roseville public works, environment and transportation

Be a part of the picture...get involved with your City...Volunteer! For more information, contact Kelly at [email protected] or 651-792-7028. Volunteering, a Great Way to Get Involved!

Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission

Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, March 22, 2016, at 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive

Roseville, Minnesota 55113

5:30 p.m. 1. Introductions/Roll Call 5:35 p.m. 2. Public Comments 5:40 p.m. 3. Approval of February 23, 2016 Meeting Minutes 5:45 p.m. 4. Communication Items 5:46 p.m. 5. South Lake Owasso Private Drive Storm Sewer Improvements 6:00 p.m. 6. Review of Tour 6:05 p.m. 7. Possible Items for Next Meeting – April 26, 2016 6:10 p.m. 8. Adjourn to Tour


Agenda Item

Date: March 22, 2016 Item No: 3 Item Description: Approval of the February 23, 2016 Public Works Commission Minutes Attached are the minutes from the February 23, 2016 meeting. Recommended Action: Motion approving the minutes of February 23, 2016 subject to any necessary corrections or revision.

Move: Second: Ayes: Nays:

of 20


Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, February 23, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive

Roseville, Minnesota 55113

1. Introduction / Call Roll 1 Chair Dwayne Stenlund called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and 2 Public Works Director Mark Culver called the roll. 3 4

Members Present: Chair Dwayne Stenlund; Vice Chair Brian Cihacek; and 5 Members Joe Wozniak, John Heimerl, Kody Thurnau, and 6 Duane Seigler 7

8 Members Absent: Member Sarah Brodt Lenz, having announced her 9

unavailability at last month’s meeting. 10 11

Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver, City Engineer Jesse 12 Freihammer, and Environmental Engineer Ryan Johnson 13

2. Public Comments 14 None. 15 16 3. Approval of January 26, 2016 Meeting Minutes 17 Member Cihacek moved, Member Wozniak seconded, approval of the January 26, 2016 18 meeting minutes as presented. 19 20 Ayes: 6 21 Nays: 0 22 Motion carried. 23 24 4. Communication Items 25 City Engineer Jesse Freihammer and Public Works Director Culver provided additional 26 comments and a brief review and update on projects and maintenance activities listed in 27 the staff report dated February 23, 2016. 28 29 Discussion included no anticipated delay in use of ball fields due to the St. Croix 30 stormwater lift station upgrade currently in process; report on stormwater pond clean-up 31 at Byerly’s & Valley Park with the majority of the sediment removed not needing land 32 filled due to contamination; pending decision by transit bench owners regarding their 33

of 20

potential relocation to the sites of former shelters; report by staff of four watermain 34 breaks over the last month; and attendance by staff at the recent meeting of the St. Paul 35 Regional Water Services for its external customers. 36 37 Further discussion included the City’s utility base rate structure being the envy of other 38 metropolitan communities and intended to provide for future capital improvement 39 program (CIP) planning for infrastructure updates and needs; and a future staff report to 40 the PWETC on how and where tree trimmings end up. 41 42 Specific to PWETC questions related to the City of Roseville’s purchase of water from 43 St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS), Mr. Culver advised that SPRWS’s rate 44 structure would be facing challenges to pay for improvements to their treatment facility 45 and distribution system. Mr. Culver reported that the trend is for less water sales, and 46 without a base rate, not as much may be sold as anticipated. Mr. Culver noted that the 47 SPRWS’s intent is to implement a base rate in the future that would theoretically build 48 those treatment costs into it. While Roseville maintained its own infrastructure, that rate 49 change may convolute the rate structure for Roseville; but he did anticipate future rate 50 increases, but hoped they wouldn’t be too excessive and impactful for Roseville 51 residents. Mr. Culver noted that Roseville’s water rates had not increased this year, while 52 other customers had experienced increases. 53 54 5. Private Sewer Services Lining Options 55 Mr. Culver introduced Paul Pasko, Project Engineer and-Principal at S.E.H., Inc. and his 56 credentials as someone considered in the industry as an experienced expert with lining 57 technologies and practices in the Midwest area. Mr. Culver reported that Mr. Pasko had 58 recently provided a presentation at a recent city engineer’s conference based on his 59 experience with watermain linings in the City of Hastings, MN. As a result of that very 60 informative presentation, Mr. Culver advised that he had invited Mr. Pasko to share that 61 presentation with the PWETC to outline options and what other metropolitan 62 communities were doing to respond to this and similar issues. 63 64 Mr. Culver briefly reiterated, for background purposes, previous discussions of the 65 PWETC about ownership of service laterals and the City Council’s charge to the 66 commission to recommend if any changes were evident. Mr. Culver reported that the 67 City Council continued to question if there was more the City could do since it was 68 pursuing an aggressive lining program for its aging sewer lines and in conjunction with 69 that address some of those older laterals for which residents were responsible and to 70 better protect those residents. As part of that consideration, Mr. Culver noted the yet-to-71 be-determined impact of inflow and infiltration (I & I) that the City of Roseville was 72 undertaking as a mandate from the Metropolitan Council. 73 74 Mr. Pasko introduced his associate, Jen Schueman, in the audience, who worked with 75 him on projects throughout Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota in addition to other Midwest 76 areas. 77 78

of 20

Mr. Pasko noted that his presentation would essentially ask and provide information on 79 the following items: 80

Why rehabilitate laterals? 81 Administratively, how do other communities do it? 82 What tools are they using? 83 How much do the tools cost to use? 84

