118 and Regulations (Attachment A), as presented in the staff report dated February 119 24, 2015. 120 121 Ayes: 7 122 Nays:0 123 Motion carried. 124 6. Sewer and Water Lateral Ownership Page 3 of 19 125 Mr. Schwartz provided an overview of this topic that the City Council had 126 requested the PWETC review and make recommendations of any revisions 127 regarding ownership of water/sewer laterals and related liability. 128 129 Current Policy 130 • Ownership lies with property owner from city main to building 131 • City participates in sewer wye replacement as a part of the private 132 repair/replacement 133 • Property owner hires contractor to repair or replace 134 • Sewer connection at main (Wye) is a frequent ource of problem 135 136 Discussion included a definition of the sanitary sewer connection (Type A) at the 137 main with service connection off to the side; the necessity of digging up the entire 138 line for repairs; with the City performing the street patch if on a city jurisdiction 139 roadway, whether asphalt or concrete, at cost to the homeowner and to City 140 standards. 141 142 Mr. Culver noted this was the reason staff strongly encouraged residents, during 143 any construction and/or mill and overlay work on their street if they've had any 144 issues at all with backups or drains indicated during televising of that line, that 145 they hire the City's utility contractor at that ti eplace their service line while 146 the street is dug up to avoid that additional cost to omeowner and the City 147 ending up wit tch on a newly rehabilitated roa way. 148 149 At the reques of Member Lenz MISchwartz a vised that in newer developed 150 areas or with newer homes, it was tore likely that better and more 151 technologically advanced materials had been used for the laterals. However, in 152 neighborhoods with varying ages of homes, or those having sewer work done in 153 the late 1950's and 1960's, those lines were clay tile and at that time service 154 laterals were stubbed out beyond the existing roadway and in most cases of clay 155 tile as well. Mr. Schwartz advised that those materials are now creating the 156 problem due to root intrusion at the joints and subject to collapse if the line was 157 not embedded in sand properly. 158 159 In ownership considerations of the laterals, Mr. Schwartz advised that some cities 160 take responsibility to the property line, and in Minnesota municipalities are 161 protected to some degree under the discretionary immunity statutes provided a 162 municipality has done due diligence in cleaning/inspecting lines, a city is then not 163 liable for damages from backups from its mainlines. If there is a history of 164 backups in a particular segment of the main and a municipality doesn't take steps 165 to correct that issue by repairing or replacing it, a city would eventually become 166 liable for the back-up damages. 167 168 However, Mr. Schwartz noted that it becomes more difficult maintain the sewer 169 lateral from the main to the property line; it could be a grey area when the backup 170 occurred in the service lateral; or how to determine where it occurred and how to Page 4 of 19 171 prove that location, and what level of maintenance had been provided on that 172 segment of the line. Mr. Schwartz noted that generally most of the older laterals 173 in Roseville were constructed without clean -outs at the property line, and 174 suggested that be a consideration in the PWETC's analysis especially on the 175 sanitary sewer portion. 176 177 Specific to the water main service connection in Roseville, Mr. Schwartz noted 178 that the main is usually 10' off the center line of the street, so properties on one 179 side of the street were responsible for 20' of lateral to the property line and the 180 homes on the other side of the street may be responsible for 40' of the lateral 181 within the street ROW. Mr. Schwartz noted that this created an inequity in the 182 distance and responsibility for total length of service among property owners. Mr. 183 Schwartz advised that typically the City shutoff or curb box is at the property line, 184 and some cities have taken on ownership of water laterals up to that point, even 185 those having policies similar to the current policy in Roseville (e.g. a recent 186 policy change in the City of Little Canada). Mr. Schwartz noted that typically in 187 terms of the water line, it is either leaking which eventually surfaces or is working 188 fine, and has a clearly defined point for shutoff and determination of which side is 189 the responsibility of the property owner and which is the City's responsibility, 190 which provides another consideration for the PWETC as part of their review. 191 Vk 192 Policy Change Considerations 193 • Why change now 194 • Location of ownership hand off 195 • Long-term cost and risk implications 196 • Residential vs. commercial differences 197 198Ce xperienced such a leak, and the number of workers and equipment 199o make the repairs Member Felice stated that she would have been 200 med to pay for that if it hadn't been determined that due to the location it 201ity's responsibility to repair it. If consideration is given to change 202p to under the street, mber Felice opined that there would need to be 203 some way to fund that expense, and further opined that it was well worth the cost 204 of insurance to have it available should something like that happen. Member 205 Felice stated her willingness to pay taxes to have that ownership moved to the 206 City; with Mr. Schwartz advising that if that was the PWETC's recommendation 207 and subsequent policy of the City Council, it would require some type of rate 208 increase for those home and/or business owners. 209 210 Cost Implications 211 • 9000 residential properties in Roseville 212 • $2,500 - $6,000 repair/replacement cost per service lateral — water and sewer 213 separated 214 • Potential $72 million cost with a 50 year liability (based on a $4,000 average 215 cost) 216 Page 5 of 19 217 Discussion included past grants for private sewer laterals funded with state 218 bonding money awarded by the Met Council and pending legislation to offer a 219 similar process for cities to have available yet again; cost economies available for 220 large scale projects versus on an individual basis; additional costs for 221 circumstances occurring during winter weather conditions; and the significant 222 amount of money involved. 