Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-25_PWETC_AgendaPacketRoseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda Tuesday, October 25, 2016, 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 August 23 and September 27 meeting minutes 6:45 p.m. 4. Communication Items 6:55 p.m. 5. Proposed 2017 Utility Rates 7:25 p.m. 6. Eureka Recycling 2016 Update and 2015 Year -End Report 7:45 p.m. 7. Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update 8:20 p.m. 8. Possible Items for Next Meeting— November, 22 2016 8:30 p.m. 9. 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: October 25, 2016 Item No: 3 Item Description: Approval of the August 23, 2016 and September 27, 2016 Public Works Commission Minutes Attached are the minutes from the August 23, 2016 and September 27, 2016 meeting. Recommended Action: Motion approving the minutes of August 23, 2016 subject to any necessary corrections or revision. Move: Second: Ayes: Nays: Motion approving the minutes of September 27, 2016 subject to any necessary corrections or revision. Move: Second: Ayes: Nays: Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 23, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 551 1 1. Introduction / Call Roll 2 Vice Chair Lenz called the meeting toor er at apNroll. 0 p.m. and at his 3 request, Public Works Director Marc Culver calle 4 5 Present: Vice Chair Sarah Brodt Lenz; and Members Joe Wozniak, John 6 Heimerlod Thurnau and Thomas Trainor 7 8 Absent: Chair Brian a d Member Duane Seigler 9 10 Staff Pr es lic Works Director Marc Cu ver; 11 12 2. Public Nir% 13 None. 14 15 3. Approval of July 26, 2016 Meeting Minutes 16 Comments_ and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by PWETC 17 commissioners prior to tonight's meeting and those revisions incorporated into the 18 r t presented in meeting materials. 19 20 Public Works Director Culver briefly summarized minor corrections received from 21 Commissioner Wozniak to -date that will be incorporated into the draft meeting 22 minutes. 23 24 Corrections 25 • Page 1, line 2 (Lenz) 26 Typographical Correction — Correct Chair of meeting 27 28 Member Wozniak moved, Member Thurnau seconded, approval of the July 26, 29 2016 meeting minutes as amended. 30 31 Ayes: 5 32 Nays:0 33 Motion carried. Page 1 of 14 34 35 4. Communication Items 36 Public Works Director Culver provided additional comments and a brief review 37 and update on projects and maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated 38 August 23, 2016. 39 40 Member Wozniak referenced a recent email between staff and PWETC 41 commissioners regarding recycling in parks, as an email response to Chair Cihacek, 42 but not all commissioners had received the emails. 43 IAL 44 At the request of Vice Chair Lenz regarding the email context, Member Wozniak 45 reported that his colleague and municipal contact for Ramsey County had informed 46 him that the unit price in the Eureka recycling contract for pulling containers from 47 park locations at $10/month/container was excessive compared to that of the City 48 of Bloomington's vendor contract at $3/container/month. Member Wozniak 49 calculated that at 200 containers over a nine-month period, the cost for that service 50 would exceed $180,000 for weekly service; noting that his colleague had 51 questioned the City of Roseville's rationale in ag g to pay that amount. 52 53 Mr. Culver clarified that thereas some miscommunication involve , but noted it 54 had become clear during staff n . tions with Eureka on a new contract, that they 55 and apparently all vendors had misinterpreted the city's intent for monthly charge 56 for carts, which the city had not been aware of before these contract negotiations 57 with Eureka. Mr. Culver advised that the error in interpretation involved whether 58 the cost was per month r every time a cart was pulled. Mr. Culver clarified that 59 the actual cost was $1 pull per month. 60 61 Member Wozniak recognized that he had mistaken as he thought it was $10 62 per cart per month; but noted that wstill high compared to the City of 63 Bloomington rate of $3. 64 4 65 Mr. Culver advised the Eureka contract cost was closer to $9, and not all pick-ups 66 would be weekly, but some -biweekly depending on their location and amount of 67 use for that park and/or trail. Mr. Culver noted input had been and would continue 68 to be received from the City Council, Parks & Recreation staff and their advisory 69 commission to address concerns voiced about retrieving recycling bins remotely 70 with a vehicle with arm attachment, the way the recycling contractors prefer. 71 However, Mr. Culver advised that city staff had indicated they were not going to 72 place 200 containers on the trails all at once at least to start, as they would be 73 experimenting with various options. 74 75 At this point, Mr. Culver advised that city staff and Eureka were negotiating for an 76 initial roll out on trails of 10-20 carts. However, Mr. Culver noted this created a 77 different cost for Eureka as they needed to change some of their pricing schemes, 78 originally based on quantity, some of those dollars intended for their capital 79 purchase of smaller vehicles for those trails. Mr. Culver advised that discussions Page 2 of 14 80 would continue, but stated staff expected a slight increase to their cost to provide 81 recycling to parks compared to what was previously shown to the PWETC and City 82 Council. Mr. Culver advised that those actual and final costs would be available to 83 the City Council before they approved the final contract after negotiations. Mr. 84 Culver noted staff would continue to strongly advocate for walk-up service to park 85 buildings and parking lot service; and then continue to work with the Parks & 86 Recreation staff and commission to determine how best to begin that experimental 87 or pilot program with carts and their locations. Mr. Culver noted this may or may 88 not involve modifying how they were initially planned with the contractor. 89 90 Member Wozniak recalled when bids were first discussed by the PWETC, there 91 appeared to be some apprehension from Par s & Recreation Department staff in 92 gathering containers at a central collectio int, asking if they were now more 93 open to that process. 94 95 Mr. Culver reported that wasn't n sarily the situation, but reiterated those were 96 ongoing discussions given changes d cost differences realized at this point in the 97 negotiations. Mr. Culver advised that ultimately it would be a recommendation by 98 Parks & Recreation staff d advisory commission, and decision-making by the 99 City Council as to the i e of recycling in parks. 100 101 In response to Member W zniak s review of A Ramsey County practice of co - 102 locating trash and recycling containers, Mr. Culver advised that the city currently 103 didn't have staff or resources to empty both types of containers due to the need to 104 keep bags separated by whether garbage or recycling materials; but deferred more 105 detailed comment to the Parks & Recreation Department. 106 IN VP 107 Member Wozniak opined that the difference between $3 and $10 per pull could 108 purchase a truck or more staff for the city. 109 110 Mr. Culver responded that this was all part of ongoing discussions with the Parks 111 & Recreation Department as experiments were initiated to expand recycling in city 112 parks. 113 114 On another note, while he wasn't overly familiar with new city park buildings, 115 Member Wozniak notA he understood they were very nice. However, referencing 116 comments from Jean Buckley, Member Wozniak reported that at least one of the 117 new buildings didn't have any recycling containers; and from the perspective of the 118 PWETC, this caused him concern. 119 120 Mr. Culver agreed that the parks buildings were absolutely beautiful; and offered 121 to refer those environmental concerns of the PWETC to the Parks & Recreation 122 Department and suggested the PWETC consider a formal recommendation to pass 123 on to them regarding their feelings. Mr. Culver reported that he was at one park 124 facility earlier this year, and it did not have a recycling container, but noted he was 125 unsure if that was still the same situation today. Once the city began offering walk - Page 3 of 14 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 up service to buildings and bins located adjacent to park buildings for Eureka Recycling to retrieve and empty, Mr. Culver opined the logistics would be easier for each and every park facility and building. Member Wozniak reminded Mr. Culver that Ramsey County would pay 100% of recycling container costs for city park buildings; one of their efforts to remove barriers to enable recycling countywide. Mr. Culver stated he was very excited about working out those details within the new contractor and available options with a better pricing scheme, including opportunities to increase recycling in parks in general. If not before then, Mr. Culver stated he anticipated significant strides to be made on those efforts in January of 2017 when the new contract goes into effect. Motion Member Wozniak moved, Me Recreation Commission to initiate city park buildings as soon as possib Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried. eimerl seconded, asking the Parks & to increase and improve recycling in all 46A N Vice Chair Lenz reported on her attendance at the SE Roseville community meeting for the Larpenteur Avenue and Rice Street area and outreach held last month. Vice Chair Lenz opined it was the best session she'd ever attended, with the cities of Maplewood, St. Paul and Roseville well -represented, as well as Ramsey County. ce Chair Lenz noted each municipality was able to provide their individual city perspectives and input; and with no consultants providing any visual plans, small roups were able to suggest some ideas and the meeting open to numerous options d addressing problem areas and good options to allow coordination of projects. ice Chair Lenz stated she found it interesting that the general response was that there as no desire for "more senior housing" in the area. Overall, Vice Chair Lenz statedle e found it an excellent experience. Mr. Culver reported he'd heard similar feedback from those attending, including staff and residents; with resulting excitement about the meeting and follow-up from it that continued for that area. Mr. Culver further reported that the City of Roseville Police Department was working with other Police Departments on the feasibility of a satellite office in that area; and also noted the city had recently purchased land immediately west of this area adjacent to apartment buildings having significant refugee populations, for a mini park. Mr. Culver agreed that there was considerable excitement about making positive changes in the area; and hoped the momentum would continue in this multi jurisdictional area and that the concerted effort would continue. Page 4 of 14 172 Member Wozniak reported on recycling organics as an option for Roseville, but the 173 closest compost site serving Roseville being located in Arden Hills and that site not 174 accepting compost. Member Wozniak reported on a recently opened organics 175 recycling site near Como Park behind the Hill -Murray fields. Member Wozniak 176 advised that Ramsey County continued to look for additional sites in cooperation 177 with area cities; and hoped once organized, Roseville may be one of those cities 178 expressing interested in being considered. 179 180 Mr. Culver suggested that was a good discussion topic for a future PWETC meeting 181 to make a recommendation to staff and the City Council, depending on potential 182 costs involved. 183 184 5. Comprehensive Surface Water Management, Plan Update Introduction 185 Mr. Culver reviewed the request for proposals (RFP) ntly finalized, with S.E.H. 186 winning the contract for updating the City of Rosevill s Comprehensive Surface 187 Water Management Plan (CSWP s part of the overall Metropolitan Council's 188 Comprehensive Plan Update. Mr. er noted S.E.H. had also pdated the plan 189 most recently in 2013. 190 191 Mr. Culver introduced r. Ron Leaf, PE, cipal and Proj ect Man ger and Ms. 192 Rebecca Nestingen, PE, CFM, S.E.H. Lead Water Resources Engineer to present 193 an overview of the update and outline the process nd schedule, including the 194 PWETC's role. 195 196 Ms. Nesting Prov Wa history of the origin dated 1990, and subsequent 197 updates in 2003 and 2013, including major items an changes from one plan to the 198 next as major items were addressed and progress made in the City of Roseville 199 regar ' SNestin source issue rima ' ocusing on sustainability. 200 201 s. Nestied most o ork would occur during the remainder of 202 2016 and 7, this ate was considered a 2017 update for adoption at that 203 time. Ms.en reported on plans to incorporate in this latest update, including 204 new i lementation ideas, rec nition of innovations made to -date, and updating 205 goals policies and the issues assessment. Ms. Nestingen noted this would also 206 involve aligning the city's plan with the three watershed districts as they went 207 through a simil r date of their respective plans. 208 209 In addition to th e issues identified in the last update, Mr. Leaf noted continual 210 updating of more frequent large storm events and their ramifications. 211 212 Ms. Nestingen reviewed the public input process used in the past, even though with 213 disappointing results, and innovations to involve newer technologies, including 214 electronic survey and the Speak Up! Roseville.org website as tools. Ms. Nestingen 215 noted public open houses would be coordinated with the broader comprehensive 216 plan update process, and reviewed public input opportunities before the PWETC as 217 well. Page 5 of 14 W- 219 Mr. Leaf agreed any meaningful public input in the 2013 update was disappointing, 220 even though lake associations had been specifically invited to share their input. Of 221 those six residents showing up at the open house opportunity, Mr. Leaf noted two 222 were actually from the same household. Therefore, Mr. Leaf advised different 223 opportunities were need to get that interaction, whether via web -based tools or other 224 areas consistent with what the city was already doing. Mr. Leaf asked for PWETC 225 input to get that citizen involvement during the process. 226 227 Ms. Nestingen reviewed the seven goals in the current plan and briefly reviewed 228 each goal statements, along with suggestions fo those needing updated, revised, 229 added to or removed from the next update; al seeking input from the PWETC. 230 231 As the PWETC reviewed the plan for their input, Mr. Leaf noted that there were a 232 number of policies under each goal category with more specificity as per city 233 intentions for consistency with the sires for the city anserving to set the 234 direction for the plan as a whole. 235 236 Ms. Nestingen reviewed the current 2013 plan issues assess to review 237 localized flooding or drainage issues in Roseville, water quality mpairments, 238 operations and maintenance, education, outreach and collaboration. 239 240 Membered he didn't see the Fairview nue drainage area in the 241 plan. 242 VL 243 Mr. Culver clarified that the broader are"improv ents encompassing Fairview 244 Avenue and Highway 36 was provided. Mr. Culver noted he had been interviewed 245 earlier today by Channel 5 News about that specific intersection. Mr. Culver noted 246 the need to divert water upstream of that area to reduce rate now and move storage 247 from that intersection elsewhere, all long-term solutions. 248 249 Mr. Leaf advised that over the 10 -year term of the plan there would be a 250 considerable range of opportunities to address issues, including on the ground 251 implementation, stormwater improvements, ponds, and studies to analyze the most 252 cost-effective, long-term plans both physically as well as operationally (e.g. street 253 sweeping va%& frequency). 254 255 Ms. Nestingen noted part of the public involvement process would include 256 examples of public concern heard most frequently, especially from those living on 257 lakeshores. 258 259 Mr. Leaf noted another item heard more frequently was the invasive or nuisance 260 vegetation infestations, which hadn't even been the radar for the last ten-year plan. 261 However, Mr. Leaf reported this had been a banner year for vegetation growth. 262 263 Mr. Culver agreed that those comments were frequently fielded by city staff as well. Page 6 of 14 XTP 265 As part of this plan update process, Ms. Nestingen reviewed the projected schedule 266 between now and May of 2017 when adoption of the plan by the City Council has 267 been scheduled. Ms. Nestingen advised that the process would include three 268 meetings of the PWETC to discuss the plan updates proposed for tonight, again on 269 October 25, 2016, and on January 24, 2017 at which time development of the draft 270 plan should be available, and then revised as a second draft by mid-February; and 271 subsequent agency approval in April of 2017 (e.g. watershed districts and 272 Metropolitan Council); and then City Council adoption in May as noted. Ms. 273 Nestingen advised that the revised plan would then incorporated into the city's 274 larger comprehensive plan update. 275 276 Ms. Nestingen asked that, as part of the PWETC tasks for meeting number two, 277 members review the current 2013 goals/policies and issues assessment; and then 278 provide feedback to city staff by October 18th to allow that feedback to be 279 disseminated to all PWETC mem or discussion at the tober 25th PWETC 280 meeting. 281 IAL 282 Member Heimerl asked ' etting feedback from residents was t o that, and 283 whether the PWETC w rivy to that public feedback prior to the October 284 25th meeting. 285 286 Ms. Nestingen advised that they could provide a summary of comments to the 287 PWETC as it considered priorities, depending on the timing of public involvement 288 and ope ses and how it aligns with the broader comprehensive plan. 289 290 Member Heimerl stated he would find it personally helpful in providing his 291 feedback and driving the PWETC's focus. 292 293 r Leaf advised that, before public comments were sought, a list of questions 294 4nto be developed that the public was being asked to comment on. Mr. Leaf 295 stated his firm would work with staff to put that list together; and if individual 296 PWETC members had things on their lists to ask, he asked that they provide them 297 to staff a their earliest convenience to include in the mix of suggestions. Mr. Leaf 298 noted the ere only so many questions or areas of focus for consideration. 299 300 Member Thurnau suggested a targeted outreach, such as NextDoor.com that may 301 reach Lake Owasso residents or their association versus other areas in the city. 302 Member Thurnau noted the variables for residents living on a lake versus citywide 303 surface water issues throughout the community that were entirely different. 304 305 Mr. Culver questioned the city's involvement with input for NextDoor.com and 306 intentional restrictions in place for posting of agencies to retain the neighbor -to - 307 neighbor format of that website and its intent. While he loved the idea and noted 308 the city occasionally responded to some posts on the website, Mr. Culver suggested 309 relying on other residents if they wanted to start up that discussion. Page 7 of 14 Mill 311 In a recent Burnsville survey, Mr. Leaf noted the question was asked if a resident 312 was a lake shore resident or not; and suggested such a filter could be used for 313 Roseville as well, allowing their concerns to be sorted. 314 315 Ms. Nestingen noted she had added "Speak Up! Roseville" as an engagement tool, 316 and suggested that maybe could link to NextDoor.com. 317 318 Mr. Culver agreed with that idea; but also noted the city's current registration isn't 319 tremendous, and even though growing, he hoped di ussions such as this might 320 prompt more communitywide interest in that website. 321 322 Member Wozniak suggested having a question whether people were willing to pay 323 for improved water quality as ago for sustainability, whether about the 324 environment, life cycle or cost. 325 326 Mr. Culver suggested there are parallel interpretations tainability, and 327 financial sustainability affected if and how the stormwater syst s maintained 328 and whether or not the ci was being environmentally sustainabl its impacts 329 to the environment. 330 331 Mr. Leaf referenced the s t is of that specific goal for that 332 clarification. 333 334 Mr. Cul noted t e more water bodies drained will continue to impact the total 335 maximum oad (TML) limits; and requiring collaborative steps to address those 336 pollutants, related efforts and projects to reduce those levels leaving the city. 337 338rwater Wozniak noted his confusion with the MS4 items compared to the surface 339 nagement plan and how those two interacted. 340 EL 341 Mr. Leaf provided a quick s of of the MS4 program, a state regulatory program 342 under the city's NDPES perm cused on water quality and what needs to happen 343 for pr 'ects and operations within the city. While there is some overlap, Mr. Leaf 344 clarifie that this surface water management plan is part water quality, and part 345 water quantity addressing flooding and other water resource -related issues beyond 346 the simple water quality component. 347 348 Member Thurnau noted that in order for him to identify things in the 2013 plan that 349 needed to move forward or things he'd like to see altered of changed in the old plan, 350 it would be helpful for him to see projects completed since 2013 to present; and 351 asked that the information be upfront versus in the back of the plan. Member 352 Thurnau opined this would allow f more linear look for him and the public in seeing 353 goals and action plans going forward. Member Thurnau stated another issue he 354 wanted to dig into further was groundwater and pulling down aquifers with lawn 355 use and other water uses. Member Thurnau recognized the city's use of St. Paul Page 8 of 14 356 Regional Water Service surface water recourses, but suggested residents be 357 provided action items for them to consider that would impact the more regional 358 goals. 359 360 Mr. Culver referenced a third, less comprehensive document beyond this surface 361 water management plan and the MS4 documents, identified as the Water Supply 362 and Distribution Plan update due by year-end, but having to do with conservation. 363 Mr. Culver clarified the city has no wells pumping from aquifers, and while St. Paul 364 Regional Water Service uses some, they primarily used surface water for 365 distribution. However, Mr. Culver alerted theETC that they would be 366 discussing that third document next month as well. 367 368 Mr. Leaf noted that document tied into w infiltration projects would be most 369 effective and most sensitive to ground water areas. 370 Id 371 Member Thurnau urged educational components of the plan and public meetings to 372 get community interest and provide leverage by alerting them to what they were 373 drinking and where the water came from causing them to be more aware of impacts 374 to that water resource. 375 376 Mr. Leaf duly noted thos stions; advising the intent was to get the project 377 page up and running on the city's website along with contact information. 378 379 Mr. Culver announced the birth of a new baby for Chair Cihacek and his family this 380 morning, with all offering their congratulations. 