85 Mr. Pasko reviewed some points to consider, including those communities where I & I 86 were drivers and the various options used in communities for rehabilitation of those 87 laterals up to street reconstruction lines via assessment, including some of that work done 88 by the City’s contractor or a private owner’s contractor, but still allowed to be applied as 89 an assessment to property taxes. 90 91 Mr. Pasko reviewed the variables in the upper and lower laterals and options and 92 challenges in both. If I & I is the driver, and the attempt is to hit the upper lateral, Mr. 93 Pasko advised that many East Coast communities in the United States insist they have a 94 right to make sure those lines are in compliance with code and that private property 95 owners meet that code. 96 97 Mr. Pasko noted that care was needed to ensure clear ordinance language that protected a 98 citizen’s Fourth Amendment Rights as it relates to unjust or arbitrary inspections of 99 private property, frequently debated by courts, but able to be sufficiently addressed with a 100 comprehensive ordinance in place prior to inspections and to protect municipalities. Mr. 101 Pasko noted that this involved access to private property and parameters for that access, 102 since there was obviously a potential liability for the city accessing private property 103 and/or laterals (considered private property) through main manholes, especially when 104 dealing with mishaps in using robotics. Mr. Pasko noted that if an unanticipated problem 105 occurred with the robotics, there was always the possibility that the lateral line would 106 need to be dug up to rescue the equipment; and suggested that would not be a good first 107 test of a city ordinance. 108 109 Mr. Pasko also noted the need for an ordinance addressing expenditure of public money 110 to rehabilitate private property and clearly defining those parameters or potential 111 circumstances, such as the municipality subsidizing a portion of the rehabilitation of 112 longer laterals. Mr. Pasko emphasized the need to make sure the ordinance was very 113 clear about how, when and why public monies would be expended. Other than in several 114 instances in the State of WI, Mr. Pasko advised that those Fourth Amendment questions 115 were being sufficiently addressed from his perspective as long as the ordinances were 116 enacted before rehabilitation was undertaken. 117 118 Specific to options used by other communities, Mr. Pasko reported on one who applied a 119 $50/month surcharge for private property owners choosing not to rehabilitate those 120 private laterals as an incentive to encourage them to do so; while others used a subsidy 121 for rehabilitation; and others chose not to provide any subsidy. Another community, for 122 those property owners choosing not to rehabilitate their private laterals, chose to install an 123

of 20

inflatable ball where the city’s line met the private lateral to prevent use of the main line 124 beyond their lateral until the property owner chose to correct problem areas. 125 Mr. Pasko reported other variables among communities: total subsidy for rehabilitation 126 borne by the city, options for lower lateral rehabilitation by a city contractor only, and 127 some of those done up to the wye, some to the edge of the road, and some up to the 128 rights-of-way. Mr. Pasko noted that upper lateral lining was done by either using private 129 or city contractors. 130 131 Specific to Minnesota communities, Mr. Pasko provided a matrix of the options used by 132 the Cities of Edina, Golden Valley, Shakopee, Hastings, and Rockford; and for 133 comparison purposes, he included the City of Hampton Roads, VA in that matrix. 134 135 Overall, Mr. Pasko opined that the most successful option he observed around the 136 country was real estate transaction based, such as used by the City of Golden Valley, MN 137 with point-of-sale inspections performed from within the home allowing a holistic 138 viewpoint for both the upper and lower laterals. Mr. Pasko reported that some 139 communities choose a dye or smoke test when possible. On the east coast, Mr. Pasko 140 reported that over the last four years, they had experienced a turnover of homes at 10% to 141 15%, making those inspections a sustainable program, with the same home inspected 142 periodically over a fifteen year period, and thereby compiling a database of information 143 for the City’s GIS system for comparison purposes. Mr. Pasko noted this was also 144 possible for inspecting new homes being constructed annually and adding that data for 145 future comparison purposes as well. 146 147 Lower Lateral Tools Being Used: 148

“Top-hat” style liner with the potential that it may be unable to fully wrap the 149 trunk sewer main and only able to extend <18” into the lateral pipe. Mr. 150 Pasko noted further problems with this tool include the brim not always being 151 wide enough to find its way through or around tree roots, causing 152 communities to shy away from using it. 153

“Shorty” style liner that does fully wrap the trunk sewer main, and extends 1-154 2’ into the lateral pipe. 155

“Longer” style liner that fully wraps the trunk sewer main and extends >2’ 156 into the lateral pipe and can be done with or without installing cleanouts. Mr. 157 Pasko reported that the City of Shakopee, MN currently uses this tool. 158

159 When to Use Robotic Tools: 160

To prevent damage to a lateral liner, you must line the main line first 161 Any sharp main liner edges must be brushed to prevent tearing of the lateral 162

liner 163 164 What Tools are They Using? 165

Many communities use dig and replace in lower and upper laterals – 166 depending on specific situations 167

Use of cleanouts vary among communities and depends on their location, 168 whether above or below ground 169

of 20

Some communities choose to use vacuum excavating 170 Mr. Pasko noted that again, these choices are based on individual community ordinances 171 and their specific issues. 172 173 How Much Do the Tools Cost to Use? 174 Mr. Pasko again provided a matrix comparing the cost for various options, and limits of 175 the lateral rehabilitation, including: 176

Up to the wye: estimated at $2,000; 177 Up to the edge of the road: estimated at $3,000 to 7,000; 178 Up to the rights-of-way (same as above) 179 With the upper lateral, Mr. Pasko opined that most of the cost was the 180

contractor’s mobilization to get to the site; with the actual length of the lining 181 not that problematic beyond the cost of the base project itself; estimating it at 182 $1,000 to $2,000 based on his very schematic level opinion of construction 183 costs. 184