223 224 Member Cihacek suggested a consideration needed to include the cost savings 225 component for the City to have uniform lines coming into a main and potential 226 cost savings available in other areas; and suggested ost savings analysis could 227 provide additional information for this review. 228 229 Other Considerations 230 • Discretionary immunity issues 231 • Determining where problem is located on lateral 232 • Lack of service lateral as built information (water tends to be more uniform) — 233 private developers and no city records available 234 • Fairness to properties that have replace this ' structure 235 • Other? 236 &111, 237 Discussion included replacement scenarios and ability of a homeowner to pay 238 costs upfront or over time as a special assessment; and new connections added 239 onto road ass ssment costs as applicable. 240 241 However, Mr. Schwartz noted tha complete the first phase of the 242 Pavement Management Plan (PMP ver the last 20 years, future road 243 reconstruction projects would be few and far between, with that investment made 244 and with few exceptions for a number of years, most projects would be 245 maintenance for mill and overlay versus pavement replacement. Mr. Schwartz 246 noted that there would be some water main or sewer main replacement projects 247 coming forward where a portion of pavement would be lost to open service lines. 248 However, Mr. Schwartz advisethat water service lines tended to have a longer 249 life cycle than sanitary sewer h es due to the original material specifications (e.g. 250 clay lines). Im 251 252 Member Seigler asked if staff was seeing an increase in failures due to the aging 253 housing stock in Roseville. 254 255 Mr. Schwartz responded affirmatively; however, conversely he noted the 256 increasing technologies available in lining sanitary sewer laterals, even though 257 they were fairly expensive at this point, which he estimated to be $7,000 to 258 $8,000 per individual line. Mr. Schwartz noted that, if there was sufficient 259 interest from 100% of the homeowners along a particular line, the entire 260 segment's service laterals could be lined at the same time, thereby reducing the 261 cost to $2,000 to $3,000 each, again based on the economy of scale. Mr. 262 Schwartz noted the advantage for a homeowner to have their laterals lined while Page 6 of 19 263 the contractor is set up with their equipment, and noted a hole would need to be 264 dug nearer the house. In staff's consultation with contractors doing this work, Mr. 265 Schwartz advised that they all agree that the only way to get the cost down is to 266 put together a larger scale project. 267 268 Member Lenz sought clarification on the location of the sewer line, with Mr. 269 Schwartz confirming that sanitary sewer mains run down the center of the street, 270 but the water mains are offset left or right of that, with the property owner 271 currently responsible for however long that lateral line is from the main to the 272 home depending on which side of the street they liv 273 274 At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Schwartz con armed that the City of 275 Roseville's Finance Department worked with residents on timed payments or 276 deferrals for hardship cases, with interested charged for the duration of the 277 deferment and until the home is sold. Even though assistance programs are in 278 place for residents in need, Mr. Schwartz noted that the Finance Department 279 advised few took advantage of these options, since the interest rat typically 280 charged is higher than the private sector 281 282 At the request of Member Felice, Mr. Sch rtz c arified how and wh n 283 economies of scale could be applied for replacing or lining laterals if it was part 284 of an organized effort, but questioned how to incent residents to get the necessary 285 100% participa ' n. 286 287 Member cek questioned if homeowners wouldn't be incentivized by the 288 obvious c t differential. 289 290 Mr. Culver responded that if the City had the responsibility for laterals within the 291 street, they would automatically make replacement or lining of those lines, as 292 applicable, part of their main line replacement or lining projects, since it would 293 behoove the City to be proactive in lining laterals up to property lines or replacing 294 them when trenches are already open, providing some economies of scale. 295 296 From his personal perspective, Chair Stenlund opined that his rights and 297 responsibilities should stop at his property line, since he can't shut off the water 298 beyond that if he didn't own the pipe or line. An example would be if tree roots 299 from a tree planted on the boulevard, which would be in the City's right-of-way, 300 filled a line, he couldn't remove the tree. Based on that scenario, Chair Stenlund 301 opined that the City should own the lines and/or laterals up to the private property 302 line, and the property owner should own from the street to the home. However, 303 Chair Stenlund recognized that life isn't fair, and if he chose to do nothing at his 304 property line, it became a quality control issue for the City and the property 305 owner's neighbors. If a cleanout valve was in place at the property line, and 306 videotaping done from that point, Chair Stenlund opined that it provided more 307 uniformity for all parties. 308 Page 7 of 19 309 Discussion ensued regarding roadway conditions and replacement of the materials 310 after a dig by to avoid sink holes, with staff advising that the street department 311 managed the paving, or hired a qualified contractor to do so at City standards for 312 replacing it as it was before and for quality control. 313 demarcation for new construction ownership at the property line. 314 Member Cihacek asked how much costs for installation of cleanout valves would 315 be and what the City's current policy was for making sure those were installed as 316 part of any new construction. 317 318 Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would need to res& that cost, as it was not 319 current policy to require them. 320 321 Mr. Culver noted that costs would also vary depending on how deep the sanitary 322 line was. 323 324 Member Cihacek opined that it would be reasonable to review and consider 325 exploring ownership up to the mains and cost of valves to determine the cost per 326 connection. Member Cihacek advised that he would be interested in receiving a 327 cost estimate to that extent up to a hypothetical property line, and a uniform 328 demarcation for new construction ownership at the property line. 329 330 Chair Stenlund expressed his preference for the City owning up to the property 331 line, whether those additional costs and maintenance fees were covered as 332 additional utility fees or through taxes. 