381 382 6. I -35W Managed Lane Project Information 383 I -35W Managed Lane Project Information 384 Mr. Culver summarized the proposed project for a managed lane (MnPASS lane) 385 n I -35W between County Road C in Roseville and Lexington Avenue in Blaine. 386 Mr. Culver reported on the recent public hearing held by the Roseville City 387 Council; noting formal action providing municipal consent for those cities impacted 388 would occur later. In between now and then, Mr. Culver advised there would be 389 other opportunities for public input related to the project. 390 391 Mr. Culver's review of the project including specific work to be done in phases to 392 allow traffic to flow; spot improvements including widening at I-694 to allow a 393 cloverleaf auxiliary lane on the north side to buffer merging traffic; and overall 394 improvements to current bottleneck areas. 395 396 As part of the project, Mr. Culver advised an environmental assessment public 397 outreach related to noise walls would be done, with those noise walls located 398 between the Cleveland Avenue interchange by Wa1Mart north to County Road D 399 on the east side only, as part of the process. Mr. Culver advised that two public 400 hearings had been scheduled by MnDOT for this federally -mandated process, one 401 in Blaine and one in New Brighton, both scheduled in September of 2016. Since Page 9 of 14 402 there is a city trail along that area, Mr. Culver reported that the city would be 403 considered a tenant and allotted two votes per parcel they owned that involved a 404 trail, and part of the determination as to whether a noise wall was wanted or not. 405 Mr. Culver noted other parcels along that corridor were commercial properties and 406 he wasn't sure how they would vote on a noise wall since part of the benefit for 407 their business was visibility that might be impaired by a noise wall, while hotel 408 guests expressed frequent concerns with noise from the freeway. Mr. Culver 409 advised that city staff would attempt to meet with those businesses to help the city 410 in its determination of how to vote. 411 412 At the request of Member Thurnau, Mr. Culver confirmed that all parcels along the 413 corridor are developed, with possibly the exception of one parcel owned by Veritas 414 currently open space for their firm. Howeyr, Mr. Culver advised he wasn't aware 415 of any plans they might have to sell the parcel or expand their firm. 416 417 Mr. Culver reviewed the construction staging of such a massive project that 418 presented many challenges, similar to that experienced with the recent I -35E 419 construction process, with current estimates for a four-year construction project. 420 Mr. Culver advised that there would be subsequent discussion on hours of operation 421 for contractors, location of grinding operations and concrete plant, and other 422 considerations. From the Roseville perspective, Mr. Culver noted there would 423 obviously be some impacts to the community, and reported that MnDOT had been 424 informed by city staff that they did not want County Roads C and D closed at the 425 same time in any one direction. Mr. Culver advised that MnDOT was taking that 426 into consideration for staging and within their project specifications. Mr. Culver 427 noted there would lik be some overnight or weekend closures during the 428 construction pr ss. 429 430Cramp r further addressed bridge reconstruction as part of the project; on/off 431 ts, and how the project would be bid probably as a design/built project, 432 gency releasing 30% plans that are initially incomplete but providing 433 initial desires, limitations and must -haves; with the winning contractor designing 434 the remainder of the system (e.g. pavement type, storm sewer, etc.) all subject to 435 MnDOT approval and contractors working with design firms to try to finish a 436 design and assign a process during the project. Mr. Culver advised that typically 437 this type of bid is faster and MnDOT prefers it as the contractor takes on more risk 438 and therefore has more incentive to be creative and come up with new ideas and 439 suggestions. However, Mr. Culver noted this could prove more difficult for local 440 agencies, as they lost more control after the initial municipal consent at the 441 beginning of the concept. Mr. Culver noted this design/build scenario may provide 442 a reduced project schedule if the contractor proves more aggressive, and while it 443 would require more resources on site, it would mean less risk with traffic controls. 444 445 Mr. Culver advised that that project cost is projected at $205 million, with the state 446 only able to identify half of that as funding sources; and having applied for 447 additional federal funding to get the project done. At this point, Mr. Culver advised Page 10 of 14 448 that the proposed start date is 2019 if things fell into place, but advised it could be 449 moved up to 2018 if funding was found. 450 451 Overall, Mr. Culver noted this would prove quite impactful for Roseville residents 452 as traffic diverted to avoid the mess. Mr. Culver advised that, as part of the 453 municipal consent, the city's cost had been identified as none for the project. 454 However, Mr. Culver reported that the city may seek to partner with MnDOT and/or 455 Ramsey County for broader area storm water improvement designs that would 456 benefit financially through such a partnership. Mr. Culver noted part of those items 457 being considered at this time included traffic si 1 rebuilding at ramps while 458 they're down, but also reported that would depen nancial resources available. 459 460 Mr. Culver advised that staff would continue to provide updates to the PWETC 461 once municipal consent and noise wall votes were finalized, but until a cooperative 462 maintenance agreement with MnDOT was drafted identifying any additional costs 463 for Roseville requested items, they ouldn't be any action ' s to consider. 464 465 7. Wheeler Street Traffic Management Program 466 Mr. Culver provided an update on city staff s work with residents e Wheeler 467 Street/Shorewood Lane neighborhood on a Traffic Management Pro ram project 468 that would potentially close Wheeler Street to traffic at County Road D. Mr. Culver 469 reviewed the background of this lengthy process; advising that staff had asked the 470 Roseville City Council to authorize a Feasibility Report at their August 22, 2016 471 meeting. IIL 1W 472 473 Mr. Culkbhborh wed the process to -date at length and various components 474 prompteood concerns when Presbyterian Homes expanded their 475 Lake Johanna facility and impacts of construction equipment and traffic to the 476 residential neighborhood. -qq%v 477 478 Mr. Culverre ed the broader Traffic Management Program adopted in 2012 479 (available on city website) for residential neighborhood concerns; and reviewed the 480 process for its use and temporary closure of Wheeler Avenue in 2011 followed by 481 submission by the neighborhood of a petition for permanent closure for a variety of 482 reasons. Mr. Culver noted this was only the second request to use the program 483 since it had been adopted, with the other County Road C-2 between Hamline and 484 Lexington Avenues. As part of the Program, Mr. Culver reviewed this specific 485 project and Program parameters for the city to build or effect improvements, but he 486 neighborhood required to pay 70% of any mitigation efforts. Mr. Culver reviewed 487 the neighborhood surveys used during this lengthy process to determine interest 488 based on estimated costs of the improvements, public hearings held and 489 assessments based on final costs. Mr. Culver noted the fall of 2016 was the 490 proposed construction finalization by Presbyterian Homes. 491 492 Mr. Culver reviewed the neighborhood meetings held and initial concerns about 493 their projected costs to close the road, at that time estimated at $1,000 plus per Page 11 of 14 494 residence. After staff reviewed alternatives, with the city concern about providing 495 snow plow access and turnaround in residential driveways with now full cul -de - 496 sac, and as design concepts were reviewed. 497 498 As part of the development agreement with the City of Arden Hills, Mr. Culver 499 noted staff recognized Presbyterian Homes would be adding considerable traffic to 500 County Road D, including during construction and impacts to the roadway from 501 those types of vehicles, Arden Hills made it a condition that Presbyterian Homes 502 had the choice of a full Arden Hills assessment for County Road D or its 503 reconstruction as part of their development project. While Roseville remained 504 unsure of the outcome for some time, Mr. Culver noted impacts to the City of 505 Roseville would result, as well as residents on Wheeler and their residents' votes 506 on whether or not to close Wheeler, with those residents waiting until final costs 507 for the Arden Hills project were known. Ultimately, Mr. Culver reported that this 508 summer Presbyterian Homes agreed to rebuild County Road D and extend a curb 509 across Wheeler and pay for the closure of Wheeler, resulting in a reduced cost of 510 approximately $425 for each resi * ce. Mr. Culver advised that the only cost to 511 the City of Roseville was relocation of one driveway from Wheeler to County Road 512 D, estimated at $20,000 since the existing driveway is concrete. Mr. Culver advised 513 that this month city staff had sent out another survey to the 42 benefitting property 514 owners, with 3 8% responding "yes," a 90.4% response rate, with only 3 not 515 supporting the project due to their concerns with emergency access and rerouting. 516 517 Mr. Culver advised that typically staff would have brought this to the PWETC for 518 their recommendation to the City Council, but due to timing, they had to get an 519 answer to Presbyter4iamesand Arden Hills as part of the process before 520 tonight's meetin 521 522ras reviewedf tNcosure and components, as well as the one 523 elocation; and advised as part of the project a sidewalk would be installed 524ler to County Road D. Mr. Culver reiterated that Presbyterian Homes 525tted to building all of the components with the possible exception of a 526 portion of the sidewalk and driveway relocation, a city cost. While the final design 527 is not ideal with no cul-de-sac or hammer head design for snow plow turnaround, 528 Mr. Culver advised that there would have been a higher cost if the option to remove 529 pavement to accomplish that had been pursued. Mr. Culver advised the project to 530 close Wheeler would happen yet this fall or next spring/summer at the latest; with 531 Presbyterian Homes responsible for the assessment process, and in the long run 532 saving the City of Roseville, and those Wheeler residents, considerable money. 533 534 Mr. Culver reported that city staff didn't generally condone or advocate for road 535 closures, opining that options and connectivity are important to avoid overloading 536 one road over another and providing better emergency response. While the ideal 537 road layout is a grid structure, Mr. Culver admitted this was a unique area. 538 539 PWETC Feedback Page 12 of 14 540 At the request of Vice Chair Lenz, Mr. Culver reviewed the other resident petition 541 received for County Road C-2 and traffic studies about traffic flow along that 542 roadway. Mr. Culver noted some residents were advocating for a traffic light at the 543 intersection of Lexington Avenue and County Road C-2; but noted the downside 544 of that was that more vehicles would then use that road, creating more issues for 545 those residents. 546 547 As part of traffic management, Vice Chair Lenz requested review of timing of 548 signal lights on Snelling Avenue where it intersected with County Road C and 549 Lincoln Avenue. 550 551 Mr. Culver, based on his past experience with traffic control and signal timing, 552 noted the challenges of those intersections and coordinating it and potential backups 553 from Snelling onto those east/west streets and little place for traffic to go if timing 554 was changed. Mr. Culver reviewed rationale with higher traffic volume corridors 555 and goal of signal timing to reduce the average amount of delay at the intersection 556 and along the entire corridor; and unfortunate results that side streets generally get 557 penalized and the main lines get a priority to reduce overall average delays. Mr. 558 Culver noted it was frus ting with delays on side streets using that philosophy 559 even though it served th 40 r purpose. 560 6h 561 Mr. Culver noted the intern design work being nsidered by city staff and the 562 City Council to address that area, proposing County Road C-2, Snelling Avenue, 563 Lincoln Avenue and Terrace Drive be redesigned to offload the Lincoln side and 564 provide higher capacity and a better option at Fairview Avenue and County Road 565 D by better coordinati ydia Avenue County Road C-2 and the County Road C 566 junctions. 567 568C25% eimerl as e who ade t e decision on the assessment split of 75% 569 r the Traffic Management Plan parameters. In the case of the Wheeler 570 re, Member Heimerl noted even those this was a restricted area for the 571 communty, all Roseville residents would be covering 25% of the cost for the 572 closure and driveway relocation, resulting in why a small number of residents 573 should be allowed restricted access at the cost of all. 574 575 Mr. Culver stated he would need to further review the discussion and rationale in 576 developing the Traffic Management Program modeled after other communities and 577 developed prior to his tenure with the city, but receiving PWETC and City Council 578 approvals at the time. In some cased, Mr. Culver noted the improvements may be 579 seen as improving the quality of life for a broader area beyond those directly 580 benefitting from a project. 581 582 As a resident, Member Heimerl stated he might be less inclined to spend money on 583 other people's road closures, when during Minnesota State Fair time, he couldn't 584 get out of his own driveway onto Hamline Avenue. 585 Page 13 of 14 586 With only two projects having occurred as part of the Traffic Management 587 Program, Mr. Culver admitted the program and process had not been well vetted 588 yet; and suggested feedback from the PWETC to the City Council may prompt 589 further review or revisions to the Program. Mr. Culver opined this was an extreme 590 circumstance to close a road; and advised that he didn't expect it to happen often 591 or even ever again, since traffic was diverted to another roadway if a road was 592 closed. In this case, Mr. Culver noted that traffic would be diverting to Fairview 593 Avenue, which some may think appropriate and where it should have gone in the 594 first place. Mr. Culver reiterated that he felt this was an extreme case and doubted 595 the city would see other items being subsidized s s 596 a 597 Discussion ensued regarding sidewalk locations and traffic in the proximity of Lake 598 Johanna; and accommodations for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 599 600 At the request of Member Thurnau, Mr. Culver confirmed that the sidewalk 601 plowing would fall under operational costs for the city, with the Parks & Recreation 602 Department performing that maintenance in residential areas. Since there were no 603 other city sidewalks in this area or close to it, Mr. Culver noted it would be a long 604 trip for a 50' section of si walk with many of those logistics yet to be worked out. 605 NEW 606 8. Possible Items for Next Meeting — September 27, 2016 607 Mr. Culver reviewed upcoming PWETC agendas and proposed topics. 608 609 October 610 • Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update 611 • 2017 Utility Rate Discussion 612 613 o additional top' were suggested by the commissioners. 614 615 9. Adj4�ourn 616 Member Trainer moved, Member Thurnau seconded, adjournment of the PWETC 617 at approximately 8:28 p.m. qO 618 619 Ayes: 5 620 Nays:0 621 Motion carried. Page 14 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 27, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 551 1. Introduction / Call Roll 1^1W I Chair Cihacek Lenz called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and at his request, Public Works Director Marc Culver called the roll. Present: Chair Brian Cihacek; and Members Joe Wozniak, Duane Seigler, John Heimerl and Kody Thurnau, Absent: Vice Chair Sah Lenz and Member Thomas Trainor IW Staff Presenoo, Public Works Director Marc Culy' and City Engineer Luke Sandstrom 2. Public Comments None. 3. Approval of August 23, 2016 Meeting Minutes r)„P rrA tPA1n;ral ,a;fr;r-„ities in their timely transcription Member Wozniak moved ded, TABLING approval of the August 23, 2016 meeting ,r ing. Public Works Director Culver provided additional comments and a brief review and update on projects and maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated September 27, 2016. Mr. Culver announced that MnDOT had advised that Lexington Avenue under the Highway 36 bridge replacement was scheduled to open later this week. Discussion included Mr. Culver's explanation to not proceed with liquid damages included in the contract and unrelated delays in the Twin Lakes Parkway project; Page 1 of 17 34 an update on the Solar Project and information intended to be available for the City 35 Council and energy consumption and Xcel Energy negotiations and sizing the solar 36 systems; rights-of-way mowing by the city or alternatives for plantings that may 37 not require mowing, and aesthetic and/or safety factors involved and valued by 38 people. 39 40 Chair Cihacek asked if consideration was given to alternatives for the larger explicit 41 costs for maintenance that would also address water retention, I & I, bee pollinators, 42 and other things beyond front end costs that considered long-term maintenance. 43 Chair Cihacek used Snelling Avenue, even though it is a state road, as an example. 44 45 Mr. Culver recognized the city had a wide variety of rights-of-way and public 46 spaces to maintain, and even some that were not maintained at all unless the city 47 received a complaint, many of those involving rights-of-way on corridors or street 48 segments not yet constructed, while others may be in wooded areas, or some 49 adjacent to property owners who volunteered to take on their maintenance, while 50 others chose not to do so. Mr. Culver noted these didn't involve a great deal of 51 maintenance with city staff attempting to balance moving them 2-3 times annually. 52 However Mr. Culver no this did res in more complaints when rainfall was 53 more considerable, such ear. 54 55 Chair Cihacek asked staff ad tis topic to ure agenda with input from 56 Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson, to consider taking Public Works staff from 57 their other maintenance activities to perform this mowing; and if a better alternative 58 with sidbenefits was a consideration. 59 60 Chair Cihacek thanked Mr. CulveNE ding development project information 61 nication items for wareness. 62 63 At the req est of Member WozmCulver provided a brief update on the 64 Recycling contract and continued negotiations with Eureka Recycling focused on 65 implementing parks recycling. Mr. Culver reported he hoped to have those 66 negoti tions and any phasing and financial impacts due to a smaller phase in within 67 two w for presentation to the City Council in October. Mr. Culver advised that 68 since th s the current vendor, he was less concerned with not having a need to 69 swap carts e e new contract. 70 71 5. Water Supply 72 Public Works Director Culver reintroduced City Engineer Luke Sandstrom, 73 advising he had been working on the water supply plan, with the end product due 74 the end of 2016. 75 76 At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver contrasted the duties of Mr. Sandstrom 77 with that of City Engineer Jesse Freihammer. Mr. Culver advised that Mr. 78 Freihammer served directly under Mr. Culver and served as the City's Assistant 79 Public Works Director and as a senior engineer in charge of the overall engineering Page 2 of 17 80 division, while Mr. Sandstrom serves under Mr. Freihammer, doing the detailed, 81 day-to-day engineering work for the city. 82 83 In his presentation, Mr. Sandstrom provided an overview of the Water Supply Plan 84 focusing on water conservation options, including examples used in other 85 municipalities. Mr. Sandstrom reviewed the purpose of the plan in outlining water 86 sources, water usage, emergency plans, and water conservation measures that 87 pertain to the city. Mr. Sandstrom noted this Plan is required for water suppliers 88 serving over 1,000 people; and was closely related with the St. Paul Regional Water 89 Services Plan. Mr. Sandstrom advised that this Plan is required for updating every 90 ten years, and was broken into three segments: Inventory, Emergency Planning, 91 and Water Conservation. As a side note, Mr. §#ndstrom reminded the PWETC that 92 the City of Roseville also supplied water to the City of Arden Hills; with total 93 annual water supply billing at 1.6 billion gallons, ofwhich approximately 306 94 million gallons was used by Arden Hills. 95 95 Mr. Sandstrom reviewed recent a ates to Minnesota State Statutes, and those 97 mandates incorporated into this updated Plan, specifically related to water 98 conservation. Mr. Sandstrom noted this included mandated conservation programs, 99 ideas of plan options that would impact rates. As part of the most recent 100 conservation efforts by the City of Roseville, Mr. Sandstrom noted they included 101 rate structures for initial conservation efforts by citizens, with other ideas or plan 102 options always sought. Mr. Sandstrom noted other efforts to achieve better water 103 conservation could include a rebate program, irrigation restrictions or adjustments, 104 education, capital improvements, and remote read meters. 105 1 4F 106 Mr. Sandstrom advised that Roseville uses seasonal rates, continues educational 107 efforts via several tools, and its capital improvements to the infrastructure 108continued to provide system i rovements along with the city encouraging and 109 participating in stormwater res-use projects, and using remote read meters. Specific 110 the use of water rate usage tiers that had been discussed off and on in the past, 111 was now used in a limited way, Mr. Sandstrom referenced tiers used in other 112 m olitan communities, provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made 113 a pa reof. In Roseville, Mr. Sandstrom reported that the majority of Roseville 114 residents would fall within the first tier, using 30,000 plus gallons. 115 116 Discussion ensued regarding tiers and usage history; potential formation of an 117 additional tier t shold; how to make the system equitable for households with 118 only 1 person in the home versus average households with more residents in the 119 home who were making a concerted effort to conserve water without penalizing 120 them due to their higher usage due to the number in the home; or profiling users for 121 actual use versus lumping them into a pricing structure. 122 123 Mr. Culver advised that the intent of tonight's presentation was to seek PWETC 124 assistance before going to the City Council at their October 2016 Worksession to 125 discuss the components of the Plan update. Since the state mandate requires that Page 3 of 17 126 the city talk about water conservation and how it was promoting it, Mr. Culver 127 advised that staff would be seeking feedback from the City Council on what they 128 would be comfortable pursuing or committing to and directing staff on what options 129 they should explore, such as those outlined by Mr. Sandstrom. Mr. Culver stated 130 that staff was seeking feedback from the PWETC to present or recommend to the 131 City Council for possible implementation. As an example, Mr. Culver asked if the 132 city should focus on education or explore a rebate program, funded either through 133 grant or through the water utility rate structure to promote conservation. 