As an example, in the City of Edina, with most of their single-family homes built pre- or 185 post-World War II, they may experience 60% to 70% of those homeowners using private 186 contractors. 187 188 If the City had cast iron laterals, Mr. Pasko suggested the city not bother and just leave 189 them along. However, if the majority of the city’s pipes were clay or orange bird piping, 190 Mr. Pasko suggested that the city seriously consider a lateral lining initiative. 191 192 Based on his experience, Mr. Pasko briefly addressed lateral insurance or warranty 193 programs, and reported on various communities throughout the country. 194 195 Mr. Pasko provided one example of the city forces undertaking that private lateral work 196 themselves rather than hiring an outside contractor, essentially using city labor and 197 equipment. Mr. Pasko advised that part of their rationale was that it provided them 198 another opportunity to interact with customers in a positive way, and whether or not the 199 lateral rehabilitation program is also subsidized or not, they claim they’ve been 200 successful in their endeavors. 201 202 Mr. Pasko provided other examples, such as in the Philadelphia area where the 203 municipality chose a for-profit warranty program at reasonable rates. However, Mr. 204 Pasko noted that this created some significant increases in utility rates of up to a $1 205 increase in one year; and some communities were limited in the number of contractors 206 serving in this capacity. Mr. Pasko noted that most of the warranty program agreements 207 allow the municipality to build in a clause for choosing contractors or only quotes from 208 local contractors. Mr. Pasko cautioned that there were pros and cons with this type of 209 warranty program, one of which was whether or not the municipality may be endorsing 210 certain plumbers above others. Mr. Pasko noted that he had found with municipalities 211 partnering with these warranty programs, their residents had been engulfed with mass 212 mailings from the plumbing industry. 213 214

of 20

Again, Mr. Pasko emphasized the need for appropriate ordinance language to protect the 215 municipality and its residents. 216 217 Q & A 218 During and after the presentation, Mr. Pasko responded to questions of the PWETC. 219 220 Chair Stenlund noted that, overall, the lower laterals in Roseville were not typically a 221 problem for I & I. 222 223 Given the age of the community and its infrastructure, Mr. Pasko opined that this was 224 most likely due to backfilling of pipes in rights-of-way done to a higher standard with 225 inspection staff on-site than may be found in current construction efforts. Mr. Pasko 226 noted that the other side of the laterals were usually more problematic outside that right-227 or-way line with private contractors being less diligent in packing soils. Mr. Pasko noted 228 that this was problematic nationwide, with findings that the lower lateral is better 229 compacted than the upper lateral as it related to I & I. 230 231 Chair Stenlund noted that some mains were not under the road in Roseville, but may be 232 located on one side or the right-of-way or the other, and affected homeowners 233 accordingly for rehabilitation costs. Member Stenlund questioned if those situations 234 would be redlined as good candidates to consider for lining sooner than later. 235 236 Mr. Pasko responded that lining was paid for by the foot; and as an example, there were 237 many situations where whether or not that lateral was on the short or long side, those 238 homeowners on the short side got more of a bargain than those on the long side. Mr. 239 Pasko noted that some communities stipulate that all property owners pay the same to 240 equalize factors; but if not a lot of those situations, that was not taken into consideration 241 beyond a unique situation. Mr. Pasko noted that there were many different ways for a 242 community to approach that inequity. 243 244 Chair Stenlund questioned problems with flows coming toward the lining and creating a 245 plug. 246 247 Mr. Pasko responded that there were not, and as an engineer, a pre-lining television 248 inspection (after cleaning the line) was performed and if active I & I was found, it may be 249 addressed with a plug, while tree roots were removed. After that, Mr. Pasko noted that 250 the end cap was cut off and then inspected again, and if the problem or indication of a 251 problem during installation was observed, it was removed and the process done again. 252 Mr. Pasko advised that he uses a two-year inspection clause for lining contractors, 253 requiring them to re-inspect and correct any problems on their own dime. While it varies 254 with contractors, Mr. Pasko advised that the best lining contractors average 2% or less 255 with problem areas. 256 257 At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Pasko advised that the liner has a built-in taper, 258 with minimal identification loss, and while there may many roots and problems within 259 the pipes, there was little problem or evidence of problems from flushable items getting 260

of 20

caught in the laterals with the smaller and smoother liner applications now available with 261 improved technologies. 262 263 Member Wozniak asked if there was a limit to the pipe condition in which lining would 264 work (e.g. broken, disjointed or disconnected) that determined if and when the liner tool 265 would still prove effective. 266 267 Mr. Pasko advised that the only problem was a pipe was a pipe with 50% or more 268 missing; and even then if technicians were gentle in the lining, they could still blow right 269 through that broken or missing area, essentially creating a pipe within the pipe. Mr. 270 Pasko noted that the only problematic situations he’d observed were if a pipe had been 271 crushed or offset and became oval or teardrop shaped. At that point, Mr. Pasko suggested 272 it may be better to dig and replace that spot, or in areas with a sag. Again, Mr. Pasko 273 noted the need to address that clearly in ordinance language to address rights and 274 responsibilities for laterals for homeowners and the municipality. 275 276 At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Pasko estimated the typical cost for each cleanout 277 would be $1,500 to $2,500 each, and perhaps up to $3,000 for vacuuming. 278 279 Based on his experience, Member Seigler asked Mr. Pasko if those communities offering 280 a warranty program were happy with it. 281 282 Mr. Pasko opined that it varied: with older communities getting more than new 283 communities; along with some property owners pushing back or not wanting to 284 participate based on their preference for less government intervention. 285 286 Chair Stenlund asked staff to report on the percentage overall in Roseville of PVC, clay 287 or cast iron laterals. 288 289 Mr. Culver noted that, with the majority of the Roseville sewer system installed in the 290 late 1950’s, and primarily in the 1960’s, most lines were clay, but he wasn’t able to 291 identify how much if any were cast iron. Mr. Culver noted that, obviously, new lines 292 were of PVC construction, but those were few and far between unless in new 293 construction situations. 294 295 Mr. Pasko noted that this would fit in with most of the upper Midwest and national 296 averages, with clay popular at the turn of the century through the 1970’s until use of cast 297 iron, then trending to PVC once that technology became available. 298 299 Given the age of most of the homes in Roseville, Member Seigler asked when a large 300 amount of lateral failures could be anticipated. 301 302 Mr. Pasko advised that it had a lot to do with soil type and trees in their vicinity. Based 303 on the amount of Roseville’s tree cover, Mr. Pasko opined that there was probably a lot 304 of root damage that had already occurred or was occurring right now. Mr. Pasko noted 305 that the sub-grade soils around Roseville varied; and if you had heavy clay soils, any 306