333 334 Member Seigler suggested a cap (e.g. $4,000) iNala ral has to be replaced, with 335 the City typically picking up the cost at that average cap, or a percentage of that, 336 if ntwding to be replaced for dereliction of maintenance by a property owner, 337(homeowners. ey would be responsible for 100% of th ost. Under this scenario, Member 338 igler opined ownership would not change while not being overburdening for 339 340 341 At the request of MembeAGje ngen, Mr. Schwartz clarified the potential costs 342 for laterals with new construction projects: additional trenching under OSHA 343 safety requirements, testing of the main. Mr. Schwartz further clarified that, 344 during a major reconstruction project there may be various economies of scale, a 345 contractor typically installs services after the main is filled and pressure tested, 346 with the lateral trenches then dug and placed, noting that it wasn't just a simple 347 one-time installation process for water lines. Mr. Schwartz noted that sanitary 348 sewer mains and laterals were not as complicated, and can usually be done at the 349 same time the main is installed even though laterals are typically dug by 350 contractors after the fact. It is less expensive to perform this work at that point 351 versus after the road is paved with curb & gutter installed, and sod and trees 352 planted. 353 Page 8 of 19 354 At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz estimated the cost for new 355 construction of each of those laterals would be $2,000 to $3,000. 356 357 Member Cihacek clarified that the issue to be considered by the PWETC for 358 recommendation was not so much new construction, which would typically be 359 under contractor liability; but the concern is how to address the majority of older 360 housing stock in Roseville needing infrastructure replacement and not covered by 361 insurance or other means, and how to address that versus new construction. 362 Member Cihacek opined that the City needed to be proactive moving forward to 363 allow it to have better access and control of mains laterals. 364 365 Mr. Schwartz advised that when the City was heavily into the PMP in the 1980's 366 and 1990's, a fair number of residents took advantage of replacing their laterals 367 based on the great bid prices, with some of those homeowners paying as little as 368 $600 each to replace their laterals in the public rights-of-wa . 369 370 Member Cihacek asked if property owners had any opportunity to learn what 371 condition their laterals were in and how to access information. 372 373 Mr. Schwartz advised that the City maintaine se er/water cards from original 374 construction of houses (e.g. small drawings and sketchy information) and some of 375 the original as builts for mainlines has some minimal information on them. 376 However, given the variety of data sources and if and when they're available, Mr. 377 Schwartz noted that a full database for each property did not exist, especially the 378 older properties having 4" cast iron or 6" clay or other type material pipes, those 379 that were the most problematic. 380 381 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr.wartz advised that staff continued to 382 update their information as they workedSh homeowners who have replaced 383 their infrastructure. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that to get all the information 384 in one place for easy access from the field or at the office would prove to be a 385 monumental task given current staffing levels. 386 387 Member Cihacek suggested some type of disclosure for those purchasing older 388 homes in Roseville that might provide an estimate of a potential future cost they 389 should be prepared for with those older pipes. 390 391 Mr. Culver noted that, during more recent years when permitting was required for 392 replacement of water and/or sewer lines, if a homeowner or prospective 393 homeowner contacted the City's Building Department to seek that information, 394 they could access it and advise them when it was last replaced. 395 396 Mr. Schwartz noted the water side provided more of a location, with varying sizes 397 and types of pipes. 398 Page 9 of 19 399 Mr. Culver suggested staff research the information with the Building Department 400 to determine their data retention timeframe for permits and other property 401 information, and how or if a homeowner could obtain that information from the 402 past. 403 404 Mr. Schwartz advised that during staff's research of this issue, there were some 405 cities that have a requirement for televising sewer and/or water lines as a point -of - 406 sale requirement, with the City of Golden Valley having the strictest policy he'd 407 found among metropolitan communities. In that case, Mr. Schwartz advised that 408 the homeowner or seller actually had to prove the s. ary sewer service was of 409 sufficient material or condition for resale, or the selle ad to replace it before 410 sale. Mr. Schwartz noted that this required the seller paying for televising of the 411 lines that would indicate any off -set joints or root intrusion, and if so, also require 412 replacement at that point and before sale. 413 414 Member Cihacek asked staff to provide more information on home ownership on 415 older homes and those having knowledge of the lines, and applicable cost 416 estimates for those homes or situations. 417 lail- 418 Chair Stenlund noted that staff's estimate a ready provided the total c st at 419 approximately $72 million, so it was really only determining who would cover the 420 costs, property owners or the City. 421 422 Member Cihacek opined, no matter of the potential cost, it would be beneficial to 423 alert homeowners of potential future costs. 