134 135 Further discussion included identifying the target residential household or 136 commercial user; focus on residential users if appliance rebates; focus on 137 commercial or higher density residential users; restrictions on lawn watering or 138 rebates for water sense technology for irrigation systems. 139 140 Specific to commercial water users, Chair Cihacek opined they could and would do 141 a much better job in using their irrigation systems if there was a cost for them not 142 using an irrigation management plan, including taking weather and precipitation 143 into consideration. However, Chair Cihacek noted the need to review their 144 management plans before fering any subsidization. 145 IW 146 Specific to residential users, Chair Cihacek expressed his interest in a rebate 147 program once the cost was better defined; opining it was hard to consider a 148 recommendation without knowing what specific rebate was considered and its 149 long-term impact to the city's asset management program. 150 151 From an infrastructure standpoint, Mr. Culver responded that it was difficult to 152 realistically correlate water conservation and the use of less water with 153 infrastructure savings. With the exception of less wear and tear on the pumps in 154 booster stations or use of smaller pumps with reduced water usage, Mr. Culver 155 reported it would require a signAWt reduction in water use to make any 156 significant impacts to the cost of the city's infrastructure and its ongoing 157 maintenance. Mr. Culver n d the city was still required to distribute water to 158 every household and business within the community, with all pipes already in the 159 ground and sized for a certain amount of use. Mr. Culver noted the only 160 infrastructure savings would therefore be at the booster stations if the city wasn't 161 pumping as much water daily, also impacting energy savings realized by the city 162 for pumping a certain amount of water. 163 qW 164 Mr. Culver suggested while there may be some potential usage savings for residents 165 long-term, the overall cost of water would only continue going up as it becomes a 166 more valuable resource in the future and exponentially more restrictions are 167 mandated on groundwater pumping. Obviously, Mr. Culver noted the less water a 168 community used, the less money was spent, but with the current pricing structure, 169 the city paid for the water it used and that cost was passed on by the city to its 170 customers. However, Mr. Culver noted the interest in promoting long-term savings Page 4 of 17 171 for residents on their utility bills to reduce reliance as a whole, serving as a 172 sustainability issue. 173 174 Chair Cihacek noted an option could be for the city to purchase in bulk number 175 water saving showerheads for distribution with a possible credit on customer utility 176 bills accordingly. However, Chair Cihacek questioned if the nominal cost of the 177 purchase and limited savings along with time for staff to administer such a program 178 was worth the effort, even though it addressed education and met multiple points 179 in the Plan. 180 AL 181 Member Seigler suggested getting more bang for the buck by using less water over 182 the summer versus shower heads. Member Seigler suggested focusing that effort 183 during the spring to address irrigation or lawn/garden watering as an educational 184 effort and addressing frequency, etc. opining that would have a much more 185 significant impact for the city's water usage. 186 187 Mr. Culver referenced a program used by the City of Woodbury last summer, and 188 researched further by Mr. Sandstrom, for a pilot program using smarter irrigation 189 controllers that monitoredctual soil moisture in the ground and adjusted irrigation 190 systems accordingly. Mr. Culver admitted they were expensive to install and 191 difficult to maintain, yet could provide a quick benefit. Mr. Culver noted a less 192 costly and easier to maintain system would be irrigation sensors or controls that 193 could be managed via the Internet as weather forecasts were viewed, including 194 future rain projections and a history of rain to-date compared to programmed data 195 for yard needs depending on type and amount of lawn, and/or vegetable/flower 196 gardens. Mr. Culver advised that the system automatically adjusted how much 197 4water the irri tion system received and constantly adjusted the system 198 cordingly. 199 200 the City oseville considered a similar pilot program, Mr. Culver suggested it 201 uld first focus on townhome associations to use controllers and see what kinds of 202 savings were realized before moving forward. However, Mr. Culver noted the need 203 to determine whether to do so from an educational standpoint or apply for grants 204 for res from other agencies interested in reducing water usage across the 205 metro' area. 206 207 Discussion e sued related to kinds of programs or rebate options available, with 208 Mr. Sandstrom providing various examples (e.g. City of Eden Prairie); comparables 209 with other metropolitan communities operating their own treatment plants and 210 having their own wells and pumping water out of the ground and their more 211 significant and direct correlations than the City of Roseville using surface water 212 through St. Paul Regional Water Services. However, Mr. Culver noted there was 213 the big picture component simply dollars saved, which could provide incentive for 214 spending money out of their annual budget. 215 Page 5 of 17 216 Specific to a rebate program, Chair Cihacek stated he was supportive of it unless it 217 cost the city too much to implement compared to the benefits received; and if 218 amortized on water bills, asked if it could be paid back over time unless receiving 219 grant funds. Chair Cihacek stated he was fine applying for a grant as a pilot 220 program, but only if the customer was interested in purchasing and paying back the 221 city's initial cost over time. 222 223 Member Seigler stated that the city should monitor itself on irrigation systems on 224 city -owned property. Member Seigler opined there was nothing more 225 disconcerting than observing irrigation systems running on city property when it 226 was raining out. Member Seigler suggested as an educational point, the city show 227 cost savings realized for taxpayers by monitoring those systems. 228 229 Mr. Culver agreed that the city should certainly lead by example. Mr. Culver noted 230 the city also had a lot of city water usage not currently metered; and advised that 231 was one recommendation staff would make for the city to expend money to install 232 meters on its own sprinkler systems in city parks and other city -owned properties 233 if not currently metered to allow a record of how ch water was being used and 234 to hold the city more accountable. Mr. Culver admitted this was a good point and 235 a reality for the city to spend funds to lead by example and better manage city water 236 usage. 237 238 Member Wozniak concurred, noting that was a great idea and served as a good 239 starting point for the city's educational program for residents in talking about the 240 steps taken by the city to restrict or limit irrigation use and landscaping; and set the 241 stage for the long-term view of the cost of water historically from 1980, 1990 and 242 what it may look like in 2030. Member Wozniak suggested this would incentivize 243 residents to take steps now before water usage reaches that higher cost; and noting 244 this is the city is doing — as well as other municipalities. Member Wozniak 245 uggested also solicit feedback from residents. 246 247 Member Heimerl also suggested that city staff review city code related to applying 248 code to minimize irrigation people are currently doing, and ways through 249 landscaping technologies and types of plantings that could further minimize water 250 usages. Member Heimerl suggested the city take the lead, through example and 251 education, through code changes and changing community views of what is good 252 vegetation for yards beyond weed overgrowth but as an alternative to typical lawns, 253 moving away from the 1950's pristine yard. Member Heimerl opined the education 254 process could include what needs to be cut and/or irrigated, and the opportunities 255 for plantings to reduce the need to sprinkler. 256 257 In conclusion, Mr. Culver duly noted the PWETC's recommendation to the City 258 Council the use of emerging technologies and educational opportunities to reduce 259 watering in the community, utilizing some of the ideas brought forward during 260 tonight's discussion. 261 Page 6 of 17 262 Member Seigler emphasized the city's initiative to save money through addressing 263 non-metered usage. 264 265 As the city begins metering that usage, Chair Cihacek suggested staff track the 266 usage and savings as a demonstration to residents the improvements being 267 undertaken by the city, especially focusing on larger public facilities with larger 268 land areas. Chair Cihacek noted this would exemplify a bigger return, and whether 269 code or usage issues, provide information on those larger use profiles, as case 270 studies to use in rolling out the education process. 271 lak 272 Member Wozniak suggested, if possible, incorporating stormwater management 273 into that educational piece as well (e.g. Upper Villa Park and baseball field 274 irrigation system), and then look at Fairview Avenue and stormwater issues in that 275 area and if there was a way to capture or redirect that drainage. Member Wozniak 276 noted this would allow that stormwater to be used in a positive way if used for 277 irrigation purposes in place of usin fresh water. 278 279 Mr. Culver noted watershed districts%theg-term uge proponents of re but noted the 280 difficulty with those large projects in economic payb r those re- 281 use systems. Therefore, Mr. Culver noted the goal is to incorporate ther reasons 282 beyond financial to pursue those projects. Mr. Culver reported that discussion was 283 underway to consider another re-use system by Fairview at Evergreen Park, that, 284 with grant application. Mr. Culver noted code items would need to be addressed 285 by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, and perhaps considered for larger 286 developments of a certain size, that they be required or encouraged — if doing 287 irrigation on site — to build a re-use system into their development. Mr. Culver 288 advised that s ff woul 1 ok into that further. 289 290 6. Sanitary Sewer Services Discussion 291 Mr. Culver noted the ongoing hours of discussion at the PWETC and City Council 292 levels in continuing to explore options for maintenance or assistance to residents 293 for private sanitary sewer services. Mr. Culver deferred to Mr. Sandstrom for an 294 update since last discussed and previous consideration of a service warranty 295 program and presentation by Paul Pasko on options for lining private services, 296 along with what other municipalities were doing. 297 298 Mr. Sandstrom provided a brief review of the general cross section as displayed 299 and defining public and private lines; ordinances in other cities and city attorney 300 input related to enforcement following inspections and service replacement 301 requirements. Mr. Sandstrom referenced the necessary Inflow and Infiltration (I & 302 I) mandates related to these efforts. 303 304 Mr. Sandstrom reviewed some of the programs for discussion, including point of 305 sale; inspections based on street projects (Roseville currently does this); inspections 306 based on permit applications; city-wide inspections; and/or blanket replacement. 307 Mr. Sandstrom clarified that, at this point, the City of Roseville did not require Page 7 of 17 308 property owners to replace laterals during a street replacement project. Mr. 309 Sandstrom reviewed a similar program used in the City of Edina only during 310 reconstruction, clarifying that the City of Roseville didn't follow that model for 311 lateral replacements when only doing mill and overlay projects or anything 312 involving pavement reclamation that kept the curb intact. Mr. Sandstrom noted that 313 the City of Edina sent out letters to those affected by a project; and budgeted 314 accordingly for upfront costs for the city as property owners were assessed and 315 could pay over a 15-year term. 316 317 Mr. Sandstrom reviewed programs in the City of West St. Paul and City of Golden 318 Valley, both having an in-house camera system; and setting up appointments with 319 residents connected within a project area. If those laterals are found non-compliant 320 after inspection from inside the home, as per their respective ordinances, the 321 property owner is required to fix it. 322 'An Vk 323 As another example, Mr. Sandstrom noted the City of Eagan inspected their entire 324 city within four years; and while that municipality is much larger than Roseville, 325 noted their population had tripled and had many new laterals compared to 326 Roseville's older syste xperiencing more issues with laterals constructed of 327 different materials. 328 329 Mr. Sandstrom noted the City of Sha opee's program had been highlighted by Mr. 330 Pasko's pAed on in February of 2016. W qqw 331 332 Discussi the number of street reconstruction projects anticipated by 333 staff in the next five years, limited to 1-2 if determined not to be up to city standards 334 due to construction and/or drainage issues, but most street now simply requiring 335 mill and overlay and only patching or replacing curbs if cracked or settled. Mr. 336 Culver clarified that only one street was not up to city standards at this time, as it 337 was a recent turnback from Ramsey County (County Road B west of Cleveland 338 Avenue connecting to Highway 280), but was an isolated neighborhood. Mr. 339 Culver further noted some others that were in industrial areas where the curbs were 340 not up to city standards. 341 342 Chair Cihacek noted this resulted in fairly limited opportunities for the long-term 343 consideration of lining projects during reconstruction other than those few sections 344 mentioned by Mr. Culver. 345 346 Mr. Culver noted there may be some unanticipated segments if a water main needed 347 repair or replaced, or substantial repairs were needed to the sanitary sewer system 348 where it couldn't be lined for some reason. In that case, Mr. Culver noted the road 349 would be substantially compromised an opened up, creating cost advantages at that 350 point to access services also. Mr. Culver noted there may be minimal situations 351 where when performing a mill and overlay, no matter the depth, if unable to get 352 good compaction in patching the street, it may be most cost effective to do service Page 8 of 17 353 repairs at that time as well. Mr. Culver advised that staff was currently looking into 354 those situations citywide for further analysis and cost benefit considerations. 355 356 Chair Cihacek led discussions regarding the significance of where to line laterals, 357 and advantages from a cost benefit for extending the life of the entire system, and 358 projected additional life span for those lined services even if not solving all the 359 problems. 360 361 Mr. Sandstrom noted the significant cost and time savings by the city lining up to 362 the rights-of-way staying on city property versus tting permission to access 363 private property, even though repairs in private y ay be less expensive versus 364 removing curbs and digging up the roadway. 365 366 Chair Cihacek stated he remained a proponent for a point of sale inspections policy; 367 and suggested staff examine ordinance language and potential costs to residents 368 based on street and permit applications to -date; providing a cost analysis of in - 369 house inspections versus using outside contractors. Even if th Sityabsorbed the 370 cost of lining up to the rights-of-way, Chair Cihacek opined iided the city 371 improved I & I contro and thereby reduced long-term csts for its 372 constituents, and was worth xamining. Chair Cihacek further opined that 373 taxpayers didn't realize how much it cost for I & I overages; and suggested that 374 would be another excellent educationce. 41� 375 376 Even with a proposed cost cap and city liability risk consideration, Member Seigler 377 asked what advantage it provided him if the city charged him to run a camera down 378 his sewer pipes and lateral line. 379 380 Mr. Sandstrom responded that the City of Golden Valley initially got a lot of 381 pushback from the community; but in thqpend noted it proved a selling point for 382 homes. If using in-house staff time, Mr. Sandstrom advised there would be an 383 upfront cost to property owners for such an inspection. 384 385 Based on the age of a home, Chair Cihacek noted that would determine the possible 386 risk for failure of a sanitary sewer system. Therefore, Chair Cihacek suggested 387 writing the ordinance to address those high risk properties as a starting point. Chair 388 Cihacek opined that part of the value of such an inspection program was that the 389 city didn't currently have a good sense of the condition of non -city -owned pipes. 390 391 Member Seigler reiterated his confusion as to why any city was concerned about 392 this or wanted to undertake such an inspection program. 393 394 Mr. Culver noted both points made by Chair Cihacek and Member Seigler were 395 reasons to implement a program such as this. Mr. Culver clarified that the 396 overriding benefit to the city is reduction in I & I, even though the city had been 397 very proactive to -date in lining its mains and reducing inflow as part of that, even Page 9 of 17 398 though water continued to come in through cracks in the older sanitary sewer 399 system. 400 401 Mr. Culver noted that the city was currently working with the Metropolitan Council 402 who will be lining their trunk lines and other rehabilitation work, some going on in 403 Roseville; which should also prove helpful with Roseville's inflow issues. For 404 clarification purposes addressing Member Seigler's concerns, Mr. Culver clarified 405 that inflow involved businesses or residents illegally connected to the city's sanitary 406 sewer system or other areas causing infiltration. Mr. Culver advised that the city 407 had some data to address some inflow issues, but at some point the city would be 408 penalized financially from the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Culver advised that this 409 was a significant issue for the Metropolitan Council and ongoing treatment of water 410 not needing treatment. Mr. Culver advised that the city was addressing "low 411 hanging fruit" first as a less expensive means to address I & I, including 412 disconnecting known illegal connections. ,However, as those less costly issues are 413 addressed, Mr. Culver noted the city would then be left with determining the other 414 I & I causes, including service laterals. Mr. Culver advised that either the city 415 would need to address issues, or the Met politan Council would force it to do so 416 and apply a surcharge the city to incentivize them to make corrections 417 accordingly. Mr. Culve n the City of Golden Valley had chosen to be very 418 aggressive in addressing their I & I issues, since they had gotten to the point they 419 were paying higher bills if they didn't ress it. Mr. Culver stated he credited that 420 municipality with taking those steps; oted not a to of communities had the 421 stomach to be that ag essive. 422 423 Member Seigler aske this meant he would be required to foot an additional 424 $7,000 bill for h an i ection before he could sell his house. 425 426 air i acek clarified that t e PWETC seemed to be in agreement that the city 427 wasn't interested in being overly -aggressive, and that this should remain an issue 428 between the buyer and seller as part of their disclosure agreements versus the city 429 mandating repairs, but noted this would at least make the buyer aware of such an 430 inspection. If there was no immediate concern, Chair Cihacek noted there would 431 be no actual cost to the city, but if the inspection showed something of concern, 432 current and future best practices could address those situations. Chair Cihacek 433 admitted the City of Golden Valley was a good model in concept, but stated he 434 didn't think it was necessarily appropriate for the City of Roseville. 435 436 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Sandstrom confirmed that the City of St. 437 Paul also had surcharges too. 438 439 Mr. Culver concurred, noting that the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul had a much 440 different situation than most suburbs, with many of their sanitary and storm sewer 441 lines running in the same pipes, requiring them to spend considerable resources 442 over the last few years just separating those lines. Since this was considered the 443 "low hanging fruit" for those cities, Mr. Culver noted they hadn't gotten into the Page 10 of 17 444 deeper costs yet, but noted they would do so. Mr. Culver noted all metropolitan 445 communities were subject to similar rules and ordinances about not connecting 446 sump pumps to the sanitary sewer system, but many had not begun an aggressive 447 inspection program yet. 448 449 If the City of Roseville's I & I was going down due to city lining efforts, Member 450 Seigler asked if that didn't indicate the city was good for a while yet. 451 452 Mr. Culver stated that was one interpretation, but clarified that the City Council 453 continued to be concerned over the cost of maintaining those older services. On 454 the flip side and beyond the I & I issue, Mr. Culver noted some individual council 455 members felt the ownership of those lateral services should be different, with either 456 the sanitary sewer service from the main to the home or water main from the main 457 to the home (laterals) being addressed ve us current ownership. Mr. Culver noted 458 a vast majority of cities in Minnesota ha residents owning the laterals from the 459 main to the home; and a few do so from the rights-of-way to the main. While it 460 was difficult to define at this point, Mr. Culver opined there was some interest on 461 the City Council to have the city takeso e steps when doing other rehabilitation 462 on the system to also ma n effort to r ilitation a portion of the laterals in the 463 rights-of-way. As disc ed previously a d again tonight, Mr. Culver noted the 464 processes between lining aterals *Culver main lines were different and required two 465 different contractors. Therefore, noted staff had insisted to -date that 466 unless every service line was done at the same time, it didn't make sense to provide 467 any other options onof ects without majority agreement to do so. Again, on the 468 flip side, Mr. Culver ted other municipalities (e.g. City of Burnsville) have a 469 blanket program a part of their street reconstruction projects. Mr. Culver noted 470 there were several options, including sewer lining projects to bring in a separate 471 contractor to lie the first few feet (e.g.tns ) or other options for sanitary sewer 472 service. Mr. Culver noted any of those o provide multiple benefits including 473 reduced I & I, not having private contractors digging up city streets when a private 474 lateral fails, and peace of mind for residents. 