of 20

defect in joints when the laterals were put together were probably leaking water. If those 307 soils were sandy, Mr. Pasko opined that most of the surrounding trees were drinking 308 water out of those laterals and had been doing so for some time. 309 310 Mr. Culver referenced the permit information previously supplied to the PWETC for 311 sewer services (September 2015) and advised that those numbers continued to increase. 312 When televising city mains, Mr. Culver reported that they looked the short distance 313 available into laterals, and when seeing an obvious root intrusion, those property owners 314 were sent a standard courtesy letter alerting them to that observation. 315 316 Mr. Pasko briefly reviewed some of the new inspection tools available in that ever-317 changing technology and ability for television inspections that can pan and tilt about 1’ 318 into the lateral. Also, if no root intrusions are observed, Mr. Pasko advised that a small 319 crawler attached to the main robot can be deployed to move up the lateral into the home 320 carried by a tether. 321 322 If there are too many roots present or a sag, Mr. Pasko noted there is also technology for 323 a mobile probe through the home’s inside cleanout consisting of a low voltage probe to 324 hit the pipe, then another section grounded to a sign post or fire hydrant to ground it and 325 complete the circuit. Mr. Pasko advised that this allows the operator to measure how 326 much current arrives at that ground from the probe and from the amount of current back 327 estimate or calculate the amount of I & I that can go in. Mr. Pasko noted that this also 328 provided a nice and repeatable measure from one year to the next. However, Mr. Pasko 329 noted that it also depended on the operators on those cameras and their skill levels; again 330 requiring ordinance parameters that clearly define potential problem areas and variables. 331 332 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Pasko confirmed that the contractors performing 333 lining of mains and those lining laterals were two separate specialties with their 334 equipment also radically different at this time. Mr. Pasko noted that lining of mains was 335 becoming more common and specialized, and those contractors didn’t want to stop that 336 process to deal with laterals. Mr. Pasko advised that he had yet to see any contractor 337 make lining laterals part of lining main lines. Mr. Pasko noted that it was more common 338 to line the mains one year and return the next year to line laterals. 339 340 In the City of Edina, Mr. Pasko reported that when they do street reconstruction, they will 341 also rehabilitate or line laterals, but that is typically done by a different contractor while 342 still allowing private owners to take advantage of a better rate for that contractor to do 343 multiple linings once mobilized. In other words, as suggested by Member Cihacek, if the 344 City of Roseville bid street reconstruction, and chose to bid laterals while the street was 345 torn up, it made sense to do so, but otherwise there was no benefit to bidding them 346 together. Mr. Pasko reiterated that he didn’t see those technologies merging anytime 347 soon; since those operating the joysticks differ. Mr. Pasko advised that the skill sets of 348 most of those operators were amazing; with some of the best he’d observed having 349 previously been drone pilots, and transferring those skills to this technique. 350 351

of 20

From his perspective, Chair Stenlund asked Mr. Pasko for his opinion on why or how a 352 homeowner could be responsible for a portion of the line under the street and beyond his 353 right-of-way; and without any power on their part to control what occurs around or near 354 that line, such as compaction or traffic vibrations. Chair Stenlund also sought Mr. 355 Pasko’s observations of other communities and their practice. 356 357 Based on his experience across the country, Mr. Pasko advised that he was only 358 personally aware of one community that stops ownership at the property line or right-of-359 way. Mr. Pasko advised that the responsibility of the owner usually went to the main and 360 includes the wye, with the private property owner responsible for the lateral and wye 361 connection that comes into the main to make it a complete pipe. Furthermore, Mr. Pasko 362 noted that it was common on the east coast for ownership of the wye and lateral up to the 363 main. Mr. Pasko recognized that the wye was generally the first part to break. 364 365 Mr. Pasko noted that the State of MN was actually progressive in that a private property 366 owner didn’t own water service to the main or half or all of the curb stop box; and 367 advised that many communities across the nation do so. 368 369 Mr. Pasko opined that depending on the situations and technology to employ them, he 370 suspected that the use of cleanouts was coming to an end. Mr. Pasko noted that it wasn’t 371 unusual for private plumbers to carry liners into home basements or install cleanouts next 372 to the foundation wall but not in a right-of-way. 373 374 Member Seigler asked if water laterals and linings had the same issues as that of sanitary 375 sewer lines as far as deterioration. 376 377 While water mains were similar in terms of trouble spots and many can be rehabilitated 378 using similar technology, Mr. Pasko noted that it depended on the community and its type 379 of soil. Mr. Pasko advised that 30% to 60% of pipe wall loss was being experienced in 380 communities with 1920’s era infrastructure. Mr. Pasko anticipated that in the next ten 381 years, technologies will be available allowing for water service pipes of ½” diameter to 382 be lined, once the materials used are certified; with some being experimented with now. 383 384 Mr. Culver reported that S.E.H., Inc. will be designing and administering a Roseville 385 project lining the water main on Heinel Drive due to it being a long dead-end street and 386 creating difficulties for those residents if an open cut process was used. Mr. Culver 387 advised that this new technology for water main lining was different than the previous 388 pilot program using 3M spray-on material. 389 390 On behalf of the PWETC, Chair Stenlund thanked Mr. Pasko for his informative 391 presentation and discussion. 392 393 6. Roseville Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP) – continued from January 394

Mr. Culver referenced the staff report and attachments; highlighting specific items 395 remaining for PWETC recommendation. Mr. Culver also provided a summary of 396 the 60 comments and questions received via the Speak Up! Roseville website. 397

of 20

Mr. Culver noted that the frequency question was intended to be built into the 398 upcoming 2016 community survey as well to inform the RFP; with options 399 included in the RFP for final deliberation and determination of the City Council. 400 401