424 425 Member Felice noted that, in an emergency situation with a sewer backup or 426 water line freeze-up, you didn't have time to research the situation or a contractor, 427 and only needed someone to "save me now!" Member Felice opined that it would 428 be good thing for the City to have available a list for homeowners of qualified, 429 licensed contractors who could perform the work. 430 431 As one of the 120 homeowners in Roseville required to run water during colder 432 winter months due to an incorrectly or too shallow water line installation, 433 Member Wozniak opined that it had always bothered him since he had not been 434 aware of that situation when purchasing the home from the previous homeowner. 435 Member Wozniak fined that he thought the City would have taken responsibility 436 during construction to make sure the water line was properly installed to avoid 437 this, and as a result he viewed the water line as something provided to the 438 homeowner by the City, and thought the City should take ownership all the way 439 up to where it enters his home. In response to Chair Stenlund's request for 440 clarification, Member Wozniak stated that to him this meant at the water meter, or 441 the shut-off valve in his house. However, Member Wozniak recognized that as a 442 property owner he could also do something that could inadvertently damage the 443 water line in the area he's suggesting be the City's responsibility. 444 Page 10 of 19 445 Mr. Schwartz concurred that he could support the ownership to the property line 446 for water lines scenario in most cases, but in situations when a plumber was hired 447 by the homeowner to switch a home from a private well to City water, or in cases 448 where a contractor installed a line improperly, it would be difficult to justify 449 accepting those lines on an "as is" basis. 450 451 Member Wozniak noted that, in his personal case, the main shut-off valve was 452 actually located in his neighbor's property across the street at least that was where 453 the contractor went to thaw the water line during his first winter owning the 454 home. 455 A& 456 Mr. Culver asked for those addresses to further investigate that situation. 457 458 Mr. Schwartz sought clarification as to whether that was the first time the line 459 froze shortly after a road project was ompleted and the grade changed. 460 461 Member Wozniak responded negatively, advising that they were already on the 462 notification list for potential freeze -ups. 463 464 Regarding lateral sewer lines, Member Wo is agreed with Chair S enlund's 465 comments, opining that he had more influence in what went into the lateral and 466 therefore bore some respons' 'lity for affecting its op ration or landscaping 467 installed over the line. 468 469 Member Gjerdingen opined that he was hesitant for the City to take on that total 470 cost, noting that the money had to come from somewhere; and questioned where 471 that was and if it was always allotted only to this purpose. In cases for high 472 density housing (HDR), Member Gjerdingen suggested a more efficient water 473 main cost for repair and/or maintenance was available to that property owner over 474 time, but would be unfairly hit witlny property tax increase to cover these costs. 475 Member Gjerdingen opined that the same applied to some commercial properties, 476 as well as some county roads in which the City owned the mains. Member 477 Gjerdingen opined that, from his perspective, it made more sense to add a higher 478 construction replacement cost, as it could be that one property owner could decide 479 to push off repairs but during the middle of winter, the line broke. Member 480 Gjerdingen opined that during large reconstruction projects, it provided the 481 perfect time to replace lines. Member Gjerdingen stated that he could consider 482 the City taking ownership of the laterals on some roads, but was not sure if he 483 could support that city-wide. 484 485 Member Cihacek questioned if this was going to be considered as an additional 486 cost or fee applied to utility bills to address future maintenance costs or would it 487 be an additional surcharge added to pay for this amortized cost over time. 488 489 Mr. Schwartz questioned if he was suggesting it would be like a property owner 490 having an insurance policy for its own water and/or sewer lines. Page 11 of 19 WON 492 Member Cihacek suggested instead of adding it to taxes, it could be done 493 property -wise and added to fees as applicable. 494 495 Mr. Culver questioned if Member Cihacek intended that as pre- or post - 496 replacement. 497 498 Member Cihacek opined that it could be either; stating that he'd be fine with an 499 additional $5 fee to make sure funds are available if and when needed, and if not 500 used or the ownership of a property changes, it could be refunded. Member 501 Cihacek opined that this way there would be a pot of money for repairs; but 502 admitted he was not sure if that would be viable depending on surcharge rules 503 under which the municipality and its utilities were governed. 504 505 Chair Stenlund suggested a fee that went into a pool to take care of any situation 506 in the City of Roseville. 507 508 Member Seigler stated that he had no problem with an assessm repair, but 509 would like to see a cap, especially if there were unique situations; the City 510 being responsible for smaller liabilities and protecting some of the of er unique 511 situations. 512 513 Mr. Schwartz stated they had run into unique situations in the past, especially 514 with countyAd/or er roadways, when repair or replacement would become an 515 undue burden for thos adjacent property owners. 516 517 Mr. Schwartz summarized his understanding of tonight's discussion for staff to 518 ovide additional information as noted hold more detailed discussions with ""N 519 the Finance Department. 520 521 Additional information ne for future discussion included: point-of-sale 522 options financing and Capp' osts and how to address various situations at 523 what point ownership began, how to examine and document clean-out valves 524 as homes or new connections are construction going forward (Cihacek); who was 525 the responsible party in situations of improper installation or past ownership and 526 who becomes liable, the current or former property owner (Stenlund); if, how, and 527 to what extent the City can require homeowners to maintain minimum insurance 528 coverage to address these situations (Cihacek); and if a property owner is liable to 529 the center of the street if something goes wrong while owning laterals but most of 530 the contractors are long gone, and who becomes liable when the property owner 531 didn't own the land under the street, but did own the laterals, at least under the 532 current situation (Stenlund). 