475 476 At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver advised whether the laterals were bid 477 as an alternate or as one entire separate project would depend on the best sequence 478 for that particular project area, either lining laterals first and then the main line or 479 vice versa. Mr. Culver noted either process would entail costs that would need to 480 be passed on to the public whether or not they were interested, or if the city 481 absorbed the cost from the sanitary sewer utility fund, but increased sanitary sewer 482 rates citywide to do so. Mr. Culver noted the cost would depend on the option 483 chosen, but estimated a potentially annual cost per property at between $10 to $50 484 per year per property. 485 486 Chair Cihacek concluded that doing the lining during reconstruction made the most 487 sense; and suggested staff return to the City Council to determine their threshold 488 and how they preferred to pay for it. If the City Council chooses to proceed, Chair 489 Cihacek suggested they come up with a plan to do so, indicating whether it was Page 11 of 17 490 worth the PWETC and staff exploring it further depending on those cost factors. 491 Chair Cihacek clarified that property owners would end up paying either way, 492 whether through taxes or utility fees. 493 494 As individual homeowners, Mr. Culver asked the PWETC how they would feel if 495 the city implemented a blanket program for lining laterals, at 3' or 10' and sanitary 496 sewer rates were increased from $10 to $50 per year. Mr. Culver asked if they 497 found $50 an extreme fee. 498 499 Member Seigler opined the price of lining would drop in the next few years; and 500 suggested waiting to see if prices were to plummet unless the city saw a drastic 501 increase in failures. Otherwise, Member Seigler suggested the city absorb that cost 502 unless a great amount of failures was realized. 503 504 In previous presentations, Mr. Culver noted staff had reported the city was 505 experiencing more lateral line sanitary sewer failures annually, actually dozens or 506 more throughout the city. Mr. Culver opined those numbers would go up as the 507 sanitary sewer infrastructure systemstimed to age creating one of the questions 508 as to timing. Mr. Culver oted a sanitary sewer system failure wasn't a problem 509 for residents until it hap o them personally, with those numbers of failures 510 continuing to rise. 511 512 Member Seigler xpressed his interest in a Service Warranty Program as previously 513 considered; especially if a current homeowner only intended to live in their current 514 home for a minimal amount of time. 515 516 Chair Cihacek noted, by creating a cost cap, the city would essentially be 517 implementing a self-insurance plan. Therefore, Chair Cihacek expressed his 518 interest in looking at a cost cap or cost share for the cost of lining laterals, opining 519 that $10 over 3-4 billing periods created some pain tolerance, especially if the 520 annual cost was less than projected. If higher than projected, Chair Cihacek stated 521 he was then not interested in such a plan. However, addressing Member Seigler's 522 point, Chair Cihacek opined the city was clearly moving toward a crisis point due 523 to the age of its infrastructure and majority of its housing stock. While most of the 524 city had sandy soils, Chair Cihacek considered the number of trees in the 525 community as well. While unsure whether the city needed to do the option that 526 costs the city money, Chair Cihacek suggested the point of sale inspection may not 527 necessarily mandate repair by the seller, but at a minimum would provide the buyer 528 with truth in disclosing a potential cost going forward, and adjusting selling prices 529 accordingly. 530 531 At the request of Member Heimerl, Mr. Culver stated he wasn't aware of any other 532 point of sale inspections or permitting requirements by the city at this time. 533 534 Member Heimerl questioned if this was the point the city wanted to jump into point 535 of sale versus lining initiatives. Page 12 of 17 OR 537 Member Thurnau noted a property owner could choose to line the laterals 538 separately without the city mandating it. 539 540 Mr. Culver noted some cities did that, but other cities required the point of sale 541 inspection prior to transferring ownership. 542 543 If the city chose to go down this path, Member Heimerl cautioned whether this was 544 the first point of sale inspection to delve into or if this was a big enough issue that 545 required city code changes or a new ordinance. 546 547 Chair Cihacek noted repairs could be expensive for homeowners, potentially 548 upwards of $10,000, versus other issues such as requiring smoke detectors, carbon 549 monoxide detectors, in comparison to a home's market value. 550 551 Member Heimerl argued it could be considered no different than a buyer purchasing 552 a home and finding the central air going out shortly thereafter. Member Heimerl 553 stated he would not be in favor of such a mandated inspection; and suggested it was 554 all part of home ownership, and should not add to the cost for the cityadminister 555 such a program and/or additional staff inspection time. Member Hei erl stated he 556 could not support such a point of sale inspection program. 557 558 Member Seigle oncurred with Member Heimerl. 559 560 Member Th au stated he didn't support an ordinance at this time, but suggested 561 pursuing an infrastructure education point at point of sale for buyers/sellers in 562 understanding th infrastructure of their homes. 563wk 564rthecity eimerl opined this was no different than leakages or mold issues; with 565 rhaps performing outside h inspections and/or cameras sent through 566 ns; but he was not in favor of the city going overboard on the issue that 567 may prove not that problem 568 1; 569 Mr. Culver clarified that he was hearing the PWETC was also not interested in the 570 city doing a blanket or system -wide lining of a portion of laterals. 571 572 The consensul of the PWETC was that they were not interested as noted by Mr. 573 Culver; with Chair Cihacek applying the caveat that there was no interest unless it 574 became a huge crisis. 575 576 At the request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver stated the city lined approximately 577 7 miles of pipe annually; with over 80 miles of pipe citywide not yet lined, having 578 addressed less than half the system to -date; with plans to line the entire system over 579 the next 10 to 12 years. Mr. Culver clarified this didn't involve the newer pipes of 580 PVC material, and advised that staff identified the older segments or areas of most 581 concern, and ongoing inspections and responses as needed. Page 13 of 17 01 -OR 583 Member Wozniak suggested the educational efforts involve all homes in a 584 particular area being lined by the city for residents to be aware of what was 585 happening and why, including the approximate age of their laterals, what the city 586 was doing and why, and opportunities available for residents to consider for their 587 laterals to determine if there was any damage before it became an emergency 588 situation. OEM 590 Mr. Culver reviewed the information provided by the city toward those efforts to - 591 date; with Member Seigler stating the City of St. Paul incorporated such an 592 educational effort as suggested by Member Wozniak. Mr. Culver noted part of that 593 educational information included alerting residents to smoke testing and rationale 594 in the city doing this to find illicit connections to the sanitary sewer system as well. 595 Mr. Culver stated that, in general, he felt the city could do a better job of educating 596 residents in reconstruction areas. 597 598 When considering offering a service to residents as part of a sewer lining project, 599 Member Wozniak questioned if the city had made sufficient efforts to explain the 600 broad picture of owners 'p for infrast re, including service life expectancy, 601 typical age of service lat is in their area, nd potential cost liabilitieg-if they were 602 to experience a problem. 603 604 Mr. Sandstrom noted city staff sent out letters to residents when televising mains if 605 they found areas with roots, especially if those pipes were of clay tile material from 606 the 1960's and ramifications of that root issue for homeowners. If the city is 607 performing a pavement project at that time, Mr. Sandstrom advised that the city 608 offered to facilitate the homeowner's replacement of their laterals at that time at a 609 significant cost savings for them when the street would be open anyway by the city. 610 As an example, Mr. Sandstrom noted last spring he sent out 45 such letters and had 611 6 responses of interest, while some were just seeking additional information. Mr. 612 Sandstrom agreed the city could include more language to provide residents with 613 additional information and explain that the city can only see a small portion of their 614 laterals and not all the way to the home with potential issues elsewhere on that 615 route, and recommending they seek assistance from a private contractor. 616 617 In conclusion, it was noted that all commissioners were in agreement that more and 618 better education was good, including how to address problems, projected service 619 life, a process for who to contact; with a request for specific additional information 620 from the City Council on capping costs. 621 622 Chair Cihacek reiterated his specific request from staff for a cost analysis and 623 possible solutions if rates were found relatively low for in-house inspections at this 624 point. Chair Cihacek thanked commissioners for their ideas and tonight's 625 discussion. 626 Page 14 of 17 627 Further, it was noted that the consensus of the PWETC was that if the City Council 628 majority was concerned with ownership of laterals, whether at the rights-of-way or 629 elsewhere on the line, the PWETC encouraged the City Council to provide direction 630 on their preferences in paying for such a change in ownership or recommendations 631 to staff directing further evaluation by the PWETC. 632 633 Specific to the ordinance, Member Wozniak stated he was on the fence, as he saw 634 the benefits but still felt it was a strong-armed approach. Member Wozniak stated 635 he would favor a more transitional approach by encouraging residents to hire the 636 services of a home inspection agent. 637 638 Chair Cihacek agreed the inspections provided a to obtain the information, but 639 noted it was expensive, especially if taking the Golden Valley model as an example, 640 which he found much too aggressive to consider in Roseville. However, with the 641 expected life span of the city's older lines, if the city could narrow the cost to not 642 create such a burden for residents,air Cihacek suggested staff may want to draft 643 language accordingly, and limit th arget area and impact. If it proved not to be a 644 gested the huge burden based on the requested cost analysi Chair CihNansent 645 PWETC could then vote the ordinance up or down their 646 recommendation to the City Council accordingly. Chair Cihaed the city 647 had been lucky so far, but also noted that may change. However, Chair Cihacek 648 agreed that education at this point was the best option; and if the choice resulted in 649 considering inspections, that such a program be more lenient and within the context 650 of housing stock type and age; but not a general ordinance that would impact all, 651 and onlyose considered at risk or with older pipes. 652 653 Mr. Culver noted it would be a challenge to identify those high risk areas, since the 654 majority of the city's sewer system was installed in the 1960's unless homes added 655 #Atfter that point or of better materials. 656 657 the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver stated the life of clay pipe was variable, 658 depending on soil factors, trees nearby, and other issues determining the longevity 659 as long as nothing was compromising them structurally. 660 661 Under that scenario, Chair Cihacek questioned if the ordinance language could be 662 limited at all; but left it up to staff. As part of the education process, Chair Cihacek 663 noted residents should be made aware of tree plantings and their proximity to sewer 664 lines, especially for those replacing trees damaged by storms. By promoting that 665 improved educational process, Chair Cihacek opined it would limit the and 666 community's liability long-term if those risk factors were brought up for 667 consideration going forward. 668 669 Consensus was that education was good; and staff was asked to return with an 670 education and outreach plan with specific targets or more general based on 671 available staff resources. 672 Page 15 of 17 673 Chair Cihacek reiterated his interest in a cost analysis based on a cap on expenses 674 for programs. 675 676 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver clarified that the education 677 components would include choices for residents to make, alerting them to potential 678 costs for emergency infrastructure situations depending on the season, contractor 679 availability, and choices for a resident to be proactive in addressing potential 680 problem lines or accept the risk of a potential break during the winter resulting in 681 frozen ground and the sanitary sewer backing up into the basement. 682 683 Chair Cihacek noted that tonight's conversation included education for residents on 684 how the infrastructure system worked, construction of pipes, vegetation variables 685 around those lines, inspections needing to be done by reliable vendors, what 686 questions to ask those vendors performing an inspection, as well as if buying a 687 home in Roseville what questions you should ask. Chair Cihacek again noted the 688 two choices for homeowners: either proactive or reactive, with the goal being for 689 the city to make its residents more knowledgeable in making those choices. 690 Overall, Chair Cihacek noted the PWETC'f,20116 nce for the city to generate 691 information versus apply' mandates. 692 693 7. Possible Items for Next Meeting — October 694 • Meeting Minute Approval (August and September) 695 • Annual Utility Rate Discussion (Sewer, Water, Storm Sewer, and Recycling) 696 based on rate adjustments received by the city from theAt. Paul Regional Water 697 Service and Metropolitan Council's sewer system rates, as well as the city's short - 698 and long-term capital improvement schedule. 699 • Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update Meeting #2 700 With the initial meeting held in Aust, the next meeting would involve the 701 review of limited public input 1eived to -date; with the final meeting 702 scheduled for January of 2017 before submitting the plan update for agency 703 review. 704 705 Discussion included a potential field trip in November with a tour of the Public 706 Works Maintenance Facility as the city gears up for snow equipment and vehicle 707 preparation; 2017 Work Plan discussion (October); and consideration of the 708 Surface Water Management Plan timeline for needs and presentation in light of the 709 timing of the annual review of utility rates by Finance Director Chris Miller. 710 711 At staff s earliest convenience, Chair Cihacek asked for an update from 712 Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson on city rights-of-way and other city -owned 713 property mowing schedules and rationale related to mowing frequency and types 714 of plantings in consideration of water conservation efforts and staff and financial 715 resources; and a review of the Open Meeting Law as a refresher or training for 716 commissioners, specifically a look at the actual law itself. 717 718 8. Adjourn Page 16 of 17 719 Member Seigler moved, Member Thurnau seconded, adjournment of the PWETC 720 at approximately 8:27 p.m. 721 722 Ayes:5 723 Nays:0 724 Motion carried. Page 17 of 17 Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: October 25, 2016 Item Description: Communication Items Item No: 4 Public Works Project updates: • Twin Lakes Parkway Phase III and Twin Lakes Area Signals o Extension of Twin Lakes Parkway from Prior Ave to Fairview Ave and construction of traffic signal at Fairview Ave. and Twin Lakes Parkway. • All underground work is completed and the curb and gutter is installed. • Sidewalks and lighting are currently being installed. • Fairview signal will likely be installed in late October. • Due to delays in utility relocates, Twin Lakes Parkway will likely open in November. • 2016 Pavement Management Project o City's annual mill and overlay project. This year approximately 7 miles of roads will be repaved • Heinel Drive is the only portion of the project that is not substantially completed. Work should be completed by November 4. • Project is over 90% completed. • Attachment B shows areas that are completed. Wheeler Street Closure/County Road D o Council approved the road closure of Wheeler Street at County Road D. o County Road D is currently being reconstructed by the Developer of Presbyterian Homes in Arden Hills o New road with curb and gutter, storm sewer and the Wheeler Road closure should be completed by November 4. Parks Renewal Pathways o Staff is working on constructing seven new pathway segments with Park Renewal funds. See attachment C for map of proposed locations. • Dale Street— Sandhurst to County Rd B (east side) —Public Works staff has graded the sidewalk. A concrete contractor will install the sidewalk in the near future. Lexington Ave — County Rd B to Parker Ave (east side) — Likely will be constructed in October 2016. • Cleveland Lift Station o Lift station replacement project at Cleveland & Brenner. o Opening bids in November South Lake Owasso Drainage Improvements o Pave Drain installation on Owasso Private Drive o Opening bids in November • 2017 Lining Project o Estimated to line 5.5 miles of sanitary sewer main and 0.1 miles of storm sewer o Opening bids in November Wheaton Woods Development 0 17 lot subdivision near Dale and County Rd C o The first layer of pavement has been installed. o Final paving and finish work will take place in October. City Council Update: • Erosion Control Ordinance o The City Council amended the erosion control ordinance to reduce when permits are required from 10,000 SF of disturbance to 5,000 SF. City Campus Solar Project: Staff is continuing to work with Sundial Solar to finalize a proposal to install solar arrays on the roof of at least two City buildings on campus. We will be presenting this proposal to the City Council at the November 141' City Council meeting. Ramsey County Projects: • 2017 Mill and Overlay Projects o County will be holding a public open house on December 1, 2016 from 5-7 PM at Roseville City Hall Council Chambers to discuss proposed lane configuration changes for two pavement resurfacing projects in 2017 • Cleveland Avenue, Iona Lane — Glen Paul Ave (Arden Hills) County Road B, Dale Street to Rice Street Minnesota Department of Transportation Projects: • Lexington Avenue Bridge Construction o Lexington Ave under Hwy 36 will be closed one day on October 31 to complete a mill and overlay of the pavement. o The west bound Hamline ramps will close for two days to complete a mill and overlay. This has been moved to November 1 and 2. o The east bound Lexington ramps will be closed through early November. • The City Council voted to approve Municipal Consent for the 35W Managed Lane Project. This project is not fully funded but is expected to be under construction in 2018 or 2019. The Council also voted to withhold the City's vote for a noise wall along the east side of 35W between County Road C and County Road D. This was partly due to the fact that the wall had already received enough positive votes (points) to approve the wall. There was at least one property owner that voted against the noise wall. • MnDOT will be rehabilitating the pavement on Snelling Ave between Como Ave in St Paul to Highway 36 in Roseville. As a part of this project MnDOT will be adding a second northbound left turn lane at the Snelling and County Road B intersection. This will then match the dual left turn lane for the southbound direction at the same intersection. Major Maintenance Activities: • Re -paved a portion of pathway on County Road C between Hamline and Lexington • New sidewalk preparation on Dale St near County Road B and Lexington Ave near Sherren. • Ongoing general pavement patching continues. • Continue working on meter repairs and replacements. We are down to 18 meters needing an upgrade to the new meter and radio. • Collected bacteriological water samples. • Continued with the 2016 sanitary sewer cleaning program. • Replaced hydrant at Dale St north of County Road B. • Repaired two leaking water valves. • Upstairs bathrooms are under construction and should be complete by the end of October. Attachments: A: 2016 Project Map B: 2016 PMP Progress Map C: Development Activity Report Attachment A State Project �a P z�g CARCREST AVE aE Esco is AMERICAN S AOR VE ,Victoria & o ,Centfal Park �TRANSITs e ,Ern " am ��TRANSIT d' e BBllfields . "' E aANx"a ST ° ,� ° ` ° �" COUNTY reNnma o w 8 " &RANDvcw " RANT. o- GRANDVIEW AVE IR USH 3 Gamhotm '° LOV ren @� 8 a aELL o"'` ° State- Lexington Ave. °"`> & AVE �N,"` DR A Bridge e0 Lpn, 06 a ep 1 10 AVESOLA E Nom,. IS $H ,3 THB m LA -� eLAURIE RD M COMMERCE I o oar "4P� WEN w D 0 11 u .°�`o rState Project s a " ^^ g ON°ROAD R AVE ROAD °N,. a —I - d COUNTYCOU TY a°.° e I ROAD R e° Met Council AV BURKE IRASanitary Lining Eldridge DRINK Backyards AVE x ." pow°h* w GIeAVE To R ELDRIDGE AVE EGA <_ B -Dale 4 I ® Parking LLr N AVE SHO YES e e Lot-fg ST D SHO YES AVE SHO YES AVE AVE t aa�rr�° w as DOD Hl DOD w o w RYAN AVE o o p- rv" pRor�e e, y eL VDOAGS Top "v AVERYAN A°renHl Pwk Resavai>• Wands �g b8� i Ef `Oy pro x °° L "E, g tl €"x le��nrzl "y c °x ST AVE ROSELA AN AVE VIEW ROS , RNELAWN IT Me �.aN AVE � �.aN ��� City PMP Projects AVE a ,rrN �a""" xe:ewoi, wnaaH°�°a .aa a"AVE AREC Proposed 2016 Projects y RU� r z 3� N, State &Count Projects ENrro°°ST n m«e e GARDEN GNEE ST i Tamwwk SVCn Twin Lakes Area Projects a° A IS " ,ild Pathway and Parking Lot Projects °° IlkSt. Albans $eP �u LL "°I�"` °�°NNAVE City Sanitary Lining °` R ��° CU -de -SBC Met Council Sanitary Lining/Replacement < Larpenteur'Ave. Resurfacing 0Larpenteur SidewalkConstrtaction p ,OS Ha f J At J 1E O Storm Projects b.—KA.o.Bnnem o' `LI Watermain Projects sta Sources and Contacts se o soo i000 isoo z000 Feer Prepared by: 1 Ramsey c°°mv cis ease Map (4K4/16) yane(mao.,..d'1v. ' city of Roseville Engineering Department Engineering Department Lift Station Eormhh r r n regardng the contents onhls mag contacr s a , mapaoc Preposea2016 AllProjectsLabels.mod April 12, 2016 atvofR n, Engineering Department, �,,,,,d nndw�esb. ro",nand, n,�d".,md,es.w re.AA1y ,e,o. nd.,V nen. mag: Propesatl2016 AllProjectsLabels.gar N 2660 Cult center Drive, Roseville MN and walso COUNTY °°° °Nry PA FLake0 'MetCouncilat " 'PrC �e , r RE a n�yLining/vWODDLYNN Valley Park AVE Kid� placee Ea Cleveland RJosephine �, DR Indyk o e ° rSanitary � aga° awe ��s � Lift'Station c IhkeJoseph;u 4� dss q „ AVE AIR day ° w� a'for, e OR e Panic a MILLOCAN AVE ELM iRmraseY Luny) ,d° •�fy ELAN g g All PLE ToCOUNTY°.° $ a Twin Lake Pkwy' m.n N"` 77 re. EastIUIINIY ;CollectorP°n CEN �N,"°° a �TNN�"a o, `"Pw s Add Boe DR - New=Signal Oasis Pon J ��� TERRA 19ya DREACE D, J 35W &Cleveland New Signal �No ' �k...k e Heinel Direct 4 P To ae, nk , _ Discharge 11 CANA� I an nterchange Twin Lakes Pkwy "° aIlk PDWY Construction " Kate _TVRN Byerly�s F v em°s[ r� Rn.wh a� Joknson Pwk Merro,iaL pia,��� DR Pa,k No pJE m — — D 8 COUNTY TALISMAN Cn� 2 ROAD c" 10 ROAD A I ROAD A —N.