Review of Last Month’s Discussion 402 A brief review of last month’s PWETC discuss ensued, including current and 403 proposed pick-up frequency and whether occurring between regular routes or at 404 an extra charge; possibility of more than one cart per home, but recognizing the 405 limited garage sizes and available storage space for many older Roseville single-406 family homes; and city code requirements for storage out-of-site. 407 408 Chair Stenlund sought clarification as to whether park pick-ups would be a 409 separate zone unto itself or embedded into one of the five existing zones. 410 411 Mr. Johnson responded that the RFP would include that option for contractors and 412 include routine pick-ups whether on the trails requiring a smaller truck or 413 relocated by city staff to a central collection point depending on the park and/or 414 trail accessibility. 415 416 Member Wozniak noted that the current contractor does not separate multi-family 417 zoning or collections. 418 419 Mr. Johnson reported that the rationale of Eureka Recycling is to keep those 420 multi-family collections separated from single-family units to allow tracking 421 materials to determine participation rates among various housing stock types. Mr. 422 Johnson noted that the city could not really stipulate whether or not a vendor 423 chose to keep that separation going forward. 424 425 Member Cihacek opined that the city should not dictate that for contractors, nor 426 require that a special trip be made for a designated pick-up point. However, 427 Member Cihacek suggested the RFP should provide an opportunity for the vendor 428 to describe their preference or value added. 429 430 Mr. Culver also noted that for park pick-up, it required coordination of park 431 maintenance staff with the contractor; but agreed that at the very start, the vendor 432 should signify the most effective way to accomplish pick-ups. 433 434 Specific to parks as a separate zone, Chair Stenlund clarified that he had no 435 problem with the current zoned collections, but was seeking to differentiate it 436 separately. 437 438 Mr. Johnson advised that he would clarify the RFP accordingly. 439 440 Specific to curbside collection of residential organics (pages 18-19), Member 441 Cihacek asked if the vendors would provide their options; with Mr. Johnson 442

of 20

responding affirmatively for future consideration, whether via bag, another cart or 443 how they would propose to collect organics. 444 445 Section 5.11: Mr. Johnson noted language specific to missed collections by the 446 vendor. 447 448 Section 8.04 (page 32): Mr. Johnson addressed the optional revenue sharing 449 component and definitions by each contractor to choose a percentage. 450 451 Member Cihacek noted that if no revenue, the price would revert back to the base 452 price; with Chair Stenlund noting in theory that could lower overall prices for 453 residents. 454 455 Mr. Culver agreed, noting that could result in lower and consistent pricing versus 456 more volatile pricing. 457 458

Continuation of RFP Discussion Tonight 459 Cart Ownership (city vs. contractor) 460 Among questions outlined in the staff report, Mr. Johnson asked for the PWETC 461 feedback on ownership of the carts, referencing background information included 462 in the report as indicated, and provided by Ramsey County’s consultant, Foth; and 463 a grant program available through Ramsey County paying up to 50% of the city’s 464 cart purchase if that was the preferred option in Roseville. 465 466 Member Cihacek questioned if revenue sharing monies could be used to pay for 467 the city’s cart ownership and spread out over time. 468 469 Mr. Johnson responded that it was possible, but would require significant staff 470 time in tracking that process; as well as taking into consideration the considerable 471 mobilization charge when first rolling out the carts, with the cit potentially 472 incurring those costs annually as well if it chose cart ownership. 473 474 Mr. Culver advised that he was not sure of the Recycling Fund balance at this 475 time without consulting with Finance Director Miller on the account; but agreed 476 those funds could also be used. Mr. Culver advised that the theory is that if the 477 city owns the carts, it would provide a reduction per residential unit for monthly 478 or quarterly recycling fees. Mr. Culver noted that another option would be to 479 keep the fund as-is to build the fund back up once the carts were purchased by the 480 city. Mr. Culver suggested this should all be part of the financial analysis. Mr. 481 Culver noted that the real benefit of cart ownership was that after the term is up 482 with a contractor, the owner of the carts remained the city and there was no 483 swapping out of carts if changing from one vendor to another. Mr. Culver noted 484 that this also provided the city another benefit for more flexibility even if 485 choosing to terminate a contract with a contractor earlier if needed. 486 487

of 20

Member Cihacek stated that he was fine with the city owning the carts if city 488 funds were available for their purchase; and if there would be no additional outlay 489 or implicit overhead costs with city ownership beyond their purchase, including 490 management and/or maintenance of the carts and it could be solvent within the 491 current budget. Member Cihacek opined that it seemed to be a good use for 492 revenue share funds going forward. 493 494 Member Seigler concurred with Member Cihacek, opining that if the average life 495 expectancy for carts was up to ten years, it would result in a $2/month savings. 496 497 By consensus, the PWETC majority supported city ownership of the carts. 498 499 Section 5.05 - Zero Waste Events (pages 18 - 19) 500 Mr. Johnson noted current zero waste events; and asked if the PWETC would like 501 to add other events. 502 503 Member Cihacek opined that he found the intent of this section vague other than 504 requiring contractors to attend and collecting materials. 505 506 Mr. Johnson responded that the intent was to 1) educate the public; 2) helping 507 people sort materials; 3) use of special compostable materials supplied by the city 508 (e.g. BPI-certified utensils). 509 510 Member Cihacek questioned how contractor performance was measured. 511 512 Mr. Johnson advised that, for the Taste of Roseville in 2015, the contractor 513 provided a report showing the composition of discarded material by volume; 514 providing overview as well as informing future events. 515 516 Member Cihacek noted that this fit with Eureka’s operating model; but asked if 517 other vendors offered this as part of their standard business model, or if this 518 limited vendors to only those with a similar core vision. 519 520 Mr. Johnson advised that, as with the previous RFP, all vendors said they could 521 do it and provided their ideas for how they could do so; and he saw no reason how 522 this should limit vendors. 523 524 Organic Composting Facility. 525 Member Seigler asked if the City of Roseville had a composting facility at this 526 time; with Mr. Johnson responding that it did not, and while it could be dropped 527 at a Ramsey County site, any organics currently collected were brought to the 528 Eureka Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). In response to Member Seigler, Mr. 529 Johnson advised that the vendor would need to take that into consideration as part 530 of their bid to provide that or subcontract with another MRF if they didn’t have 531 their own processing plant. However, Mr. Johnson advised that it was part of the 532