533 Recess 534 Chair Stenlund recessed the meeting at approximately 7:48 p.m. and reconvened at 535 approximately 7:53 p.m. 536 Page 12 of 19 537 7. Right-of-Way (ROW) Width Discussion 538 As previously requested by the PWEC, Mr. Culver presented information on 539 right-of-way easements and possible vacations of some for home expansions that 540 may be applicable for zero setback requirements (e.g. HDR's). 541 542 Member Seigler, who had originated this request, provided examples of some 543 corner lots without room for even a two-car garage under current setback 544 requirements; or some lots too small for sufficient green space or unable to 545 qualify for any expansion based on impervious surface requirements. As a 546 GreenStep City, Member Seigler questioned if the City was being consistent in 547 that designation while still requiring significant setbacks across-the-board; while 548 not allowing those wanting to expand to increase the value of their homes based 549 on those setback requirements. 550 551 Mr. Culver noted that given the age of the community d much of its housing 552 stock, there were numerous unique circumstances. Mr. Culver opined that part of 553 the problem with easements was that since Roseville was developed without the 554 majority of the lots properly platted, with many lot splits over and again, creating 555 irregular properties over those years, it created many of the problems, since right- 556 of-way and/or utility easements were not always provided. Mr. Culver noted that 557 under current regulations, many of those lot splits would not be allowed today that 558 would serve to avoid the very issues Mr. Seigler was identifying. Mr. Culver 559 noted that this included the land use code that a property could not have more 560 than 30% impervious surface. 561 562 As suggested by Member Seigler, Mr. Culver spoke in support of a case study for 563 his neighbor's property, not only as an example, but to perhaps find solutions or 564 options for develo ment versus the inability to develop in certain cases. 565 566fand Culver displayed a map shows ts-of--ways from one area of Roseville 567 actual variances of that width as an example of the variables. 568 569 In addition, Mr. Schwartz advis9d that in some corridors the variable may not be 570 as large as indicated on this map, as the map didn't always show actual platted 571 rights-of-way widths in some instances. As an example, Mr. Schwartz noted that 572 Roselawn Avenue, originally a Ramsey County Road, had an initial standard of 573 66', then another 10' was added to each side; with some county roadways actually 574 at 86', and others allowing for 49.5' on each side of the center (e.g. Lexington 575 Avenue and Rice Street) after replatting. 576 577 At the request of Member Felice, Mr. Culver clarified the difference in rights -of - 578 way and easements. Mr. Culver explained that a right-of-way was typically 579 platted and publically owned, either dedicated or purchased, with private property 580 extending up to that right-of-way. Mr. Culver advised that an easement 581 essentially provided the same rights, but it was a portion of encumbered private 582 property. Mr. Culver noted that generally setback rules generally are measured off Page 13 of 19 583 a property line, while a roadway easement may not have as many limitations for 584 the private property owners as a right-of-way. 585 586 Mr. Schwartz noted that platted rights-of-way were generally used for a public 587 purpose (e.g. sidewalks), while easements typically had a specific use (e.g. utility 588 or roadway) depending on how they were written, and sometimes prohibiting that 589 area for another type of use. As an example, Mr. Schwartz advised that, the City 590 may have a sanitary sewer easement, but it could not put in a water main in that 591 area unless it acquired easement rights specifically for that purpose. 592 593 Mr. Culver advised that any newly platted property included a drainage easement 594 around the new property for drainage and utility purposes; however, a sidewalk 595 would require additional rights being granted. 596 597 Member Cihacek asked if the propert owner was responsible for rights-of-way 598 and easement maintenance. 599 600 Mr. Schwartz advised that, legally, the City could not force a private property 601 owner to mow a city -owned right-of-way if it was actually owned by the City. 602 However, Mr. Schwarz noted that a property owner often did so to make their 603 property look good; even though in rare circumstances, property owners have 604 refused to do so, and the City did so. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that the 605 City did minimal mowing in those situations for the purpose of reducing the 606 height of the grass and/or weeds, and it would not be to standards for most front 607 yards in Roseville. 608 609 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz responded that code language 610 prohibited some and dictated what type of landscaping a property owner could 611 install, such as not reducing or eliminating sight lines, or hampering snow 612 plowing, etc. However, Rain gardens are frequently allowed, and the property 613 owner may even be eligible for cost participation if it helps to reduce drainage and 614 runoff on a roadway, with many such project costs reimbursed under best 615 management practices (BMP's) with the Ramsey Conservation District and area 616 watershed districts. 617 618 Member Cihacek questioned if that affected a lot's permeability enough to allow 619 expansion of a home or garage or changing requirements. 620 621 Mr. Culver advised that, if you go over the 30% impervious surface cap, you had 622 to mitigate that with extra BMP's in some way, with a rain garden being one of 623 several options available, and the calculation based on the amount of additional 624 impervious surface being added and dictating the size of the BMP required. 