— VAN— F s sc a kj 35W I°ARCREST Su _ Raseb,00koROSE Pa,k i OR C 0N Bennett ROL ROL w State Project �a P z�g CARCREST AVE aE Esco is AMERICAN S AOR VE ,Victoria & o ,Centfal Park �TRANSITs e ,Ern " am ��TRANSIT d' e BBllfields . "' E aANx"a ST ° ,� ° ` ° �" COUNTY reNnma o w 8 " &RANDvcw " RANT. o- GRANDVIEW AVE IR USH 3 Gamhotm '° LOV ren @� 8 a aELL o"'` ° State- Lexington Ave. °"`> & AVE �N,"` DR A Bridge e0 Lpn, 06 a ep 1 10 AVESOLA E Nom,. IS $H ,3 THB m LA -� eLAURIE RD M COMMERCE I o oar "4P� WEN w D 0 11 u .°�`o rState Project s a " ^^ g ON°ROAD R AVE ROAD °N,. a —I - d COUNTYCOU TY a°.° e I ROAD R e° Met Council AV BURKE IRASanitary Lining Eldridge DRINK Backyards AVE x ." pow°h* w GIeAVE To R ELDRIDGE AVE EGA <_ B -Dale 4 I ® Parking LLr N AVE SHO YES e e Lot-fg ST D SHO YES AVE SHO YES AVE AVE t aa�rr�° w as DOD Hl DOD w o w RYAN AVE o o p- rv" pRor�e e, y eL VDOAGS Top "v AVERYAN A°renHl Pwk Resavai>• Wands �g b8� i Ef `Oy pro x °° L "E, g tl €"x le��nrzl "y c °x ST AVE ROSELA AN AVE VIEW ROS , RNELAWN IT Me �.aN AVE � �.aN ��� City PMP Projects AVE a ,rrN �a""" xe:ewoi, wnaaH°�°a .aa a"AVE AREC Proposed 2016 Projects y RU� r z 3� N, State &Count Projects ENrro°°ST n m«e e GARDEN GNEE ST i Tamwwk SVCn Twin Lakes Area Projects a° A IS " ,ild Pathway and Parking Lot Projects °° IlkSt. Albans $eP �u LL "°I�"` °�°NNAVE City Sanitary Lining °` R ��° CU -de -SBC Met Council Sanitary Lining/Replacement < Larpenteur'Ave. Resurfacing 0Larpenteur SidewalkConstrtaction p ,OS Ha f J At J 1E O Storm Projects b.—KA.o.Bnnem o' `LI Watermain Projects sta Sources and Contacts se o soo i000 isoo z000 Feer Prepared by: 1 Ramsey c°°mv cis ease Map (4K4/16) yane(mao.,..d'1v. ' city of Roseville Engineering Department Engineering Department Lift Station Eormhh r r n regardng the contents onhls mag contacr s a , mapaoc Preposea2016 AllProjectsLabels.mod April 12, 2016 atvofR n, Engineering Department, �,,,,,d nndw�esb. ro",nand, n,�d".,md,es.w re.AA1y ,e,o. nd.,V nen. mag: Propesatl2016 AllProjectsLabels.gar N 2660 Cult center Drive, Roseville MN and COUNTY ROAD D COUNTY ROAD D GAS, 7 D ® r°nrererere "po Pa" je Lake 5 AN, o pie q v e t w O 2 Qe9 JosephineARENNER Rin LANGTONLACE m RSR Lmssmn 00e u n 50 v + do`s u R v s+a4 N E Pvk¢ Luke JaSePhns m0 4rBCy 'x ELOD Z `I SL ° �y �R o a,- Park oMILLWOOD STdrook uwoo°A VE '� N _ VA PLE T o �ol F BmnseY cnunN7 aMUCLE To No HESTY ROAD C2 COU xry R° COUNTY ° 4C0 STY OUNTY IAL4 RC2 • CENTENNIAL DR LM I DR ` 5S ORCHARD To p R ore /4Riew�vk.�p� RACE DR TEAC -E 77— a Park RRncE ° °re„p�aP BE E B Rq mwooaAVE w°��vE i Orrbok $ 'P IONA xn w E uetermu z y ooh m wq°s[ R° o Xo ward LL AVE VOCOCHILL DR OB �Prk kffimowi HER TON A LDo CUPUpa kn Park swwrr,e""”` ° ROAD 4 ROAD A COUNTY ROAD A oNAL, ROSE OL i A BOROSE I ROSE I OR ° ° 77 W ° o-ae Bennett i Go.w m . CREST ZaireOAKCREST AVE OAC��-, AVE ZROoKs A NRo 5 RANSIT eR�-, 5 Po AVE VALLOW WILLOW H, AVE AMENCANST Ewx°? d e Ra ERoo�� O° nn's�, wo°" e _ _ g aR�pp. rd ��Nor ISEmnq�a pa vk p xsn p09 ? N SE: LAST AVE� PA EO nvE LL ST RD E2 COUNTY TEARMINAL 1. DE -O., �gE oo WGRANDVIEW n Cedarhabn ' Qo ° AVE is PAPMETER�LL ¢ aanrrermon Go CamSe rsnVELLAVE LO VLOVELL ELL E o o Lake COLONIAL DR N r SOUTHHILL o p = m 2 snvaeel w b MW n NESTOTAVE '11111, COMMERCE n LAURIE 11 ps¢pEt"�z (co.,TY 8 a s Bwerc r.n g— a ROAD OUNTY ROAD R 1 RICK AV RING 1w RING To E RIDGE AVEELDRIDGE q € g p� n s nvE Rrnx AVE RIDGEWOOD To R HOF APER A VE RAPER lo lo �anwxa € do S AVE reass_nwx dU ore AVE ROSELA wx 2016 PMP Projects Status `/*./ Substantially Completed Road Project 00 tE /**/ Uncompleted Road Project Prepared by: Engineering Department October 19, 2016 i H C D 5 Usm, T4 EMGY LA USE 9Vas °q°RS, K ROAD R Go DR COUNTY ER RURGUE A OF GTE PARKER AVE PARKEE A VEA VE O m To • E SK LLVA AVE ;' :Nq SHRYEEEAVE Parkes cv R g lg ST c) 0 RYAN A RYAN o ° °renRIET E Ltesrvvair Wands n Fxrsn„zel eE AVE =VER- RY AN AVE w P p e ELOD PP o e eii A ik AVE I ARROAN ST Eu N re nry p,. llllllllll�w RMp W� ' lC�y4FFO ^alc AUTUVY STSIR.P y °1tl `r�ew WANDS11' igke ht. Co—'N oup. AVE HILLT AS GLEJ oST A VEQ ROMA A VE RoCHPROi O 'STi Tamvack VU : nvE AVE PANNE o ¢nn + LtmnSey Luny AVE � r �i CIDG—E1 OPen SPoce _ VE AS CL ER Dara sources and ContactsWA A,A -Ar. si r,K r.r. N,,A,.Y­ A- I r. ­.d .-Y. WA == p -n oramm, 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Feet 'Ramsey County CIS Base Map (]/28/16) I-Itya eVIA)om..dIAn— city of Reaev lue Engineering Department F°rNdM1 ( Cnregarding the contents°(thls map contactnondR B r mapd°c 2016PMP Status. mxd C of 11 Engineering Department, x .a map: 2116PMP Statusput - 2b60 Civic Center Drive Roseville MN ro.ndh w w¢. nn a uip nim _GflY➢d.HP3rte Jts— I r Retail J Retail 1 ( ■ County Hoax C2 Twin City Chinese Christian Church ■ I Larry's Aldi I 8 0❑ Retail County Road building I I — Free Wheel Lucky 13 ❑Bike Pie Five e I CountyHoaJB2 Piz. Co. Rosedale I JC Penney ■ Center ■ I I m I [� LL R—lana Avenue See Reverse For Project Details ❑ Residential Proposed ❑ Commercial/ Industrial Proposed ❑ Public/ Institution al Proposed ■ Residential ■ Commercial/Industrial ■ Public/Institutional k#A4FAf+E Prepared by: Community, Bevelopmen[ Beparcmenc Se ocember 28,2016 Lake J,,,hnne Attachment C New Nome ■New Nome V°V¢ Cherrywood pppleosed Pointe Pointe ■ ■ Wheaton Woods CountyHoaaC ■ aennerr Tawe Rignicare ,a,. ^° Senior M em ory Care County HoaaB2 ❑ Garden Station se 3 Farrington Estates New Nome New Nome B e Yoga Studio Moser development ❑ r_'o `moo � Development Projects: October 2016 0 1.000 2.000 3.000 ®Feet Sources Ra msey noun ty 61 S(a50/20161 Cconnn ty oerelopmenc Department Target New Nome New Nome Mattress Firm County HoadB Painting Witha Twist i I a ------------ New Nome i u a E [� LL R—lana Avenue See Reverse For Project Details ❑ Residential Proposed ❑ Commercial/ Industrial Proposed ❑ Public/ Institution al Proposed ■ Residential ■ Commercial/Industrial ■ Public/Institutional k#A4FAf+E Prepared by: Community, Bevelopmen[ Beparcmenc Se ocember 28,2016 Lake J,,,hnne Attachment C New Nome ■New Nome V°V¢ Cherrywood pppleosed Pointe Pointe ■ ■ Wheaton Woods CountyHoaaC ■ aennerr Tawe Rignicare ,a,. ^° Senior M em ory Care County HoaaB2 ❑ Garden Station se 3 Farrington Estates New Nome New Nome B e Yoga Studio Moser development ❑ r_'o `moo � Development Projects: October 2016 0 1.000 2.000 3.000 ®Feet Sources Ra msey noun ty 61 S(a50/20161 Cconnn ty oerelopmenc Department ROSEVILLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • OCTOBER 2016 • DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT (*NEW IN OCTOBER) Project Name Address Project Description Applicant/Owner Information Starting/Occupancy Residential Dignicare Senior Memory Care 197 County Rd B2 26 -Unit assisted living memory care facility Greiner Construction TBD/TBD Proposed Moser Development 545 Roselawn Ave 3 -lot development Bald Eagle Builders/Agnes Mae Moser Fall 2016/TBD Applewood Pointe 2665 Victoria St 105 -Unit senior co-op United Properties Summer 2016/TBD Cherrywood Pointe 2680 Lexington Ave Assisted living/memory care United Properties Summer 2016/TBD Garden Station 2325/2335 Dale St 18 attached townhomes GMHC/City of Roseville/RHRA Winter 2015/TBD Farrington Estates 311 County Rd B 6 -lot single-family subdivision Premium Real Estate Solutions/Michael B. Oudin Winter 2016/Spring 2017 New Home 901 Burke Ave Single-family home Equinox Construction, LLC Summer 2016/Winter 2017 Residential Under New Home 1975 Cleveland Ave Single-family home David Raab Winter 2016/Spring 2017 Construction New Home 2006 Cohansey Blvd Single-family home Covert Constructions Summer 2016/Spring 2017 New Home 2179 Marion Road Single-family home Homeowner Summer 2016/Spring 2017 New Home 2950 West Owasso Blvd Construct new single-family home Homeowner Fall 2014/Spring 2017 New Home 3020 South Owasso Blvd Construct new single-family home Hanson Homes Spring 2016/Fall 2016 New Home 2169 St. Stephen St Single-family home Hage Homes Summer 2015/Fall 2016 Wheaton Woods Wheaton Ave & Dale St 17 single-family homes Golden Valley Land Co/TJB Homes/Accent Homes Summer 2016/TBD Aldi 2005 Twin Lakes Pkwy New grocery JAVA Capital Partners Fall 2016/Summer 2017 Denny's 2045 Twin Lakes Pkwy New restaurant Tech Builders/Tech Builders Fall 2016/Spring 2017 Dunkin Donuts 2425 Rice St Tenant build -out Fendler Patterson Construction Fall 2016/Winter 2016 Commercial/ *Free Wheel Bike 1955 County Rd B2 Tenant remodel (formerly Tuesday Morning) Commers-Klodt TBD Industrial Proposed Pie Five Pizza Co. 1745 County Rd B2 New restaurant Tech Builders/Tech Builders Summer 2016/ Fall 2016 *Retail Building 1861 Rice St New 9500 sq ft, single -story, multi -tenant shell building Gary Carlson/Danna LLC TBD Retail Building 2035 Twin Lakes Pkwy New single -story, multi -tenant shell building Tech Builders/Tech Builders Fall 2016/Spring 2017 *Yoga Studio 1940 Lexington Ave Tenant remodel Dariush Moslemi TBD 1C Penney 1700 County Rd B2 New entrance 1C Penny Properties, Inc./Maxwell Builders Fall 2016/Spring 2017 *Lucky 13 2480 County Rd B2 Tenant remodel (formerly Old Country Buffet) Dahlmeier Construction Fall 2016/Winter 2017 Made for Retail 3000 Centre Pointe Dr Tenant remodel -office Gardner Builders/Dave Hecker Summer 2016/Fall 2016 Commercial/ Under Construction Mattress Firm 2174 Snelling Ave Building remodel Michael Ireland,Architect/United Growth Fall 2014/TBD Painting with a Twist 2100 Snelling Ave Tenant remodel -retail Sherburne Construction Summer 2016/Fall 2016 Rosedale Center 1700 County Rd B2 Utility work, parking deck, interior updates, new anchor Jones Lang LaSalle/PPF RTL Rosedale Shopping Ctr, LLC TBD/TBD Target 1515 County Rd B Tenant remodel -retail Ryan Co/Target Corp. Spring 2016/Fall 2016 Proposed Public/Inst NONE Under Construction Public/institutional Twin City Chinese Christian Church 1756 Terrace Dr Tenant remodel/from warehouse to church George Tuan/Twin City Chinese Christian Church Winter2016/Fall 2016 Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: October 25, 2016 Item No: 5 Item Description: 2017 Utility Rate Proposal Background: Chris Miller, Finance Director has completed preliminary analysis for the proposed utility rates for 2017. The utility rate proposal will be presented to the City Council in November for consideration and approval. As the utility areas are enterprise funds they are restricted to funding the purposes of the respective utility. Utility rates are set at a level to sustain the operations and capital needs of the individual utility. The Finance Director has provided a memo outlining the proposed 2017 rates with background and analysis supporting the proposed rates. Recommended Action: Discuss proposed rates and rate structure. Provide feedback on proposed rates and other concerns. Attachments: A. Utility Rate Memo Attachment A lei Memo To: Roseville Public Works, Environment, & Transportation Commission Marc Culver, Public Works Director From: Chris Miller, Finance Director Date: October 15, 2016 Re: 2017 Utility Rate Review & Recommendation 1 BACKGROUND 2 Over the past several months, City Staff has been reviewing the City's utilities operations to determine 3 whether customer rate adjustments are necessary for 2017. The analysis included a review of the City's a water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and curbside recycling operations. 5 s The information presented below includes an analysis of these operations, some historical water usage 7 information, and a series of rate comparisons with peer communities. Each of these are presented in a separate sections. 9 10 Operational Review 11 Staff's analysis of its utility operations included a review of the following: 12 13 0 Fixed costs including personnel, supplies and maintenance, and other costs that are generally 14 independent of the amount of water purchased or wastewater that is generated. 15 0 Variable costs including the purchase of water from the City of St. Paul, water treatment costs 16 paid to the Metropolitan Council, and recycling contractor costs paid to Eureka Recycling. 17 0 Capital replacement costs. 18 0 Customer counts and consumption patterns, rate structure, and rates. 19 20 Based on an analysis of these costs and customer consumption patterns, Staff is recommending a number 21 of fee adjustments for 2017. The need for these adjustments are presented in greater detail below sections. 22 23 Based on Staff's recommendation, the estimated quarterly impact on a typical single-family home is 24 shown in the following table. Page 1 of 11 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Utility Rate Impact: Single Family Home Water - base fee 51.60 53.15 1.55 Water - usage fee 33.75 33.75 - Sanitary Sewer - base fee 35.40 36.45 1.05 Sanitary Sewer - usage fee 23.40 27.95 4.55 Total per Quarter 1 $ 162.10 1 $ 170.75 1 1 $ 8.65 1 5.33% Water consumption(1,000 gals.) I 15 Sewer consumption 1,000 gals.) 13 For 2017 a typical single-family home will pay an estimated $170.75 per quarter, or $56.92 per month. This is an increase of $2.88 per month from 2016. More detailed information for each operating division can be found below. Water Operations The City's water operation provides City customers with safe potable water, as well as on -demand water pressure sufficient to meet the City's fire protection needs. The following table provides a summary of the 2016 and 2017 (proposed) Budget excluding capital: F Reveau Custc Intere Expects Persc Suppl Other Net Avi es 2016 Budget 2017 Bud et $Increase (Decrease) %Increase (Decrease) mer Charges $7,487,750 $7,100,000 $ (387,750) -5.2% st Earnings 1,000 5,000 4,000 0.0% Total $7,488,750 $7,105,000 $ (383,750) -5.1% es mel Services $ 642,800 $ 642,500 $ 300 0.0% ies &Materials 82,100 88,200 6,100 7.4% Services & Charges 5,793,850 5,565,750 228,100 -3.9% Total $6,518,750 $6,296,450 $ (222,300) -3.4% tilable For Capital ** $ 970,000 $ 808,550 ** Excludes $592,000 in cash reserves set aside for water -related capital For 2017, overall budgeted revenues and expenditures are expected to decline significantly after adjusting for revised customer usage estimates. The revision affects both the `Customer Charges' (revenue) and `Other Services & Charges' (expenses). Costs associated with assigned personnel are expected to remain steady even after accommodating a 2.75% cost -of -living adjustment. The single largest operating cost for the water operation is the purchase of wholesale water from the St. Paul Regional Water System (SPRWS). SPRWS Officials have informed us that there will be a 4.67% increase in the cost of purchasing wholesale water in 2017. However, Roseville's current customer usage rates have a sufficient cushion to accommodate this increase. The revised 20 -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies added infrastructure replacement costs in the coming years which will require a 3.0% increase in the water base fee. Page 2 of 11 50 Sanitary Sewer Operations 51 The City maintains a sanitary sewer collection system to ensure the general public's health and general 52 welfare. The following table provides a summary of the 2016 and 2017 (proposed) Budget excluding 56 capital: 54 55 56 57 58 5s 2016 1 2017 $Increase % Increase Revenues _ Customer Charges Interest Earnings Total Expenses Budget $5,032,745 5,000 $5,037,745 Budet $5,040,000 5,000 $5,045,000 (Decrease) (Decrease) $ 7,255 0.1% - 0.0% $ 7,255 0.1% Personnel Services $ 469,200 $ 493,100 $ 23,900 5.1% Supplies &Materials 50,200 50,400 200 0.4% Other Services & Charges 3,374,550 3,505,550 131,000 3.9% Total $3,893,950 $4,049,050 $ 155,100 4.0% Net Available for Capital ** $1,143,795 $ 995,950 ** Excludes $205,000 in cash reserves set aside for sanitary sewer -related capital For 2017, overall costs are expected to rise 4.0%. Costs associated with assigned personnel are expected to increase 5.1% which includes a 2.75% cost -of -living adjustment. 60 The single largest operating cost to the sanitary sewer operation is the wastewater treatment costs paid to 61 the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division (MCES). The MCES has informed us that we 62 can expect a 5.7% increase in wastewater treatment costs for 2017 despite having lower sewer flows. The 66 increase is attributable to the MCES' higher infrastructure replacement costs which are shared amongst 64 metro area customers. This will require a 19.4% increase in sewer usage fees for our sanitary sewer 65 customers. 66 67 The revised 20 -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies added infrastructure replacement costs 68 in the coming years which will also require a 3.0% increase in the sanitary sewer base fee. 6s 70 Storm Drainage Operations 71 The City provides for the management of storm water drainage to prevent flooding and pollution control, 72 as well as the street sweeping program. The following table provides a summary of the 2016 and 2017 76 (proposed) Budget excluding capital: Page 3 of 11 74 75 76 77 78 7s 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 8s so I I" I F I 1"1 7 Q b.110- 0/ b.- Revenues Customer Charges Interest Earnings 2 Total Expenses Bud et $1,645,685 35,000 $1,680,685 Bud et $1,775,000 20,000 $1,795,000 (Decrease)Decrease $ 129,315 7.9% (15,000) -42.9% $ 114,315 6.8% Personnel Services $ 397,600 $ 404,700 $ 7,100 1.8% Supplies &Materials 83,500 86,500 3,000 3.6% Other Services & Charges 271,200 347,100 75,900 28.0% Total $ 752,300 $ 838,300 $ 86,000 11.4% (48,000) - -100.0% 0.0% Expenses Total $ 484,200 Net Available for Capital ** $ 928,385 $ 956,700 5.8% Personnel Services $ 36,800 $ 36,800 $ - ** Excludes $1,090,000 in cash reserves set aside for storm sewer -related capital Supplies &Materials For 2017, overall costs are expected to rise 11.4%. Costs associated with assigned personnel are expected to increase 1.8% which includes a 2.75% cost -of -living adjustment. The increase in `Others Services & Charges' is due to the costs associated with updating the Stormwater Plan, which is required as part of the broader decennial update of the Comprehensive Plan. The revised 20 -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies added infrastructure replacement costs in the coming years which will require a 5.0% increase in the storm sewer fee. RecvclinQ Operations The recycling operation provides for the contracted curbside recycling pickup throughout the City and related administrative costs. The primary operating cost is the amounts paid to a contractor to pickup recycling materials. The following table provides a summary of the 2016 and 2017 (proposed) Budget: Revenues Base Fee Revenue LLaye Fee Revenue $ 2016 Budget 346,000 - $ 2017 Budget 426,210 - $Increase % Increase (Decrease) $ 80,210 (Decrease) _ 23.2% - 0.0% SCORE Grant 89,200 1 85,000 4,200 -4.7% Revenue Sharing Interest Earnings 48,000 1,000 - 1,000 (48,000) - -100.0% 0.0% Expenses Total $ 484,200 $ 512,210 $ 28,010 5.8% Personnel Services $ 36,800 $ 36,800 $ - 0.0% Supplies &Materials 2,000 2,000 - 0.0% Other Services & Charges 453,410 473,410 20,000 4.4% Total $ 492,210 $ 512,210 $ 20,000 4.1% Net From Operations ** $ (8,010) $ ** The Rec clin Fund has a cash balance of $90,600 For 2017, overall costs are expected to rise 4.1% resulting from a new multi-year contract for services (review pending). The increased contractor costs which include the addition of pickups in public areas, Page 4 of 11 95 coupled with a decline in revenue sharing will require a 16.0% increase in the recycling fee charged to 96 customers. 97 sa Recommended Rates for 2016 ss As noted above, a typical single-family home will pay $170.75 per quarter, or $56.92 per month under too the recommended rates. The following tables provide a more detailed breakdown of the proposed rates. 101 2016 2017 Water Base Rate Cateeory Tr_Rate Rate Comment 7No,SF mil Residential $ 51.60 $ 53.15 Standard SF rate mil Residential: Low -Income Discount 33.50 34.55 Standard SF rate x 0.65 esidential 5/8"Meter) 51.60 53.15 Standard SF rate Non -SF Residen Non -SF Residen Non -SF Residen Non -SF Residen ial 1.0" Meter 64.50 66.45 ial (1.5 "Meter) 103.00 106.10 ial (2.0" Meter) 193.50 199.30 ial 3.0" Meter 387.00 398.60 ial (4.0" Meter) 774.00 797.20 ial 6.0" Meter 1,548.00 1,594.45 Water Usaee Rate Cateeory SF Residential: Up to 30,000 gals./qtr SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals./qtr (wid SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals./qtr (sum Non -SF Residential (winter rate) Rates are per 1,000 gallons ar Base Rate Cateeory Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential: Low-Incomef Multi -Family Residential (townhomes Multi -Family Residential (apartments & cc Non -SF Residential (5/8" Meter) Non -SF Residential (1.0" Meter) Non -SF Residential (4.0" Meter) Non -SF Residential (6.0" Meter) Multi -family rate is r housi peng unit Sewer Usaee Rate Cate-ory Residential Non -Residential 102 Rates are per 1,000 gallons 103 Standard SF rate x 1.25 Standard SF rate x 2.00 Standard SF rate x 3.75 Standard SF rate x 7.50 Standard SF rate x 15.00 Standard SF rate x 30.00 2016 Rate 2017 Rate Commen $ 2.25 $ 2.25Standard SF rate _ 2.50 2.50 Standard SF rate +10% 2.70 2.70 Standard SF rate +20% 2.95 2.95 Standard SF rate +30% 3.15 3.15 Standard SF rate +40% 2017 Rate Standard 35.40 36.45 1 jStandardSFratexI.00 24.90 25.65 1 JStandardSFratex0.70 26.50 27.30 1 IStandard SF rate x 0.75 53.00 54.60 1 JStandardSFratexI.50 515.00 530.45 Standard SF rate x 14.50 025.00 1,055.75 Standard SF rate x 29.00 2016 - 2017 Rate Rate $ 1.80 $ 2.15 4.20 5.00 Comments Standard rate Standard rate x 2.30 Page 5 of 11 Stormwater Base Rate Cateeory _Single -Family Residential & Duplex _Multi -Family & Churches Cemeteries & Golf Course Parks Schools & Community Centers Commercial & Industrial 2016 2017 Rate Rate Comm $ 12.35 $ 12.95 MStandard SF rate 9.30 9.75 1 IStandard SF rate x 0.75 28.75 30.20 Standard SF rate x 2.35 46.45 48.80 1 Standard SF rate x 3.75 191.00 200.55 Standard SF rate x 15.50 106 Water Usage History 107 The series of graphs presented below depict water customer consumption patterns over the past 8 years 108 beginning with a depiction of the citywide water consumption. 109 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 110 Citywide Water Usage (000's gals.) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 111 112 As indicated in the graph, citywide consumption has generally been falling over the past eight years — a 113 17% reduction since 2007. With aggregate data it's difficult to conclude whether water customers are 114 truly modifying their behavior or if the volume is decreasing for other reasons such as the loss of high - 115 water users (manufacturing, hotels, apartments, etc.) or higher summertime rainfall totals. 116 117 As we'll discuss further below, the average monthly summertime rainfall totals have increased somewhat 118 since 2009, however during this same period the City has seen growth in housing units, retail 119 establishments, and other commercial uses. The bottom line is that overall consumption has declined, 120 while the City has grown. 121 122 Page 6 of 11 Rates for si e -family are per housing unit; all others are per acre W 2016 2017 Recvclime Rate Cateaory Rate Rate Comments Single -Family $ 5.60 $ 6.50 Standard rate 104 Multi -Family _ 5.60 6.50 Standard rate 105 106 Water Usage History 107 The series of graphs presented below depict water customer consumption patterns over the past 8 years 108 beginning with a depiction of the citywide water consumption. 109 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 110 Citywide Water Usage (000's gals.) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 111 112 As indicated in the graph, citywide consumption has generally been falling over the past eight years — a 113 17% reduction since 2007. With aggregate data it's difficult to conclude whether water customers are 114 truly modifying their behavior or if the volume is decreasing for other reasons such as the loss of high - 115 water users (manufacturing, hotels, apartments, etc.) or higher summertime rainfall totals. 116 117 As we'll discuss further below, the average monthly summertime rainfall totals have increased somewhat 118 since 2009, however during this same period the City has seen growth in housing units, retail 119 establishments, and other commercial uses. The bottom line is that overall consumption has declined, 120 while the City has grown. 121 122 Page 6 of 11 123 The next graph depicts the average quarterly wintertime usage for single-family homes. Because it 124 excludes summer lawn & garden irrigation months, the graph is indicative what single-family homes use 125 for `normal' household usage such as laundry, showering/bathing, etc. 126 127 128 129 130 131 SF Homes Average Water Usage (000's gals.) November - March 15.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 fli 10.0 9.0 - 07-'08 08-'09 09-'10 10-'11 11-'12 12-'13 13-'14 14-'15 15-'16 ■ Avg. Consumption (Gals.) As shown in the graph, the average overall usage for single-family homes in the wintertime has remained relatively stable since 2007 with a variance of only about 2,000 gallons from year to year. 132 On the surface, the data suggests that customer behavior and consumption patterns were not influenced 133 by changes in the water usage fees in either direction. This may have occurred because the financial 134 incentive or penalty to modify a household's behavior was simply not large enough. Then again, it could 135 mean that most households simply held to an established standard of cleanliness, while remaining mindful 136 of societal norms associated with water conservation. 137 138 This seems to be evidenced when the water usage fee dropped from $2.35 per thousand gallons in 2008 139 to $1.85 in 2009 as part of an overall rate structure change. This effectively lowered the cost of 140 consumption by 20%. Despite these favorable circumstances, household usage remained unchanged. 141 142 Finally, we can look at the average quarterly summertime usage for single-family homes to gauge whether 143 water usage behaviors are influenced by seasonal factors such as lawn & garden irrigation. In this 144 instance, we need to also track local rainfall totals because it can influence how much water households 145 use for outdoor purposes. 146 Page 7 of 11 SF Homes: Avg Water Usage/Captured April - September 45 40 35 — 30 — 25 — 20 — 15 10 5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ■ Avg. Consumption (Gals.) ■ Avg. Rainfall (Gals.) 147 148 149 As the graph indicates, over the past eight years the average overall usage + captured volume of water 150 for single-family homes in the summertime ranged from 31,000 gallons per quarter to 39,000. 151 152 What is clearly evidenced by the data, summertime consumption patterns are directly influenced by 153 rainfall amounts. Clearly, customers reduced their summertime consumption during heavier rainfall 154 periods. Changes in water usage fees didn't seem to be afactor on how much water was used. Once again, 155 it appears that customers are making a conscious decision to maintain an established standard — in this 156 case a healthy lawn and garden while remaining mindful of the tenets of water conservation. The bottom 157 line is that single-family summertime water consumption has dropped by 29% since 2009. 158 159 Rate Comparisons 160 The graphs below depict a number of water and sewer rate comparisons with other peer communities. 161 For this analysis, peer communities include 1st ring suburbs that serve a population between 18,000 and 162 50,000, and which are not simply an extension of a larger entity's system (e.g. Maplewood is excluded 163 because they're part of St. Paul's system). This group was selected to try and approximate cities with 164 stand-alone systems with similar age of infrastructure which can have a significant influence on the cost 165 of water and sewer services. 166 167 It should be noted that broad comparisons only give a cursory look at how one community's rates 168 compares to another. One must also incorporate each City's individual philosophy in funding programs 169 and services. 170 171 For example, Roseville does NOT utilize assessments to pay for water or sewer infrastructure 172 replacements like many other cities do. Instead we fund infrastructure replacements 100% through the 173 rates. As a result, Roseville's water and sewer rates are inherently higher when compared to a City that 174 uses assessments to pay for improvements. Other influences on the rates include whether or not a 175 community softens its water before sending it on to customers, and the extent in which communities 176 charge higher rates to non-residential customers. 177 178 The following chart depicts the peer group comparison for combined water base rate and usage rate for 179 a single-family home that uses 15,000 gallons per quarter. Page 8 of 11 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 181 182 2016 Water Fee Comparison: SFResidential 641; 41* v° A_,p ¢o G~ 183 As is shown in the graph, Roseville's total water charge (base + usage) is the highest in the comparison 184 group. One of the primary reasons why Roseville's water rates are higher is due to the significant increase 185 in infrastructure replacements in recent years, which unlike many other cities, are funded solely by the 186 rates. 187 188 The following chart depicts the peer group comparison for combined sewer base rate and usage rate for 189 a single-family home that uses 13,000 gallons per quarter. 190 191 192 193 194 2016 Sewer Fee Comparison: SF Residential $100 $80 $60 $40 �,� 14, G° Soa' In this comparison, Roseville sewer charges were less than the median. Page 9 of 11 195 To get a broader perspective, the following chart has been prepared depicting the combined water and 196 sewer impact for a typical single-family home for the comparison group. 197 198 199 200 201 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 2016 Water & Sewer Fee Comparison: SF Residential 4�.y tib 4��ti �3s 4V o� o�4 Sw• So Goo � ro�ro too Gotie 4-o 5� a ti�o4 vo When combined, Roseville is approximately 14% above the average for the peer group. 202 It should be noted that most of the cities shown in the chart that have lower water & sewer rates, happen 203 to have much higher property tax rates. This is an important distinction because again, each City employs 204 a different philosophy in how it funds the direct and indirect costs of providing water & sewer services. 205 206 Roseville's philosophy is to ensure that all indirect costs are reflected in the water and sewer rates. This 207 results in higher water and sewer rates. This also means that we don't have as many indirect costs being 208 supported by the property tax or assessments. We can adjust for these differences by combining property 209 taxes and water & sewer fees for a typical single-family home. 210 $2,200 $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 211 212 2016 Taxes + Water & Sewer Comparison: SFResidential 4x�; 4tv oy� �tis4 54 .1� G� a° G Page 10 of 11 213 As is shown in this graph, when looking at more comprehensive comparison that factors in a broader eta spectrum of needs and funding philosophies, Roseville has one of the lowest financial impacts on 215 residents of the comparison group — approximately 12% below the peer average. Page 11 of 11 Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: October 25, 2016 Item No: 6 Item Description: Eureka Recycling 2015 Annual Report and 2016 Plan Background: Staff from Eureka will be on hand at the meeting to review the highlights of the report and future recycling efforts. There will be copies of the report available at the meeting or sent electronically once staff receives it. The recycling contract requires the report to be reviewed by this commission per the following language: 6.04 Annual Performance Review Meeting to Discuss Recommendations for Continuous Improvement Upon receipt of the Contractors annual report, the City shall schedule an annual meeting with the Contractor and the City's Public Works, Environment and Transportation Committee. The objectives of this annual meeting will include (but not limited to): • Review Contractor's annual report, including trends in recovery rate and participation. • Efforts the Contractor has made to expand recyclable markets. • Review Contractor's performance based on feedback from residents to the Committee members and/or City staff. • Review Contractor's recommendations for improvement in the City's recycling program, including enhanced public education and other opportunities. • Review staff and Committee recommendations for improving Contractor's service. • Discuss other opportunities for improvement with the remaining years under the current contract. • Discuss actions Contractor is taking to reduce its carbon footprint. Let us know if you have specific questions you would like staff to follow up on prior to the meeting. Recommended Action: Discuss recycling program with Eureka staff. Attachments: Roseville 2015 Year -End Report Attachment A City of Roseville 2015 Year -End Recycling Report This year-end report contains information on several areas that Eureka Recycling (651) 222 -SORT (7678) tracks to monitor the success of Roseville's zero waste recycling program over www.eurekarecycling.org the course of each year. As a non-profit social enterprise organization we believe tracking and reporting this data is an essential way to ensure program transparency. It also gives Eureka Recycling and city staff the tools needed to Our mission is to reduce successfully manage the program. waste today through innovative resource This report covers the following categories ofinformation: management and to reach • Tonnage collected - page 2 awaste-free tomorrow • Resident participation in the program - page 3 by demonstrating that waste • Composition of the materials being recycled - page 4 is preventable, not inevitable. • Revenue earned from the sale of recycled material and shared with the city - page 6 • Environmental benefits from the material recycled by residents - page 10 • Tonnage recycled by each multifamily building and city building - Appendix A • Recycling Composition Study Methodologry - Appendix B • Participation Study MethodoloM, - Appendix C • Education and Outreach Activities - Appendix D • Taste of Rosefest Zero Waste Event Summary - Appendix E Introduction Residents in Roseville have had two years to become familiar with the new single sort cart recycling program and with the amount of recycling they generate, and 2015 saw a definite decline in the number of calls from residents. The high level of engagement residents have with their recycling program can be seen in the right sizing of containers and the continued high participation levels. Since 2014 over 2500 households have called to adjust the size of their cart to better meet the needs and space limitations of their home. (That represents more than a quarter of all households in the ciry.)This year Roseville continued to have a 93% participation rate. An affirmative action, equal opportunity employer. Q Printed on 100% postconsumer recycled paper that was processed without the use of chlorine. TONS OF MATERIAL RECYCLED Total tonnage collected in Roseville in 2015 was 3,305 tons. This represents a small (3%) increase over the previous year. This is something to be proud of considering the continuing trend towards the lightening of individual products and packaging that n>ake up recycled materials. Recycling rates are measured by weight industry wide, but that metric doesn't tell the complete story. Manufacturers are continuing to find lighter and lighter weigh packaging options. Products once bottled in glass are now bottled in plastic or aluminum. Aluminum and plastic bottles are getting thinner and lighter. Also, fewer and fewer households subscribe to physical newspapers and magazines, opting instead to get their news and entertainment on computers, tablets, and phones. Roseville's 3% increase very likely represents a bigger percentage increase in terms of actual recycling efforts by residents, because it takes more containers to create a ton now than it has. Tons of Recycling Collected in Roseville 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 ■ Curbside Tons ■ Multifamily Tons 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2 I U.1M Y[N I W.TJ 0 COIL,I Roseville is one of the few cities in the metropolitan arca in which the actual city -specific participation trend information is gathered and nnGde available. Each year in the same areas of the city Eureka Recycling counts set -out rates on each collection day for four straight collection weeks. Because Roseville currently has every other week collection the study period is 8 weeks long. This study yields information on how many residents set out material in any given week, as well as the total percentage of residents that take part in the program. This year the increases in set -outs and in overall participation seen in 2014 have been maintained. In any given week 78% of households participate in the program, which is referred to as the `set - out rate'. This is a slight (2°%) increase over the previous year. Overall participation remained very high at 93%. This is the highest rate of any city Eureka Recycling works with and rennins one of the highest rates in the country. Participation and Set -Out Trends 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% —Set Out Rate 40%—Particpation Rate 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Eureka n,,,A,, mnducrcd rhe vmuel pazdupadon and sour ram ¢end study ]n dac fall oreach yeu. (Sc, Appendix C for ncc ddinidovz, ave mcrhodologicz olds pardcipadov, and zar-Outram swdicc) 3 COMPOSITION OF MATERIALS In the spring of each year Eureka Recycling conducts a composition of the material collected in Roseville. While this is certainly not an industry standard, Eureka Recycling believes that this information is important for cities to have as they plan their budgets, make decisions on their education and outreach work plans and communicate with residents about what to recycle and the success of their program overall. Type of 2006* 2007* 2008* 2009* 2010* 2011* 2012* 2013* 2014 2015 Material % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Tonnage Total Annual 3,441 3,681 3,556 3,281 3,322 3,244 3,173 3,225 3,212 3,305 Tons Papers News Mix 1 63.98% 56.46% 1 66.00% 61.65% 1 59.68% 51.53% 1 56.86% 54.40% 1 56.27% 54.08% Cardboard 6.71% 13.23% 4.50% 5.48% 7.34% 10.33% 9.09% 8.78% 8.59% 7.35% Boxboard 2.37% 7.60% 2.60% 5.48% 3.79% 7.04% 5.81% 2.54% 4.48% 4.38% Wet 0.36% 0.10% 0.50% 0.00% 1.77% 0.46% 0.50% 0.58% 0.84% 0.74% Strength Phone 1.33% 0.11% 0.10% 0.02% 0.12% 0.14% 0.28% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% Books Mill; Cartons & Negligible sible Neliible s e Negligible s e 0.02% 0.03% 0.47% 0.07% 0.31% 0.19% collected � nice Boxes Textiles 0.40% Negligible Negligible 0,02% 0.02% 1 0.20% 0.09% 1 0.11% 0.16% Residual 0.24% 0.11% 0.50% 0.06% 0.07% 0.27% 0.19% 0.07% N/A N/A TOTAL 75.40% 76.60% 74.20% 72.72% 72.81% 69.79% 73.40% 66.90% 70.60% 66.90% Containers Total Glass 14.89% 15.15% 16.70% 17.54% 17.31% 18.08% 16.94% 18.78% 17.58% 21.36% Steel Cans 2.64% 2.00% 2.40% 2.43% 2.65% 2.49% 2.38% 3.30% 2.09% 2.12% Aluminum 1.48% 1.10% 1.40% 1.40% 1.43% 2.10% 1.37% 1.99% 1.13% 0.98% Tonal 4.70% 4.01% 4.60% 5.75% 5.67% 6.94% 5.63% 7.29% 6.13% 6.09% Plastics Residual 0.89% 0.15% 0.70% 0.17% 0.12% 0.60% 0.28% 1.74% N/A N/A TOTAL 24.60% 22.40% 25.80% 27.28% 27.19% 30.21% 26.60% 33.10% 26.93% 30.55% Total 1.13% 0.26% 1.20% 0.23% 0.19% 1 0.91% 0.47% 1 1.81% 2.47% 2.55% Residual * Recycling collected using Two Sort Systean For more information on the methodology of the composition analysis done by Eureka Recycling, please see Appendix B. Residual Rates in Single -Sort Recycling Programs "Residual" refers to the amount of material collected from residents that is not actually recycled. Roseville's program continues to have a very low residual rate. At 2.55% this program continues 4 to have a rate that would be considered good for any two sort program. For a single sort program it is one of the lowest in the county. Engaging with residents through education (including the Guide to Recycling) in -mold labels on all recycling carts, our zero waste hotline, and outreach at many city sponsored events all lead to a lower residual rate. This outreach and education also creates buy -in, inspiring people to support and participate in their zero -waste recycling program. Regular communications makes it easy for Roseville residents to stay informed, and be clear about what is and is not recyclable in their city. A residual rate of 2.55% shows that those efforts are successful, but more can be done to help residents. By continuing to educate them about non -recyclable items and the problems they pose for processing facilities and end market manufacturers we can continue to build awareness and reduce the amount of non -recyclable items they purchase and/or put in their carts. Additionally, we can continue to work with, and if necessary put pressure on, manufacturers to make sure all of the packaging they make is recyclable or compostable. 5 I DO ZMA 00 IN Since 2006, the City of Roseville has received more than $853,000 in revenue from the sale of its recyclables. The materials that Roseville residents set out are valuable. They required tons of natural resources, a great deal of energy, and hours of labor to produce. Much of that value still remains in the items after they are used. Recycling this material captures that value and reinvests it into the next generation of products reducing costs and creating significant environmental benefit. The market for recycled material generates billions of dollars each year in the United States alone. This material is highly sought after by manufacturers who want to make new products out of it. In 2015 Roseville received $984.54 in revenue from the sale of recyclable materials. As commodity prices decreased in February — December of 2015, the revenue received was not sufficient to cover the costs ofprocessing the material to sort it into the different commodity types for sale. Roseville currently has a zero floor clause in the recycling contract that states that if processing costs exceed the revenue earned the city's cost/revenue from the sale of materials shall be $0.00. The gap between revenues received and processing costs incurred means that just over $33,000 worth of processing costs were absorbed by Eureka Recycling. Total Annual Revenue Share Received $200,000.00 $150,000.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 015 ($50,000.00) 6 The Real Benefits of Recycling and Who They Are For With the prices paid for the different commodities with the recycling streams continuing to be low in 2015 there has been a great deal of media attention paid to stories that question the validity of recycling. All of the articles and television and radio pieces that criticize recycling base their conclusions on a bottom line approach that says when prices are this low, it is not worth recycling some or all of the material, and that landfilling or incineration are better options. If all you cared about was maximizing financial profit, we could see why this is a conclusion that could be reached. However, the benefits of recycling go far beyond the balance sheet of large multinational waste companies. Furthermore, the true and often hidden costs of wasting are also not captured on these balance sheets. The benefits of recycling are in good, local jobs., ten of which are created in recycling for every one job created at an incinerator. The benefits of recycling are also in local economic development, especially when materials are sold to local markets.. To be sure, there are invisible costs associated with wasting as well such as increased rates of Illness like asthma and cancer caused by air pollution generated by waste incinerators. These costs are not paid by the waste companies, so their profit margins around waste remain strong. These costs are paid by us and by the health departments of local and state governments. Eureka Recycling is a nonprofit organization in Minnesota that believes waste is preventable not inevitable. Together with progressive organizations across the globe, we've demonstrated that zero waste is possible. From profitable businesses such as Toyota, to stadiums, events, and cities - zero waste is a viable and effective strategy towards the goals the majority of the world shares: safe water to drink, clean air to breath, a just and thriving economy, and long, healthy, happy lives reasonably expected for our children and theirs. There are benefits to recycling that far exceed those ofjust money and profit, and these benefits are booming. Global, Regional, and Local Market Conditions Affecting Prices Recycled materials are commodities just like other products such as, corn, cotton, and oil. In our modern, global economy things that happen near and far can impact the prices paid for material on the open market. The following are the major factors influencing the prices paid for recycled materials. Some are very local issues affecting glass prices. Others are more global in nature and involve the economies of other countries like China. Summary of Current Market Conditions In 2015, the overall prices paid by end markets for the material recycled in the city's program continued to remain low and or continue to fall. Overall prices paid by end markets for material experienced a significant decline in the fall of 2014 due a loss of 200% of the value of glass, which made up 21.36% of Roseville's material in 2015. This significant drop was the result of the Twin Cities losing half of it glass recycling capacity from the shutdown of one of the two glass 7 processors in the state. The value received for glass was negative in 2015 as there still is only one market outlet for the material. Although, the price has remained steady although lower and has stopped the decline. Fiber prices remained low but did not show much movement throughout the year up or down. Prices for plastics and metals saw a continual decline as oil market prices continued to be low and China's economy continued to not show significant growth. Aluminum (which represents about 1% of the tonnage from Roseville but around 20% of the material value) saw a 35% decrease for the start of 2015 to the end of 2015. PET plastic saw a close to 50% drop in value over the year and other plastics saw more around 15% to 20% drop in value. Plastics make up around a quarter of the value of Roseville's recyclables. Even with the decrease in the revenue received from the sale of recycled material to markets there is still a net financial benefit for our community. Recycling the over 3,300 tons of material collected in Roseville in 2015 meant that this material did not end up going to an incinerator. Not burning these resources means that, as a community, we did not spend over $820,000 on the healthcare costs and environmental remediation's that would have been necessary were this material to have been incinerated. (see description of the M EBCaIcT" model on page 12 of this report) DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC ISSUES AFFECTING REVENUE Slowdown in China's Economic Growth — China is the world's largest consumer of recycled paper. They use it to create the packaging for all of the goods that they manufacture and then ship back to consumers all over the world. As a result, if China stops buying recycled paper the supply quickly jumps up and the prices fall. The stagnation and decline in revenue share in the second half of the year is due in large part to the slow -down in China's economic growth, thus demand from China for all that recycled paper and plastic has plummeted. Although Eureka sends nearly 100% of its fiber material to a local market in Saint Paul, the price is connected to global commodity pricing trends. In addition, China's slowdown in construction impacted the price for metals as there was increased supply in the global market and in the US. Value of the Dollar The value of the dollar continues to be higher than other currencies, which has impacted the ability of US commodities to compete with other connnoditics on the global market thus impacting supply levels in the US and putting downward pressure on commodity prices. Plastics and the Price of Oil — There has been, and continues to be a great deal of volatility in the plastics markets. Unlike paper, and metal recycling, which has been around for decades, plastic is in many ways still an evolving market. Many new companies continue to enter the market. While one company will seek a certain composition of different types of plastics; others will want a different blend. Eureka Recycling continues to work with existing and new markets to ensure that any plastics we send to market are made into new products and the chain of custody can be followed and verified. The price of oil and natural gas markets affects all plastic manufacturers. Recycled plastics compete for a share of the market with plastics made from virgin oil and natural gas. Manufacturers can either choose to make their products out of post -consumer recycled plastics or from virgin material. If the price of oil or natural gas is high then manufactures will move to more recycled content. But as the price of oil and natural gas continued to be low in 2015 more and more manufacturers are using virgin oil and there was an oversupply of plastics for recycling on the market. This in turn causes the price that manufacturers are willing to pay for recycled plastic to drop as well. Why does it matter? Without immediate planning and action, some of Minnesota's recycled glass will end up in landfills or dropped from programs all together, and without a long-term solution that requires responsibility and some investment from producers, like bottle deposit legislation, glass may cease to be recycled at all. Glass collected for recycling that needlessly ends up in a landfill will end up costing the cities and their residents more money while reducing their recycling programs' environmental benefits. There are significant, undisputable environmental and economic benefits achieved from recycling glass. These include energy savings, reduction of air and water pollution, and a reduced need to none new resources. Furthermore, State, municipal and environmental advocates agree that environmental benefits reduce dramatically the further we shay from the highest and best use of recycled glass, so - glass bottles recycled into glass bottles should be the primary goal and then the next best markets for the smaller glass and fines need to be developed. These environmental impacts are the reason Eureka Recycling has been committed to finding a solution to keep bottle - to -bottle recycling viable despite changes in collection methods. • Glass bottles and jars are 100% recyclable and can be recycled endlessly without any loss in purity or quality. • Over a ton of natural resources are saved for every ton of glass recycled. • Energy costs drop about 2-3% for every 10% cullet used in the manufacturing process. • One ton of carbon dioxide is reduced for every six tons of recycled container glass used in the manufacturing process. ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS The environmental benefits of Roseville's zero -waste recycling program are quantified transparently using widely -accepted environmental models. This ensures that all residents have a chance to see how their efforts can be measured and quantified. There are many ways to calculate the benefits of recycling. To better explain these benefits in commonly understood terms, government agencies, research scientists, and economists have created several "calculators" to translate the amounts of recycled materials collected, and processed into equivalent positive societal and environmental benefits. 9 Because of the increasing societal focus on causes of, and solutions to, climate change, it has become imperative to measure waste reduction (and all of our activities) in terms ofits impact on the environment. This allows us to speak in a common language, understand the impact of our choices, and help us prioritize the personal, and policy actions that we take. Many cities around the county work with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to quantify and now register the climate change impacts of their city. It is also important to calculate the carbon impact ofwaste reduction as the global effort continues to enact a carbon "cap and trade" system. In addition to climate change mitigation, there are other environmental benefits to recycling, including saving energy and protecting air quality, water quality, natural resources, natural beauty, habitat, and human health. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WARM Calculator The equations used in environmental calculations try to take into account the "full life cycle" of each material—everything from off -setting the demand for more virgin materials (tree harvesting, tinning, etc.) to preventing the pollution that would have occurred if that material were disposed of (burned or buried). Different calculators may include some or all of the many factors that contribute to the "full life cycle" so results will vary from calculator to calculator. While there are many models emerging to calculate greenhouse gas reductions, the most recognized, and standard model is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Waste Reduction Model (WARM). WARM was designed to help solid waste planners, and organizations track, and voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management practices. WARM, last updated in June 2014, recognizes 46 material types. WARM Model Analysis of Impact on Climate Change 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ■ Metric Tons of Carbon ■ Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide MTCE (Metric tons of carbon equivalent), and MTCO.,E (Metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions) are figures connnonly used when discussing greenhouse gas emissions. For more information about the process of measuring the environmental benefits ofwaste reduction, visit trttro://ena.�ov/cluaLatechanEc/wycd/waste/utcasurceh�.htuil#click 10 What do all these numbers mean? In addition to preventing pollution, an important impact of recycling is that is conserves a huge amount of energy. Making products and packaging from raw materials harvested from nature uses a much larger amount of energy than using recycled materials. Every manufactured item has the energy used to make it "embedded" into it. Recycling takes advantage of that energy, as it is easier and more energy efficient to make a glass bottle from another glass bottle than from raw materials. The WARM model and other calculators measure the difference between recycling all these tons of materials and using them to make new products versus sending them to an incinerator and making replacement products from raw materials. This difference is expressed as the amount of CO2 that was not produced because we did not have to make and use all the energy that would have been needed if we used raw materials. The numbers above help municipalities calculate and track their environmental footprint. For more information about the process of measuring the environmental benefits of waste reduction, visit httu://el2a.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/nleasureghhg.htinl#click. These numbers, however, don't have much meaning to the average person. To help recyclers understand the significance of their actions, the EPA has also developed tools to translate these numbers into equivalent examples that people can more easily understand. • For example, using the figures above, the EPA estimates that Roseville would have had to remove 1,603 cars from the road for one year to have had the same environmental impact in 2013 as they did by recycling. To achieve this, approximately 10.5% of Roseville's households would have had to give up one car for a year. Although WARM is the most widely peer-reviewed, and accepted model, it is considered to have several Flaws. Many believe the use of this calculator is conservative, and understates the real impact of waste reduction efforts, but it offers a conservative starting place to measure our impacts, and work towards our goals. Even with these conservative calculations, the impacts of Roseville's recycling program prove to be quite significant. Measuring Environmental Benefits Calculator (MEBCalCTM) Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D., Economist at Sound Resource Management in Seattle, has developed a calculator that begins with the EPA's WARM calculator, and expands upon it to gather information on not just carbon, and CO„ but also several other important environmental, and human health indicators. Although not yet widely used, this calculator shows the significant benefits that WARM docs not consider. The MEBCaIcT°' model expands, and shows the benefits other than just energy savings, and carbon savings. Recycling materials with zero waste in mind recognizes not just the value in the resource itself, but the contribution to the health of the conununity when materials are kept out of landfills, and incinerators, avoiding the toxic, and carcinogenic emissions. 11 Roseville 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Recycling Tons 3441 3682 3556 3281 3322 3243 3173 3225 3212 3305 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Reduction Metric Tons 9,437.3 9,619.0 9,683.5 8,814.0 8,739.3 8,425.1 8,106.2 8,478.7 8,386.3 8,159.5 (cCO,) Human Health— Carcinogens Reduction 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.7 Metric Tons (eBenzene) Human Health Non -Carcinogen Toxins Reduction Metric Tons 4,609.7 5,253.0 4,665.7 4,452.0 4,518.0 4,699.6 4,375.0 4,280.1 3,953.0 3,810.2 (eToluene) Human Health Particulates Reduction 4.4 6.6 4.2 4.4 4.8 5.9 5.1 4.2 3.61 3.3 Metric Tons (cPM,,) Acidification Reduction Metric Tons (eSO) 26.9 27 27.3 25.3 25.5 27.1 24.3 25.7 22.7r 12 Appends A Roseville Multi -Family Tonnage by Property - 2015 Residential Buildiner PmpelTy Name PHmary Address 2006Total Ira 2007 Total lbs. 208 Total lbs. .1 Total IDs 210 Total Ira 211 Total IDs 212 Total Ira 2013 Total Ira 210 Total Ira 415 Total Wi Haa Dionne Street Dionne Street, 1144 7,150 8,457 5,951 5,167 5$05 5,892 5,539 5,557 5,Y] 6,979 Canty B®tl B, 1363 1,892 1,910 2,744 2,629 2,255 2,09) 2426 2,296 2487 2,668 1363 Coul Road M d2non55treet, 161 439 198 - - - - - - - - 161 M d2non55treet- E61 M inner. Avenue M innaNa/loenu, 161 148 678 423 .6 1,076 1,264 1,68 1,216 1,582 1,695 Eldridge Avenue, 1610 1A24 1,280 261 4,237 3583 3,858 3,230 1,457 1,983 1,479 1610 Eldridge Avenue Avenuq 16A 2541 2029 1,996 2,629 2,249 1,842 4,753 3,897 3,596 3,242 1620 Eldridge Avenue lEldridge Skillman Avenue, 1629 25. 30c2 231 2,686 2,151 1,981 2897 1,929 1,674 1,903 Skillman Villas Eldridge Avenuq 1635 3,284 1,702 1,E0 2,333 2,380 2026 1,881 1,912 2210 2,081 1635 Eldridge Avenue 1A5 Maria Street Marion Street, LAS 1A37 1,578 224 291 1,370 840 587 523 844 623 1750 Maria Street Marion Street, 17W 3511 3,576 4,317 3,906 3,386 2,741 1,617 2083 - 851 Pascal Street, 2125 2514 3,184 5,239 4,717 4,829 5,007 5,093 5,538 5,517 5,326 21242133 Pascal Street Harrington 8wtl, 2180 964 1,285 737 1,690 1A84 1,214 1,749 1,784 1,560 1,703 2180 Haddintm 8wtl Rice Street, 2271 1,924 2830 262 2,973 869 2275 dice Street^ Canty R®tl B, 2407 2584 2867 3,143 2519 2567 2572 2642 2098 2522 2,661 2407 Carl Road Snelling Curve, 2610 2,929 2696 3,164 3,113 3,284 3,39 3,678 3,055 2890 3,612 2610 Snalling Crete Hill dwtl, D00 4581 4,436 2715 2534 3597 3512 3,720 3,444 2049 2,594 .00 Hill R®tl Hill dwtl, D50 2$83 2295 2486 2,685 2A96 1,742 1,817 1,29 1,331 1,187 DSU Hill R®tl Applewmtl Cart, 1080 47,799 58,215 46A99 39,220 36,217 33,640 6,912 9,Y6 9,819 23,533 Iewood Pointe Apple wootl Pointe at Langton Langton lake Drivq 1996 Lake - - - - - 7A19 16,144 24,786 27,482 25,722 Canty R®tl C2, 2025 - - 15,391 17,449 12570 11,702 13,094 15,157 14,376 13,796 AcuariusAparnments Lsrington Avenue N noth, monaventure 3190 7A2 8,105 7,033 5,367 5A97 5,281 5,0333 446 6,023 5,190 Centennial CArdens Cast EL Centennial Drive, 1020 wart 26,759 21,62 22,672 9,021 21,122 2,06 2,137 20,888 20,320 20,206 Cleveland Avenue North, Chou,nonad Pence D96 3,962 8,007 10,9Y 10,724 Coventir, Seniors Apartments Snelling Avenue, A20 19,539 19,110 22,729 24,917 22Y2 21,268 21,247 21,25 20,M1 21,277 Canty R®tl B, 7A 9,369 7,793 12033 13,323 12343 11572 10,371 9,892 9,997 10,998 Dale Terrace Apartments Dellwootl Street, 1725 1,226 1,923 260 2,630 2,721 3,298 2891 2439 2887 3,603 DellwoW Condominiums Lincoln Drive, 2925 13,892 60,799 56,057 57,249 64,086 67,291 70,827 68,M0 70,991 59,310 Cale NO. Old Digital 31533155 12385 14,533 17,674 17,185 15,918 16,897 19,637 18,055 16,322 16,073 Executive Manor Condos CmntyR.d B,1634 2,153 1,161 1,415 1547 1A2 1,753 1,897 1,487 1,524 1,726 GarriaryAgarnments Larpentenr Avenue, 1021 19,032 37,098 28,751 24,581 33,384 bA02 22453 9,797 23,539 22201 CreenM1aseoiliaa HamlineAvenue, D00 34,102 33,973 32,182 29,441 24,522 22A81 2,586 21,26 21,171 20,589 Hamlin House Condos Terrace Drive, 1360140 12,817 12,230 17,366 19,93 9,416 9,16 2,080 20,639 19,132 19,436 Hamlin Tarmce Canty N®tl B Wart, 563 21,892 23,110 17,98 16,066 19,781 18,879 16,649 18,963 18,189 17,787 Heritage Place 1uOWbridge5treet, 2335 16,298 17,755 28A18 3,62 29,398 21,312 19,284 24,054 9,407 47,638 I ill$ora M1Manor DaleStreet North, 2355 6,691 7,455 9,794 8A83 7508 7,910 6,531 7,151 8,711 10,741 carie DalrA artments Lsrington Avenue North, Lakemse kine Condominium M76 9A11 8,313 7,M0 6,632 6,179 6,603 6,389 5,817 5,175 6,765 Larpentenr Avenue Wart, Lar DalrA artments 655 2068 2,189 2348 1546 2A72 286 3,326 3,224 3,431 3,541 Lsrinton Court Lsrington Avenue, 21922ID6 3,303 2,970 4,253 5,076 4,092 4,808 5,924 7,02 6,743 9,509 Lsrinton Twin Apartments IaiAgton Avenuq 1890 5,674 5,519 5,456 5,689 5,014 5,371 5,791 5,549 5,971 6,239 Lsr6wn/doselawn Lasington Avenue, 1943 Apartments 3,142 2,888 3,724 4,033 3,788 4,074 3,788 3,369 2,711 3,233 Marion Street/ Brittany Larpen[enr Avenuq l]5 Apartments 11,980 16,150 17,191 17,485 1$645 11,838 11,263 8,711 262] 2,$81 McCarron Boulevard North, MaarronsA artments .4 5,092 4,919 5,543 5,039 4,9 39 4,172 3,743 884 3 5,867 7,316 McCarron Hall N, 185 - - - - - 5,076 7,07 9,407 9,584 10,195 McCmrons Lake Catla Mitlhnd Grove Road, 2.0 48,162 60,537 50,758 45,718 48,159 505M 54,288 49,19 43,548 39,886 Midland Grove Conics PmpelTy Name Primary Address X06total lh5. 2007 Total lbs. 2708 Total lbs. 209 Total lbs. 2710 Total lbs. 2711 Total lbs. 2712 Total lbs. 2013 Total lbs. 2710 Total lh5. 415 Ford Wi Msocs Hurm Street North, 1898 - - - 615 0,326 3,]1] 2452 2,369 3,185 2,072 Nortbwertun College Total Pounds for Nom 20,205 Profit Building 22,122 23,013 21,610 20,310 32,656 00,838 06,103 1 02,282 40,721 Agamorments Lydia Avenue, 1610 fiAr 7,839 4,'101 4,379 4/755 4,111 3,418 363 3,775 3,299 Nortbwartun collograinalifing Terrace Snelling Drive Last, B06 7,386 16,027 12542 12,63 12443 10,702 11,261 11,378 6,879 11,302 Sandhurst Orioe West, SFO 40,078 41,65 55,306 51,667 45,972 47,910 40,893 45,973 49,821 53,587 Palisades Parkoiem Estate OMortl Street, 264 28,447 29,276, 37,816, 29,683 24,738 24,753 23,440 25,588 26,361 24,372 Condominiums Date Street North, 2ID 22210 4,931 4,553 5,06 5,612 4,698 4518 4,242 4,799 4,586 5,259 Parkview Manor Oxford Street, 2690 3,9. 33,244 28,26 23,919 21,702 19,169 17,420 16,521 16,,706, 17,184 Parkview Tarmce Cmtlos Date Street North, 2110 - 35,796 34$91 5,127 41,288 38,9. 37,992 40,702 44,247 46,485 gamse, resume Cmtlos Highway 36 Wert, 9258965 12473 13,597 19,108 17,369 15,274 15$10 14,110 15,65 14,406 15,547 RivienAartmenRs County g®tl B, 591 4,341 4,.4 5,880 5,345 3,775 5514 5,281 7,552 7,743 10,449 Rose Hill Estates Albert Street, 2201 2221 37,328 41,412 43$84 47,376 41,60 42,786 39,486 37,841 35,987 38,473 Rose Mail Apartments Eldridge Avenue 1615 1,809 1,091 1,721 2876, 1,922 1,678 1,479 1,336 1,574 1,200 Rose Park Apartments16 Did i FryStreet, 2136, 4,757 5,426 6,,061 6A66 4,253 4591 5,084 4,510 4,540 4,500 Rose Park Estates County N®tl B, to. 2,266 2324 1,967 2,396 2079 1,858 1,827 1,808 1,865 1,761 Rose Park common Rosa Vista Court, 12221263 19,697 18,366 24,6,34 26,822 23,830 23,146 27,789 20,499 24,767 25,817 Rose Vista Apartments Rice Street, 435 21,885 24,63 33A 75 34,083 26,Y4 22,234 19,283 20,899 21,2. 24,688 Rosecale Estates N 4th Rice Street, 2735 2J,Me 23864 26581 27,377 23,770 21,632 19,071 20,61 21,867 23,092 Rosecale Estates South Roa6wn Avenue 1070 5576 5,Y0 5,616 5A17 4,730 5563 5,633 4,792 4,880 4,889 Roselawn Village Rase vin@ Hamdine Avenue North, 25015 32645 29,46 33,312 31,688 31,195 29,229 27,706 28,977 29,948 37,623 Samuel Street, 4862090 2,653 3,099 3,829 4537 3,744 5,739 6,519 5,65 6,084 5,435 Rosefitl eEstates Highway 36,655 1261 12394 12,654 11,831 10,236 8515 8,026 7,421 7,075 8,258 RosetrarAartmenRs Eldridge Avenue 1625 2437 2546 1,833 2,106 1,730 2,172 2538 3,764 3,745 2,857 Roseville Apartmenh, LEC Elmer Street, FCO 789 1,56 3,269 3p68 2p74 2)80 3M9 3,148 3,459 5,970 Roseville Arms Cmtlos County R®tl C2 Wert,.6 8,332 7,515 8,281 9,8E 6A15 6A70 5,999 6,841 8,233 6,001 Roseville common Lerington Avenue 2599 5593 9,842 12,312 10,028 7A72 6588 9,453 8,345 6,433 6,862 Roseville Estates rrpentenr Avenue Wert, Roseville Seniors 1045 6,581 3365 .521 27,577 23,698 24,268 27,647 24,456 24,310 �'�0 Dunlap Street, l75 5,363 4,785 5,032 5A69 4,658 4,167 3,876 3,671 3,965 3,567 Roseville Teface Old Highways, 3085 - 13,423 2,619 24,021 23,733 22,322 29,349 23,836 23,976 19,905 Roseville Towuhomes Highway 36 Wert, 1630 44,374 41,062 34,271 43,368 38,264 36,6. 39,188 41,640 37,574 37,059 RosemoW Village Snelling Avenue, 2275 9,199 9,683 9,69 11,486 7,813 13,36 15,.8 19,M2 21,103 20,064 Sienna Green Apartmentst County R®tl O Wert, 1080 4467 5,Y1 6,751 5,9. 5,969 4,886 4,344 4,101 3,942 4,472 South Wks Apartments Marion Street, 1721 5,169 4,093 4,926 6,107 6A51 5,942 4,896 5,678 5,318 5,058 Sun Place Apartments Snelling Avenue North, 2555 17,031 16,647 15,869 16,693 13,118 11,330 12300 14,66 17,9CO 17,611 Sunrise Assisted Living Old Digital VsO 27. 1,683 1,761 2569 262 1,892 1,891 1,868 1,701 2,698 Tales Place Te+ace Drive, 12784 13M5 $63 8,911 10,533 11,067 9,371 $640 8,494 8,908 ieface Park Isrington Avenue Nath, The Lexington Roseville 2175 37,081 30,796 5A17 5,409 38,816, 39,023 42`69 40,501 41,026 41,416 Highway 36 Wert, 885 6562 6,602 8,968 8,053 6,740 5A31 6,168 6,773 8,576 8,284 The Riviera Old Highway 8, 30W 11,085 9,910 12,626 13,491 11,637 12593 12702 10,65 10,2Y1 11,453 .he, El Apartments Victoria Street Nath, 22. - 14,911 16,130 14,015 14,647 15,396 16,260 15,389 14,975 15,354 Yrtwla Place Villa Park Community Condominiums County R®tl B, 500 15,890 14,276 1689 16,924 17,962 15,178 11,537 13.1 13.6 13,321 Fulham Street, 1940 2,873 11,63 126. 11,506 11,375 11,722 12318 13,66713647 14,078 Villas at M itlland Hills Total Pounds for 869,050 1,081,050 1,13],662 1,133,3]0 1,0]5,510 1,006,950 1,001,556 1,06],90] 1,0]2,021 1,113,019 Residential Buildin Non Profits Proper, Name Prima Address .6Totol lbs. 2.7 Total lbs. 208 Total lbs. .9Totol lbs. 210 Total lbs. 211Totol lbs. 212 Total lbs. 2013 Total lbs. 214 Total lbs. 4FIT orILb R stone FOWshelf Ha mdreAvenue North,433 - - - - - 14,258 27,119 29,787 27,282 25,528 =Communities Victoria Street, 2150 2,25 22122 23A13 21,614 2,340 18AO8 17,719 16,316 15,. 15,193 Total Pounds for Nom 20,205 Profit Building 22,122 23,013 21,610 20,310 32,656 00,838 06,103 1 02,282 40,721 Municipal Buildings Name jPrimarvAddress 20s tal165. 2N]Total lbs. Coup Tuse lbs. 2D9T lO Total lbs. 2011 To1a1165. 2012 Total ps 1 2013 to %.F A15 iota!tui .09 %.F County N®tl C. 28a .08 %.F Land Units in .07 1,662 Land Units in .06 1,367 1. 761 OS] O13 677 Acorn Park 33 Lexington Ave North, 2510 Formal Park Lampurtson Vrtore to. kept 2095 - - - - - 46 741 618 - Cenral Parkoirtora Wart Odic Center Orive, 26W 28,200 28,474 20,682 20,562 21,228 215. 18,786 15,7W 15,317 10,539 Oft, Wall County N®tl B Wert, 1810 492 515 056 818 3S, 336 000 1. 289 JO Eoerreen Park Ballfeld Lexington Avenue, 2701 3,226 3,630 2134 2058 2063 1,89) " 214 555 1,566 Fre Station l Roseville" Dal. Street North, 2335 15. 