of 20

process and they would provide prices accordingly through multiple and 533 competitive bids accordingly. 534 535 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Johnson confirmed that the city reserved 536 the right to add other zero waste events to the contract term. 537 538 Chair Stenlund reminded to make sure it was clear in the RP that vendors reported 539 annually to the PWETC with an update, suggested improvements or challenges. 540 541 Costs 542 Mr. Johnson noted that Roseville had served as the “golden child” of recycling 543 from a rate perspective, and therefore advised that the only way to go would most 544 likely be an increase in that rate. Mr. Johnson reviewed the current Eureka 545 contract and annual costs based on the 2013 RFP process receiving a total of three 546 proposals from vendors. Mr. Johnson also included a price comparison from Foth 547 in the matrix. Mr. Johnson noted that the county-wide average for curbside 548 collection every-other-week was anticipated at approximately $3.20/unit. 549 550 Member Wozniak stated that he had a problem with current multi-family facilities 551 paying a per unit fee; and suggested instead a “pull” rate for multi-family units; 552 and further suggested the RFP say those facilities should designate a proscriptive 553 96 gallon cart size. 554 555 Mr. Johnson noted that the RFP does indicate that the contractor provide another 556 location for cardboard and larger recyclable items to avoid filling up carts. 557 558 Member Wozniak suggested leaving that up to the contractor as to what type or 559 size of carts, especially if Ramsey County is paying for containers. 560 561 At the request of Member Seigler, Member Wozniak defined the “pull” rate that 562 addressed either per container, per cart or per stop, depending on the contractor’s 563 use. 564 565 Mr. Johnson agreed that using the “pull” rate would provide more flexibility for 566 the vendor, but suggested a minimum for the bidding floor and to guarantee the 567 containers are right-sized for the facility and number of units. 568 569 Member Cihacek noted that, as part of their due diligence in responding to the 570 RFP, each vendor could request that information and based on their perspective, 571 make sure right-sized containers are bid for multi-family units. Member Cihacek 572 suggested that the RFP make it clear that the city would only work with vendors 573 willing to provide the right-sized containers. 574 575 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Johnson advised that the cost does not 576 include the revenue share assumption. 577 578

of 20

Member Cihacek asked, if the city took on cart ownership, would they be 579 amortized for one year or for a longer period. 580 581 Mr. Culver responded that it may depend on the fund balance and input from the 582 City’s Finance Director. Mr. Culver agreed that, if the fund balance was 583 sufficient, there should be no discussion; and to that extent, staff should be able to 584 perform a pseudo-amortization and rebuilt the fund balance, recognizing that it 585 may never reach today’s high. 586 587 Member Wozniak noted that, in the pricing sheet prepared by staff, they did 588 include a “per pull” price for park collection. 589 590 Cart Size 591 Recognizing the limited space available in some residential garages in Roseville, 592 Member Wozniak suggested weekly collection would allow some of those units 593 to move to a smaller cart for storage. 594 595 Proposal Review Committee/Interview Panel 596 Member Wozniak asked who was involved in the RFP review panel and how the 597 PWETC fit in. 598 599 Mr. Johnson advised that those details had yet to be confirmed on the staff and 600 City Council level; but encouraged comment from the PWETC if they had 601 recommendations for the interview panel. 602 603 Mr. Culver advised that staff generally performed the initial scoring of proposals, 604 based on their familiarity with the Best Value Process, including the price 605 component. Mr. Culver noted that this RFP would prove more challenging with 606 the many options, making it difficult to ensure a blind price comparison. Mr. 607 Culver noted that the typical process scored each proposal based on the values 608 and their weight before getting to the price. However, Mr. Culver noted, 609 depending on which options were selected and their complexities, it would impact 610 that pricing for overall scoring of proposals. Depending on the timing, Mr. 611 Culver advised that the intent was for staff to then bring it back to the PWETC for 612 scoring on each proposal, including staff’s recommendation and the PWETC’s 613 subsequent recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Culver advised that the 614 process would then move into a negotiation period with the contractor, to 615 ultimately ratify a contract during the summer of 2016. 616 617 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver proposed that the PWETC would 618 see all rankings and an explanation of how the end recommendation was arrived 619 at. 620 621 Member Cihacek asked if there was any reason staff would not consider using 622 someone from the PWETC as part of that evaluation. 623

of 20

624 Chair Stenlund advised that the PWETC was not involved last time beyond 625 setting the criteria. 626 627 Member Cihacek expressed concern that the stakeholder perspective of the 628 PWETC may provide a different agenda than that of staff’s perspective and 629 thereby score proposals differently. Even though he trusted staff to evaluate the 630 proposals, Member Cihacek noted that it still involved a qualified opinion from 631 staff’s perspective. Member Cihacek opined that a lot of things occurred during 632 the evaluation of specific proposals and expressed his interest in serving on that 633 panel. Member Cihacek opined that it was at least worth having that conversation 634 at the PWETC level to involve a member of this commission or an interested 635 resident representing that stakeholder perspective. 636 637 Mr. Culver suggested that this option be presented to the City Council when the 638 draft RFP was presented to them at their March 14th meeting to see their interest 639 in that, providing the PWETC majority sought that feedback and participatory 640 level from the City Council. 641 642 Member Cihacek opined that the City Council or someone beyond staff should be 643 involved in the panel. 644 645 Chair Stenlund stated that he would not be interested in serving; opining that it 646 was a lot of work and in some ways personally felt that it was overstepping the 647 bounds of the PWETC. Chair Stenlund noted that the PWETC participant(s) 648 would need to make sure they were fully prepared for the amount of work and 649 time commitment needed. Chair Stenlund noted that he considered the 650 preliminary work of the PWETC in setting the stage and subsequent review of the 651 results as most appropriate, since the proposals would be based on input variables 652 and weighting outlined and recommended by the PWETC. Chair Stenlund opined 653 that he was fine with staff doing the work based on the criteria set by the PWETC. 654 With the current transparency in local government and this process itself, Chair 655 Stenlund questioned how anything other than the previous process and established 656 evaluation variables could be improved upon. 657 Member Seigler agreed with Chair Stenlund’s viewpoints, opining that it would 658 only add another layer of complexity; and opined that he had no desire to serve on 659 the panel. 660 661 Section 5.02 – Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements (page 13) 662 Chair Stenlund suggested further clarification that a vendor will use new diesel 663 engines using the clean diesel concept, and not old beater trucks. While the age 664 may be insignificant, Chair Stenlund opined that the technology wasn’t and 665 further opined that a vendor promoting natural gas or a cleaner burning fuel 666 should receive additional points accordingly. 667 668