625 626 However, Chair Stenlund noted that such a BMP could not be installed in a right - 627 of -way as it could not have dual uses in one area. 628 Page 14 of 19 629 If homeowners are expected to maintain rights-of-way, Member Cihacek 630 questioned if it wouldn't be mutually beneficial to promote such uses. 631 632 Mr. Culver noted that could be possible, but required an additional step, to apply 633 for an easement encroachment, but would require a case-by-case review and be 634 two separate processes and evaluated per case. 635 636 Member Cihacek questioned if there was any historic variable driven by historic 637 uses. 638 639 Mr. Culver responded that it would be very difficult to standardize that 640 information on a city-wide basis, due to the numerous variables for rights-of-way 641 and positions of roadways, location of water and sewer mains, and location of 642 private utilities. Mr. Culver opined that it would be an enormous administrative 643 task to accomplish that, as well as working through Ramsey County to legally 644 change those rights-of-way and identify where it could happen. 645 646 Member Cihacek questioned if the City could voluntarily cede part of its 647 easement or right-of-way back to a homeowner to create that consistency. 648 649 Mr. Culver advised that there was such a mec anism in place, used sometimes, 650 called a vacation process, and included filing fees for applications, holding a 651 public hearing, investigating utilities and other issues that could be impacted and 652 on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Culver advised that it was easier for the City to 653 support a setback varie if that became a driving factor. 654 655 Mr. Schwartz ncurre noting that it would also be cost prohibitive to do so. 656 657 Chair Stenlund noted public rig is-of-way could not generally be used for 658 personal gain (e.g. to meet a water quality issue). 659 660 Member Seigler used the property at 1829 Roselawn Ave. on the displayed map 661 and variables along just that one block in setbacks, available property for 662 expansion; public rights-of-way; and other issues. Member Seigler opined that he 663 saw some setback requirements as excessive when there appeared to be no 664 consistency from one parcel to another, even on one block. When a lot was small, 665 Member Seigler opined that it became even more excessive when the City's 666 easement or right-of-way was taking 20% to 25% of that lot. Member Seigler 667 noted that the city, county and/or state had 65 years since the City's inception to 668 do something on that reserved property, and had not done so to-date. Now, with 669 changes to housing stock expectations and in order to have a home resalable in 670 today's market that was viable (e.g. master suite and minimum two-car garage), if 671 there was room for an expansion on the lot to accomplish a marketable home, the 672 City should find a way to accommodate that growth to get higher value homes. 673 Page 15 of 19 674 Member Seigler expressed concern that the City of Roseville could eventually end 675 up being a community of lower value homes or lower income housing, similar to 676 some neighboring communities, with those seeking higher valued homes moving 677 to other communities to find it. Member Seigler opined that there were some 678 areas with stable lots that could be addressed to meet those needs. 679 680 Chair Stenlund noted that the Cities of Eagan and Edina had ripped out little 681 homes and built McMansions that were not creating problems from their size and 682 creating problems with solar shade. 683 IAL 684 Member Seigler stated that he personally had no problem with the market value of 685 homes surrounding him increasing. 686 687 Chair Stenlund just noted that there were other issues to consider, as well as other 688 options. 689 690 Member Seigler opined that Roseville may be coming artificially undesirable due 691 to the large setbacks, reducing house values and any improvements that may 692 occur. Member Seigler advised that if some improvements were allowed it would 693 serve to improve the community's overall value. 694 N 695 Member Cihacek questioned if a parcel's size when offered for sale provides its 696 platted lot size or included the right-of-way. 697 698 Mr. Culver responded that advised that the lot size was bound by the square, not 699 the right-of-way; and for example, a 2-3 acre lot which was not that uncommon as 700 a standard lot size in Roseville while some were smaller. Mr. Culver noted that in 701 many instances, the right-of-way width was established prior to the home actually 702 being built, and the City hadn't taken any additional right-of-way since the home 703 as const d. From his professional stance Mr. Culver advised that he'd have 704 fficulty saying where the p&vement was in relationship to the lot lines; but also 705 maintained the need to retain right-of-way, especially on corner lots. 706 707 Member Cihacek questioned the differences among adjacent lots. 708 709 Mr. Culveised that some may have been platted properties, and the adjacent 710 properties ma not have ever been platted, but continued as Metes and Bounds 711 parcels, many which were still evident in Roseville. If those properties sought a 712 lot split in the future, Mr. Culver advised that they would then be forced, under 713 current regulations, to include a dedicated right-of-way. 714 715 Member Cihacek opined that the rules seemed arbitrary for adjacent homes, and 716 there didn't seem to be a method in place other than historically. Member 717 Cihacek questioned if there was a remedy for those property owners under current 718 development trends so they could make their case with the City and be heard for 719 the merits of their particular situation. Page 16 of 19 [LR,J 721 Mr. Culver responded that this was more of a Community Development 722 Department or Planning Department discussion. While recognizing the point 723 about arbitrary rights-of-way widths and how they're applied or their results, Mr. 724 Culver advised that his question was whether in practice the right-of-way width of 725 those properties used as examples tonight prevented the City or County from 726 operating and maintaining the roadway. Mr. Culver noted that there may be cases 727 where a new utility or sidewalk was needed, and the right-of-way width may limit 728 those needs, or more width may be required to install something. 729 IAL 730 Member Seigler recognized that there were limits as to what a private property 731 owner could put inside that box, or limiting green space versus not allowing 732 construction. Mr. Seigler also recognized that the City may be wary of giving up 733 control of those areas; however, he reiterated that after 65 years, when nothing 734 was yet installed there, the City needed to determine what it preferred: to allow 735 more construction or to increase home sizes. 