2286 R. 2$60 3,968 3A32 2911 2,568 - - Fre Station 372 arrille*** LMmline Avenue North, 2323 2,729 2E4 20@0 2,149 2,689 2048 2093 1,671 1,532 1,635 Gulf Course Waniet/llexander Nature Date Street North, 2520 1,918 coact License Paler(naive but not on Names) Lexington Avenue 2737 29 128 10 38 31 26 - - - Vuloria Avenuq 265o 120 36 400 361 2Y - 121 134 149 16 Ouam Ballfelds WOadhill Drive, 110n 8,341 12089 13,916 13,566 16,863 166,44 12,608 12,680 16,398 18,063 Public Works Forage Civic Center Drive, 2661 4,822 5,038 5,244 3,938 5,052 7514 6,692 8,006 11,M6 11,999 Slanting@act Lexington Avenue North, _ 205 1,258 218 259 241 480 246 926 State farm !mance 2201 Dale Street North, 2530 14,602 13,948 12,226 12,513 11,840 10509 9,158 $649 8,536 9,108 Wildlife Relabilitation Center Total Pounds for 60,283 69,308 65,957 60,720 65,037 60,983595 66 59,315 55,561 56,963 Municipal Buildings 1 Notal Pounds for 1953,902.01 I 1,172,519.83 1 1,227,032.00 I 1,215,]03.]2 1 1,160,930.89 1 1,100,598.32 I 1,305,960.00 1 1,173,365.00 1 1,169,860.]] I 1,210,202 Thatal Units in 20F1 6j5R Land Units in 2014 6J12 Land Units in 20LB 6,04o Land Units in 20F2 6,049 Land Units in 20LL 1,999 Land Units in to %.F Land Units in .09 %.F Land Units in .08 %.F Land Units in .07 1,662 Land Units in .06 1,367 'Har Mar Apartments changed nameto Sienna Green Apartments as of November 2010 "FlreSfaflon 1 was demolished and Is being rebuilt. Will reopen In 2013 "HreStation 3 was dosed In Mefoll of 2013 when FoRtation 1 was reopened In 2013, two proper, names were updated In our records 1610 County B is now Rose Park Commons and 1615 Bit now Rose Park Apartments "2225 Rice Street canceled September 2010 pudding Is demolished 1205 Marion is bulling with no units, this was corrected In 2011. In 2010 it was reported with units. '161 McCarron'. Restarted at the end of 2015. !hits included In total. HaMH Alexander Nature Center has not been included on this list until 2015 They used to share Carts with WRC and received their own account with Carts this year. Keystone Communities was listed as Rosewood Estates Rosayllel until 2015 Eureka Recycling Composition Analysis Methodology Eureka Recycling collects materials in a single sort collection system with all paper, cardboard, metal and plastic, steel, aluminum and glass containers combined by residents into one cart. Each year we conduct an annual composition study of the single sort material to determine the percentage each material represents in the overall composition. H Composition by Commodity of Each Recycling Stream During the composition study we weigh each truck before and after to detennine the weight of the material. Each truck has a stored weight that is updated regularly for accuracy. This process allows us to determine the initial weight of the material set out by residents during the period being analyzed. The composition study starts with Eureka Recycling storing all of tIumaterials collected in the city during a one-week period. These materials are stored in a separate bunker from all other materials at the facility. We sort the material separately from all other recycling at the facility. Chesorted materials are then baled or put into . hopper and transported with a forklift to the nick scale to be weighed. Finally, we weigh he total amount of each sorted material grade ncluding the non -recyclable material (residual) o establish the percentage ofthe total tonnage hat each material type represents in the overall composition. (651) 222 -SORT (7676) www.eurekarecyclirig.org Our mission is to reduce waste today through innovative resource management and to reach a waste -free tomorrow by demonstrating that waste is preventable, not inevitable. An affirmative action, equal opportunity employer. ® Printed on 100% postconsumer recycled paper that was processed without the use of chlorine. Appendix C Participation Trend Analysis Methodology Eureka Recycling conducts an annual participation study in which both set -out and participation rates are analyzed and documented. The set -out rate is the average numbcr of households that set materials out for recycling collection on a given day. For example, every Monday for four straight collection days, Eureka Recycling staff counts the number of households that set out recycling on that day. Then the four numbers are averaged to detemnne the average number of households who set out recycling on any given Monday. The participation rate is the number of households who set materials out for recycling collection at least once over a period of four collection days. The participation rate is a better indication of overall recycling participation because it includes households that recycle at least once over the course of four opportunities, recognizing that some households may not set out recycling every week. It more accurately indicates how many households are participating in the recycling program overall, as opposed to the number of participants on a specific day. (651) 222 -SORT (7678) www.eurokarecycling.org Our mission is to reduce waste today through innovative resource management and to reach a waste -free tomorrow by demonstrating that waste is preventable, not inevitable. Summary of Process The study spans four collection weeks, 4 woks for every week collection and 8 weeks for every other week collection. Eureka Recycling selects random sections to study for each daily recycling route, each section being c©,azprised of about 200 households per day, for a total study of over 1,000 households. These sanie sections will be studied every year for consistency. Over a four collection day period, Eureka Recycling tallies the exact number of households that set out recycling forcollection in the morning of their collection day, before the driver services the sect}on. The four collection week study tracks recycling set -outs over the five days of collections during the week totaling 20 days of set -out tracknig. An affirmative action, equal opportunity employer. ® Printed on 100% postconsumer recycled paper that was processed without the use of chlorine. City of Roseville Outreach and Education Summary 2015 Roseville's recycling program continues to be a leader in the country. Outreach and education elements of the program are an important part to ensuring good participation and helping residents understand the benefits of recycling. In 2015, Eureka Recycling continued to support the efforts of the city of Roseville to make city events zero -waste. This was the fourth year we distributed recycling bins and educational material at Night to Unite parties. The Living Smarter Fair, Wild Rice Festival, and Earth Day celebration were also successful events—bringing Roseville residents' attention to zero -waste issues while diverting nearly 98% of event materials from the waste stream. These successes continue to show the City of Roseville's leadership and its commitment to zero waste and sustainability. In addition Eureka Recycling worked with city staff and with the Roseville Rotary to make the Taste of Rosefest a successful zero waste event as well. This, the first year that zero waste services we available to the Taste of Rosefest saw a diversion rate of over 9i% with 613 pounds of material being recycled or composted and only 61.5 pounds of trash generated. (See Appendix E for more details on the Taste of Rosefest's zero waste success) Second Year of Roseville's Transition to Single Sort Recycling Zero -Waste Hotline There was a large spike in calls to our hotline in the first year of single stream in 2014. Now that people are settling into the new system the number of calls, while still higher than the prc-single- sort levels, have come down a good deal. There were 23% few calls to the hotline from single family households and over 70% less requests for additional printed materials education materials Curbside Program Guide to Recycling The 2015 guide to recycling provided all of the information needed for each household to participate in the single sort program. Many residents appreciated this additional information and chose to call the Zero - Waste Hotline to learn more. y 1 jr2007 1 2008 2009 2010 2012 20llllllllllllF 2014 20 Hotline Calls Curbside Calls 425 540 480 410 330 415 885 2476 1910 Multi -family Calls 49 78 35 74 81 72 94 85 72 Total Calls 474 618 515 484 411 487 979 2561 1982 Requests for ,Printed Materials Curbsidel 41 1 74 21 43 47 33 41 556 163 Curbside Program Guide to Recycling The 2015 guide to recycling provided all of the information needed for each household to participate in the single sort program. Many residents appreciated this additional information and chose to call the Zero - Waste Hotline to learn more. y 1 Direct Education Our experience has shown that the absolute best place to educate residents about their zero -waste recycling program is right at the curb. Eureka Recycling and the City of Roseville share a value that all the material that can be recycled should be and material that cannot be recycled should not be collected. Taking non -recyclable items on a ride in a recycling truck and through a processing facility not only wastes the fuel and energy to transport and process the material, but also leaves the residents with the mistaken impression that the material can be recycled. Eureka Recycling drivers educate residents at the curb using educational tags for specific problems. In 2015, drivers left approximately 995 educational tags in recyclers' bins. This number continues to be much lower than it was when the program was two -sort. Non -recyclable plastics, not sorting material correctly, or using an oversized container were the most common reasons residents received a tag in the past. By simplifying the program to a single sort process, using carts provided to the household, and by adding additional plastics we eliminated many of the issues that generated tags in the past. The most common reason residents received a tag in 2015 were: 1. Repeatedly having excess recycling placed next to cart while having a small or medium sized cart. The tag recommended that the resident call the hotline to request a larger, or even a second cart. 2. Cardboard not been broken down to a size that will fit in the cart. To collect extra cardboard the driver tips the cart and then puts the extra cardboard into the cart and tips it again. Cardboard too big for the cart is difficult for the driver to collect. 3. Placing cart too far from the curb or backwards with the handle facing the street. This makes it hard for the material to fall in the truck and causes litter. We work with our drivers to ensure they take every opportunity to provide additional education to residents. The value of this approach is that begins a conversation with residents and eliminates confusion. All of Eureka Recycling's tags encourage residents to call our hotline where zero - waste educators are available to clear up confusion about why certain items are not recyclable or to explain how residents' efforts at the curb have an important impact on the value of the material and the environmental benefits of recycling. 2 2006 2007 2009 2010 1 2011 201 14 2015 Driver Tags 9,540 10,156 7,367 13,565 13,010 50,061 9,736 20,341 1,833 995 Postcards 650 822 451 742 559 1,136 951 7,576 0 0 Personalized Letters 30 51 0 3 10 41 179 20 151 80 We work with our drivers to ensure they take every opportunity to provide additional education to residents. The value of this approach is that begins a conversation with residents and eliminates confusion. All of Eureka Recycling's tags encourage residents to call our hotline where zero - waste educators are available to clear up confusion about why certain items are not recyclable or to explain how residents' efforts at the curb have an important impact on the value of the material and the environmental benefits of recycling. 2 We like the way you recycle! Be sure to use very slurtly plastic bags that are labeled and — closed. K You el Look on the back for options. Thank you for recycling! Thank you for recycling! Sample Tags Postcards In the previous two -sort system of collection, if a resident did not have a blue bin to leave a tag in the driver would write up the address and our customer service staff would send a postcard with the same images and messaging to the home to inform them about the issue. In the new single - sort system every house now has a cart so the driver always has a place to leave a tag, which eliminates the need for postcards. Letters Personalized letters are another form of coin nunication about programs and services. There are two types of personalized letters we send to residents: 1. Chronic problem letters provide detailed information and instructions about setting out recycling. These letters are used when previous letters have not been successful in correcting repeated problems. Drivers keep a daily record of the addresses that have received tags but still need further education. Addresses that have received tags for three consecutive collection weeks with no change in how they are recycling receive a personalized letter that encourages the resident to contact us so we can have a more in- depth conversation. 2. Letters to update service information for Special Pickup Instruction (SPI) customers. These letters are sent when SPI residents have changed the location of their recycling, or if it appears the resident has moved out of the home and no longer needs the service. In 2015 Eureka Recycling sent 80 personalized letters to residents. This is a decrease from the previous year but is still a bit higher than was seen in most pre -single sort years. When residents experience confusion around how to best set out their recycling a letter can help them understand the issue, while inviting them to call the hotline with additional questions or concerns. The most common issues that generated letters were cardboard not broken down, repeatedly having extra material outside the carts while using a smaller cart, and not having the cart out by 7 a.m. 3 Special Pickup Addresses To ensure every resident has the opportunity to recycle, Eureka Recycling offers to collect recycling from locations other than the curb for residents who request special pickup service due to short- or long-term physical limitations. This service is provided free of charge to ensure that anyone who would like to recycle has the opportunity to do so by helping remove any physical barriers. Eleven residents added this service in 2015 for a total of 178 total residents. Multifamily Zero -Waste Recycling Program Eureka Recycling currently services a total of 6,158 units in Roseville's multifamily program. In February 2015 Eureka Recycling mailed reports to 0 0 0all of Roseville's multifamily building managers, 1 providing them with data on the tonnage recycled for , r their building(s), a comparison of the amount of tonnage recycled for the whole city's multifamily program, and the environmental benefits of the entire City's effort in recycling. This communication provides the building managers the tools to work with their residents to inspire and motivate them to increase their recycling rate. One of the challenges with recycling in multifamily properties is turnover. Residents move in and out all the time and even property managers and caretakers turn over constantly. Not having a reliable contact at each property makes it difficult to manage problems that may arise or to communicate the successes to residents. This challenge is one of the reasons most cities do not include apartment and condo buildings in their residential recycling programs. Eureka Recycling's staff also updated building managers' contact information whenever possible. If it were not for the time Eureka Recycling staff takes each year to ensure correct and updated data, effective and timely communication would not be possible and the quality of the program would be in jeopardy. Multifamily Educational Materials and Customer Service Eureka Recycling constantly monitors the performance of each account to improve participation. Our drivers track issues so our staff can immediately follow up with suggestions to address any identified building needs and to provide educational materials for residents. Eureka Recycling provided 540 pieces of recycling education (instructional posters, brochures, schedules, etc.) to building management and residents of existing and newly established multifamily accounts in 2015. We continue to monitor the performance and service issues with each account to adjust service levels on an ongoing basis. We ensure that we are providing appropriate service levels to all buildings by working with our drivers and involved on-site contacts to add more carts as residents recycle more. 4 Special Education and Outreach Outreach at Roseville Events In 2015 Eureka Recycling and the City of Roseville partnered during three events to give residents an opportunity to learn about recycling, while also experiencing that waste is preventable. Eureka Recycling provided Zero -Waste Event Services, which included staff helping to monitor zero -waste stations and educate residents about recycling and zero -waste issues. At the Roseville Living Smarter Fair on February 21, 2015, Eureka Recycling had a table where we had many conversations with people about how they can incorporate zero waste practices such as, backyard composting, using the Twin Cities Free Market, and preventing wasted food to reduce the amount of trash they produce at home. These are simple things that can have a positive environmental impact and save residents money on their trash service. Additionally, we provided infonnation on the recycling program and answered questions related to materials added to the program, challenging materials and the problems they cause. On April 18, 2015 at the Roseville Earth Day event Eureka Recycling and the City had a table where our staff shared information about the recycling program. We also had one of the recycling trucks on hand so kids could see the how recycling is collected up close. Night to Unite We again joined the City of Roseville at Night to Unite celebrations all over the city. Together, we recognized it as an opportunity to connect with Roseville residents on a night where the community gathers. The City and Eureka Recycling see this event as a great opportunity to bring resources to residents, while taking the time to build community and answer questions. At 14 neighborhood gatherings Roseville city staff and Eureka Recycling staff distributed educational materials to help individuals learn how to recycle more. Staff spent time answering recycling questions and talking to residents about the environmental and economic benefits of recycling. Residents were responsive to not only the recycling information, but also additional recycling bins and to have conversations around zero -waste. Leading up to this event, Eureka Recycling once again supported the city's effort to encourage block party organizers to register their parties with the City by offering a free backyard composting bin to any registered neighborhood party that wanted one. A total of 13 compost bins were given to leaders of Roseville block parties. Registering parties helps the City to retain the information about who the energized and engaged residents are. This makes it easier to develop stronger relationships with those residents and allows them to help get community feedback and to help disseminate information on important conununity initiatives to their neighbors. We also provided fact sheets about making neighborhood events zero -waste. This fact sheet is available on our composting website: httu://bit.l /� I3 �6n Twin Cities Free Market Residents of the City of Roseville have the opportunity to exchange reusable materials via the Twin Cities Free Market (www.twincitiesfreema ket.ore). The Twin Cities Free Market is a great way for residents to give and get free, reusable items while keeping them out of the landfill or incinerator. In 2015, over 90 Free Market users from Roseville listed over three and a half tons (7,186 pounds) of usable items that were made up of mostly furniture, electronics, and appliances that were spared from the landfill or incinerator. 5 612 -10 -WASTE (669-2783) eurekarecycling.org Taste of Rosefest 2015 Zero -Waste Events Summary Eureka Recycling has had a zero waste partnership with the City of Roseville since 2006. This strong relationship gives us the opportunity to work with the city and with coni icuinN organizations like the Rotary to do initiatives that help reduce waste and create cleaner, healthier and happier communities. It was a great joy to work together towards zero waste at the annual food, wine, and beer extravaganza knomm as "Taste of Rosefest". With help and cooperation from many Rotary members, volunteers, vendors, and attendees we recycled 243 pounds and composted 370 pounds. Most Our mission is re demonstrateable,not impressively, we only generated 5 bags of trash, weighing 6155 pounds. that waste is preventable, not inevitable. Ovcxall, by m,cigkrt 91`% of all discards were either composted or recycled. The chart below shows how inch was discarded by volume. Only two carts were needed for tech while it took 13 carp to collect all the recycling and compost generated at Taste of Rosefest. Composition of Discarded Material (by volume) Recycling Compost Trash This success was due to the hard work and advance planning by the Rotary volunteers and Roseville City Staff wbo helped communicate with vendors how to serve their food in easily compostable packaging and purchased compostablc plates, sporks, and cups for those food vendors who weren't able to find the right products. Additionally, the wonderful volunteers who showed attendees how to recycle and compost were vital to making this a successful event. With one year under our belt, wcrc excited to get even lower next year by working with the same vendors and giving them the support they need to purchase the right products. So congratulations, and thank you to all who supported and promoted zero waste at the Taste of Rosefest This event was a success not only because of our progress toward zero waste, but also because so many people realized that with a little planning and a lot of cooperation, together we can reach a waste - free tomorrow. An afeimative aeon, equal Eureka RchdiaQ is the only ortanization it, Miuneota that specializes in zero uaste. the opportunity employer. orgnnizati m s service, prograns, and policy work present solutions to the salol, environnicund, and health problems caused by wasting. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit oroanizarion, based in the Twin ® Pnnteaon fooni poslconsunner One, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, I �urrl a'.r mission is to demonstrate that waste is encycled paperthat was pcessed without the use of chlorine. preventnhle, not inevitable. L Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: October 25, 2016 Item No: 7 Item Description: Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update Background: The City of Roseville is required by State Statute to have a local water management plan, capital improvement program, and official controls as necessary to bring local water management into conformance with the watershed district plans. The City's first Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP) was adopted in 1990 with an update in 2003 & 2013. The City boundaries are within three watershed districts; Rice Creek, Capitol Region, and Ramsey - Washington Metro. All three of these organizations have recently updated, or are in the processing of updating, their watershed district plans. Prior to 2016, Cities were required to prepare amendments to their CSWMP within 2 years of the watersheds updating their plans. Recent legislation changed the timeline to update CS WMP's to coincide with the City's Comprehensive Plan process. Staff and SEH have been working to update the CSWMP by gathering public comment and reviewing the current plan. Public input has come through two channels: One is through Speak - Up Roseville, and the other is a survey that SEH put together for the City. SEH will provide an update on the preliminary public input received. SEH will also discuss the 2013 Goals/Policies (Section 4) and also the Assessment (Section 5) portion of the plan. The Commission is encouraged to review the two sections and provide feedback and input to help guide the neat 10 years of stormwater management in the City. A link to the Approved 2013 Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan is htty://citvofroseville.com/DocumentCenter/View/12712. Recommended Action: Receive presentation and provide feedback. Attachments: A. SEH's CSWMP outline for 10/25/16 meeting. Attachment A Roseville Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP) Update Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) 10/25/2016 Meeting #2 Outline for Presentation and Discussion • Preliminary Public Input o Speak Up Roseville Discussion o Electronic Survey • Goals and Policies o Goal 1 - Flood Protection and Runoff Management o Goal 2 - Surface Water Protection o Goal 3- Groundwater Protection o Goal 4 - Public Education and Outreach o Goal 5- Pollution Prevention and Maintenance o Goal 6 - Coordination and Collaboration o Goal 7 - Sustainability o Others? • Current and Potential Issues o Localized flooding Issues o Water Quality Impairments o Operations and Maintenance o Education, Outreach and Collaboration o Others? Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Agenda Item Date: October 25, 2016 Item No: 8 Item Description: Look Ahead Agenda Items/ Neat Meeting November 22, 2016 Suggested Items: • 2017 Public Works Work Plan • A Line Update (Communications Items) • Stormwater Management Practices — Parking Lots Look ahead: December: Historically no meeting in December January: Transit "Beyond the A- Line" Discussion February: Final Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update Meeting Recommended Action: Set preliminary agenda items for the November 22, 2016 Public Works, Environment & Transportation Commission meeting.