of 20

Also, Chair Stenlund suggested fine-tuning language related to appropriate terms 669 and expectations for universal clean-up of spills or leaks that may end up in the 670 city’s gutter lines by defining what they meant by “clean-up, including how and 671 when they would address those spills. Chair Stenlund noted that this area tied 672 directly to the City’s MS4 permit. 673 674 Chair Stenlund also suggested clear language that the contactor, their employees, 675 or subcontractors did not smoke in garages; and wherever “No Smoking” signs 676 are in evidence, they comply with that. 677 678 Specific to collection zones, Chair Stenlund reiterated the potential dividing of the 679 park zone; and asked that staff review the draft RFP for areas or zoned (Section 680 5.08) to make it clearer. 681 682 Chair Stenlund noted the need to spell out MRF the first time it was used in the 683 draft RFP. 684 685 Chair Stenlund expressed his appreciation that the annual recommendations to the 686 City Council come through the vendor and PWETC to further discussion actions 687 taken by a vendor to reduce their carbon footprint as well as that of the city; and 688 as a way to inform future best management practices. 689 690 To that point, Mr. Culver noted that the best part of the Best Value Process 691 scoring was recognizing those additional standards proposed by a vendor and 692 rewarding them for those extra efforts. 693 694 Section 6.07 – Annual Work Plan (page 28) 695 Chair Stenlund opined that he found the first sentence somewhat awkward, and 696 asked that staff review that as well as Section 6.08 (Outreach to Low Participating 697 Communities) to make sure there was consistency in what was being addressed. 698 Chair Stenlund noted in Section 6.08 specifically the need to be consistent with 699 the terminology of “Best Value Plan,” Value Added Plan,” or “Best Value 700 Process” throughout the RFP. 701 702 Chair Stenlund also noted the reference to the “annual work plan” in Sections 703 6.07, 6.08 and 6.09 needing consistency as well. 704 705 In Section 7.01 – Processing Facilities Must Be Specified (page 28), Chair 706 Stenlund again asked that MRF be spelled out the first time it was referenced. 707 708 Chair Stenlund noted the changes made by staff in Section 8.05 – Liquidated 709 Damages (page 34 – 35) based on Member Cihacek’s comments at the last 710 meeting and whether that language was clearer. 711 712

of 20

Member Cihacek responded that while “liquidated damages” was a different term, 713 from his read of the previous month’s meeting minutes, the numbers were 714 justifiable and he was fine with them as indicated in those minutes. 715 716 Member Wozniak suggested referencing Section 8 (page 30) and “payment in 717 damages” versus “penalty” as previously discussed. 718 719 On page 36, discussing failures, Chair Stenlund noted Item g. specific to clean-up 720 of spilled materials by the contractor within six hours or verbal or written 721 notification. Chair Stenlund noted that a lot could happen in six hours, and 722 suggested that language be changed to “Immediate Clean-up” and also requiring 723 that the contractor self-report the spill to the state duty officer, depending on the 724 amount and type of spill. In the case of a truck breakdown, for example, Chair 725 Stenlund noted that materials were not always picked up before those rich 726 nutrients ended up in the storm sewer system. Chair Stenlund suggested that 727 some incentive should be in place to get the spill cleaned up ASAP without 728 direction from city staff being required. Chair Stenlund also noted the need for 729 the contractor to clearly identify what they were carrying in their spill kits. Chair 730 Stenlund suggested that any additional costs incurred by the city for discharge of 731 materials (e.g. cleaning out or jetting the sewer system) be applied as an 732 additional cost to the contractor, thereby revising the language to $250 for each 733 incident, PLUS any additional costs incurred by the city. 734 735 Mr. Culver expressed his concern in the subjective interpretation of “immediate;” 736 and suggested instead language to read “…immediately or no later than six hours 737 after the incident occurs. 738 739 Evaluation Criteria and Weighting 740 Chair Stenlund asked if there were any individual concerns of the PWETC with 741 this evaluation as defined. Chair Stenlund advised that he was fine with the 742 scoring as currently defined in the draft RFP. 743 744 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Johnson referred to the first three bullets 745 on page 4 identifying “community values.” 746 747 Chair Stenlund noted that they were further defined in the packet under 748 community values; and each vendor was asked to provide information as to how 749 their proposal met them. 750 751 Member Cihacek stated that his concern was with transparency for the vendor, 752 since the value system was unclear or the vendor may not understand the value. 753 Member Cihacek proposed changing the weighting as follows: 754 Price: 40% 755 Past Performance: 15% 756 Value Added Plan: 15% 757 758