736 737 Member Cihacek concurred that this appeared to have more of a planning area of 738 emphasis. 739 740 Mr. Culver stated that, if came down to if Nweftoallow residents to add value 741 to their homes on small lots, and what should be considered a valid variance 742 request. For example, Mr. Culver noted a smaller lot could add a patio or 743 sunroom addition in the backyard, or other minor options. However, Mr. Culver 744 noted that from staff's perspective it was easier to have something in code 745 speaking to those issues versus allowing variance applications on a whim or at the 746 leading of changing City Councils or Planning Commissions in any given year. 747 Mr. Culver opined that the consequences of that may present other issues in other 748 part of the community. Mr. Culver concurred that this warranted additional 749 iscussion at the Planning Commission level; and noted there were various 750 considerations as to if and when a right-of-way or easement was vacated and 751 returned to a parcel. From his perspective, Mr. Culver advised that he couldn't 752 always recommend such a move as being in the best long-term interest of the 753 City. 754 755 Member Cihacek opined that it goes to the fact that some of those lines appear 756 arbitrary or conditions may have changed; and in some instances, it may require a 757 new determination under current development trends. Member Cihacek noted 758 that it would mean increased taxable property if the City gave some of that land 759 back. However, Member Cihacek opined that the PWEC needed advice from the 760 planning level to develop a policy in relationship to when rights-of-way remained 761 important. 762 763 Mr. Schwartz advised that staff could discuss this with the Community 764 Development Department and bring their viewpoint back to the PWETC for 765 additional discussion. Mr. Schwartz noted that rights-of-way were a huge Page 17 of 19 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 8. consideration for public projects, especially expansion of county or highway rights-of-way prohibiting projects due to the high cost, with the cost of right-of- way acquisition often exceeding the cost of the project itself, making agencies sensitive to giving any of it up. Twin Lakes Traffic Study Mr. Culver briefly reviewed the recent Twin Lakes Traffic Study update, advising follow-up discussion could be held at a future PWETC meeting if warranted. Mr. Culver reviewed the results of that update intended for presentation at the March 2, 2015 City Council meeting by SRF Consulting G p, and included in tonight's meeting packet materials. Mr. Culver clarified that the action before the City Council was specific to permitting a feasibility study for extension of Twin Lakes Parkway, with plans and specifications requiring future City Council approval and other processes before construction and determining how to fund the project. Mr. Culver noted that this had last come before the PWETC for discussion in late 2014. & �Ak Member Felice noted that, if this was the area in connecting trauait options cuffl considered for that area in the near future. ved, it would have a huge impact on tly underway and those being Mr. Culver advised that the BRT plans had not y een modeled into the study until determinations had been made by the Metro Transit and how they intent to provide a feeder system into the BRT based on ridership and once the BRT line was in operation. At that time, Mr. Culver opined that there would be a better feel for impacts on travel demand in the broader Twin Lakes area. 793 Member Felice opined that it was even more important as more young families 794 were coming into Roseville. 795 796 Member Gj er ingen opine that the study was timely in the residential area as 797 well, with results showing fewer cars feeding into that area than predicted versus 798 not building the Parkway and the negative traffic impacts with more trips 799 projected. From his perspective, Member Gjerdingen opined that the Twin Lakes 800 Parkway appeared to be a big win-win and in creating an urban feel in the Twin 801 Lakes area given its mixed use intentions. 802 803 Member Gjerdin n noted the assumption for a 6 -lane Snelling Avenue, and 804 questioned if MnDOT had addressed that potential. 805 806 Mr. Culver noted that it was recognized by all parties that some improvements 807 were needed at intersections along the Snelling Avenue corridor. However, by 808 recommending 6 lanes, Mr. Culver advised that it put a placeholder to make sure 809 all agencies noted the need for additional capacity if everything else was going to 810 work in that area. Mr. Culver admitted that MnDOT had not made any Page 18 of 19 811 commitment to additional lanes at this point but the City and County could 812 continue lobbying them for additional improvements to address capacity issues. 813 Further discussion included the need for increased capacity overall on Snelling 814 Avenue, including extending the BRT further north to TCA -PP; projected 815 continued traffic growth on Snelling Avenue and how impacts with additional 816 lanes on I -35W will affect that, with the SRF traffic modeling attempting to 817 project that need; difficulty crossing Snelling Avenue at various intersections; 818 potential grade separations that could help alleviate some issues at key 819 intersections; and how to improve capacity for at -grade intersections (e.g. Lydia 820 Avenue). AL 821 822 Additional discussion included signage and trailblazing signs to guide those less 823 familiar with the areas adjacent to Snelling Avenue. 824 825 9. Possible Items for Next Meeting — March 24, 2015 826 • Leaf Collection Program Discussion 827 • System -wide Pavement Delamination Issues (Culver) 828 Mr. Culver advised that the top layer of pavement stripping on local streets 829 seems to have a theme with sealcoating issues. Mr. Culver advised that staff 830 would return with options for the PWETC to consider making a 831 recommendation on potentially stopping sealcoating for a time, and the risks 832 involved both pro and con, in doing so; and budget scenarios and pavement 833 life cycle impacts and maintenance in place of sealcoating. 834 • Sewer and Water Utility Lateral Ownership Continued Discussion 835 • Solar Update 836 • Soil quality examination pavements for parking and the process 837 (Cihacek) 838 Elections in April of a Chair and Vice Chair (Stenlund) 839 While he was willing to continue chairing the meeting if no one else stepped 840 forward, Chair Stenlund asked that commissioners give consideration to this 841 upcoming election as ne commissioners come on board. 842 1% 843 10. Adjourn 844 Member Cihacek moved, Member Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at 845 approximately 8:48 p.m. 846 847 Ayes: ? Nr 848 Nays:0 849 Motion carried. Page 19 of 19 Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: March 24, 2015 Item No: 5 Item Description: Communication Items Projects update: • Victoria Street Reconstruction and Sidewalk Project: This project is being advertised to solicit for bids with the bid opening on April 91h. Assuming we receive a reasonable low bid, staff expects to award this project at the April 13th City Council meeting • Staff attended a preliminary Staff Advisory Committee meeting for the 1-35W North Corridor Preliminary Design Project. This project would install one managed lane in each direction for 35W from Trunk Highway 36 to Lexington Ave in Blaine. The preliminary plans would be ready in mid -2016. Currently this project is only partially funded and programmed for the year 2020 or beyond. There is a chance that with some additional Transportation funding this project could be accelerated. • Due to high bids which were received at the end of April, staff has recommended the rejection of bids for the Evergreen Stormwater Reuse Project. This project would have installed a large underground stormwater retention tank that would have provided water for the irrigation of the Evergreen Park baseball fields. The low bid received was $660,000, which was 45% higher than the engineer's estimate. The City of Roseville does have $300,000 grant for the construction of this project, but staff felt that that additional cost to the City of Roseville as well as the potential additional unknown costs could not be justified for this project. We are continuing to work with the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in an attempt to determine an alternative project for these funds. Council will act on staff's recommendation on Monday, March 23`d. Maintenance Activity: • Street maintenance staff is busy sweeping the entire street network hoping to get through every street prior to the first major rain event since melt down of the gutters. They should complete the city sometime the week of March 23`d. Sidewalks are being swept by Parks personnel and pavement repairs have begun as well. Utility crews have been busy beginning seasonal preventative maintenance programs. We did receive 2 calls on frozen water services in the past two weeks but the threat should pass quickly with the recent more average temperatures.. Other: Staff will brief the Commission on some department retirements and staff changes. Nothing new to report regarding the Solar Credit applications at this time. Attachments: A: None Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: March 24, 2015 Item No: 6 Item Description: Leaf Pickup Program Discussion Background: The City of Roseville has provided a curbside leaf pickup service to Roseville residents since 1970. In 1997, the City adopted a fee-for-service program to help minimize direct costs to City operating budgets. The program has been managed with user fees since 1997. In more recent years the City Council direction to staff is to recommend the fee annually cover the entire cost of the program. The fee is fairly predictable unless the weather does not cooperate during the program as happened last fall. As the fee has increased to cover the full cost, participation rates have fallen to the current approximately 700 properties. This is under an 8% participation rate. We are at a juncture where the majority of the equipment used for this program is in need of replacement. Staff feels it is a good time to revisit the need to provide this service to residents and the alternatives available to them. This is a very labor intensive program. Staff will present the recent history and costs of this program and other unmet needs where the resources could be redirected if the Council chose to eliminate the collection portion of the leaf recycling program. Recommended Action: Discuss viability of continuing the leaf collection program. Attachments: A: None Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: March 24, 2015 Item Description: Pavement Distress Issues Discussion Item No: 7 Background: The City of Roseville, along with many other Cities in Minnesota, are experiencing an accelerated deterioration of the top layer of bituminous pavement. We call this delamination (pictured below). There has been some research on this item in the recent year that may indicate that this added distress is related to an interaction between the top layer of the pavement and the seal coat treatment we apply to our roadways. Staff will present some information on this topic and ask for the Commission's feedback on modifying our pavement maintenance strategy in order to respond to this accelerated distress. Recommended Action: Receive presentation. Attachments: A: None Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: March 24, 2015 Item No: 8 Item Description: Sewer and Water Lateral Ownership Background: The Commission received a presentation and discussed the current policy of sewer and water service laterals being the responsibility of the property owner as defined in city code at your February meeting. Staff has been assembling follow up information requested by the Commission. Staff will present the information at the meeting for additional discussion and present a staff recommendation on this issue. Recommended Action: Receive follow up information and staff recommendation on sewer and water lateral ownership and liability and provide comment to staff. Formulate recommendation to the City Council if desired. Attachments: A: None Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: March 24, 2015 Item No: 9 Item Description: Look Ahead Agenda Items/ Neat Meeting April 28, 2015 Suggested Items: • Eureka Recycling annual report Recommended Action: Set preliminary agenda items for the April 28, 2015 Public Works, Environment & Transportation Commission meeting.