of 20

Member Cihacek questioned why the Interview wasn’t scored was included; with 759 Mr. Culver responding that it didn’t provide a separate score for the interview, but 760 allowed the interview panel to tweak some scores based on the answers of 761 vendors during the interview. Member Cihacek opined that it looked like two 762 different scores to him and suggested removing it entirely or somehow noting that 763 an outcome of the interviews may result in scoring being adjusted; allowing 764 vendors to clarify or modify their proposals. 765 766 Member Seigler proposed that the price be weighted at 50% rather than 40%, 767 opining that it was at least as important if not more so than the other components. 768 769 Mr. Culver recognized Member Seigler’s perspective and advised that he would 770 recommend it to the City Council. As with all other Best Value Processes to-date, 771 Mr. Culver noted that 40% was the typical weighting for price, remaining the 772 highest factor, but less than half. Mr. Culver clarified that the fear was if the price 773 was weighted at half or more of the criteria, other categories would have even less 774 weight in this optional bidding process and not recognize the value added of a 775 particular contractor beyond that price. 776 777 Regarding whether the PWETC or a member of the public should be involved in 778 the panel process, Member Wozniak admitted he was torn. While considering 779 that city policies were in place guiding the process and precedents as well in 780 place, Member Wozniak admitted he was compelled by Member Cihacek’s 781 suggestion that it would engage a public perspective in the decision-making 782 process. 783 784 Member Cihacek noted that even as a non-voting member of the panel, it would 785 allow their input and serve as an education piece for the public as well as enhance 786 transparency. Whether as a formal or non-formal vote, Member Cihacek stated 787 that he was happy with staff or the City Council further evaluating that option. 788 789 Member Seigler spoke in support of the PWETC suggested that a better option 790 would be for the full PWETC to be involved through every part of the review 791 process to serve transparency purposes. 792 793 Member Wozniak noted that the PWETC would eventually be evaluating and 794 making a recommendation on the best proposal. 795 796 Chair Stenlund asked how the PWETC would have accountability in order to ask 797 good questions, through documentation received from staff; or transparency in 798 that interview discussion. Chair Stenlund opined that it was important for the 799 PWETC to understand the thought and scoring process, having any deeper 800 conversation on the scoring outcome provided an added and dramatic complexity 801 to the process. 802 803

of 20

Member Cihacek opined that his concern was that in not having that piece of the 804 information and process, it wasn’t allowing him to do his job of engagement and 805 information processing as part of his decision-making on the PEWTC and 806 subsequent recommendation to the City Council. 807 808 Chair Stenlund noted that it was up to the PWETC majority. 809 810 Member Cihacek suggested a subcommittee of the PWETC review the proposals. 811 812 If the majority decided to pursue this option, Chair Stenlund advised that he 813 would support the full PWETC reviewing the proposals versus a subcommittee. 814 815 Members Thurnau, Seigler and Heimerl agreed that if the PWETC was to be 816 involved in reviewing the proposals that it be done by the entire PWETC as a full 817 commission. 818 819 Member Cihacek reiterated that he was happy to let the City Council make a 820 determination as to whether or not the PWETC should be involved or if it should 821 be left at the discretion of staff. Member Cihacek opined that the PWETC didn’t 822 need to make that decision, but his interest was in presenting the argument to the 823 City Council, and let the public and City Council speak to it; with staff advising 824 the commission of the City Council’s subsequent decision. 825 826 Member Seigler opined that staff should perform the review; reiterating that he 827 didn’t want to be involved as a group or individually; and agreed that staff should 828 be left alone to do their job. 829 830

Motion 831 Member Cihacek moved, Member Wozniak seconded, recommending to the City Council 832 that they accept the RFP as revised. 833 834 Ayes: 6 835 Nays: 0 836 Motion carried. 837 838 7. Review March 2016 Meeting 839

Mr. Culver advised that the Lake Owasso private drive storm sewer project 840 was an item the PWETC needed to address next month, with the potential for 841 a possible assessment and recommendation of the PWETC to the City Council 842 accordingly. 843

Community Solar (tentatively scheduled) 844 845 However, Mr. Culver suggested a field trip in honor of Chair Stenlund’s last meeting, 846 including a tour of the Upper Villa Re-Use System and Corpus Christi Basin, and if time 847 allowed, possibly another stormwater-related project: the St. Croix Lift Station 848 Rehabilitation. 849

of 20

850 Mr. Culver suggested the PWETC meet in the Council Chambers to address immediate 851 business concerns; and then proceed with the tour. In order to accommodate the tour, Mr. 852 Culver suggested meeting earlier than the regular 6:30 p.m. meeting time. 853 854 Motion 855 Member Cihacek moved, Member Thurnau seconded, moving the March 22, 2016 856 meeting to 5:30 p.m.; and directing staff to meet applicable notice requirements 857 accordingly. 858 859 Ayes: 6 860 Nays: 0 861 Motion carried. 862 863 8. Adjourn 864 Member Cihacek moved, Member Heimerl seconded, adjournment of the meeting at 865 approximately 9:00 p.m. 866 867 Ayes: 6 868 Nays: 0 869 Motion carried. 870


Agenda Item

Date: March 22, 2016 Item No: 4 Item Description: Communication Items

Project updates: Lift Station Replacements

On March 16, the lift station was put into operation. Staff was trained on the new pumps and controls and the system was tested, including the new backup generator.

Final site work will be finished in May Twin Lakes Parkway

Extension of Twin Lakes Parkway from Prior Ave to Fairview Ave. Major road work will begin in spring of 2016.

35W & Cleveland Interchange Improved intersection improvements at 35W and Cleveland Avenue. Major work will begin the Spring of 2016

Capital Region – Upper Villa Reuse and Infiltration Project Installation of an underground system on Upper Villa Park behind the B-Dale

Club. All underground work installing the system has been completed. Final work will begin to take place starting March 28 and should be

completed by April 29. 2016 Sewer Lining Project

The contractor, Insituform, began sewer cleaning and televising on March 7 Sewer lining will begin on April 4.

Metro Transit A Line BRT Project:

Construction has started on the stations along Snelling Ave at County Road B and Larpenteur (in Falcon Heights). A kick-off event for the start of BRT service has been scheduled for Saturday, June 11th.

Transit Shelter Update

The transit shelters maintained under the now expired franchise agreement with OutFront Media have all been removed.

MnDot Project Update

Attached is a Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDot) presentation on MnDot projects in Ramsey County that was presented to the City Council on Monday March 14.

Major Maintenance Activities: Continued tree trimming. Began street sweeping. Began spray patching potholes as weather allows. Continued sign replacement Performed inlet/outlet inspections of storm sewer Hauled watermain break material Some staff participated in “Shade Tree” class Continue working on meter repairs. Only 70 meters remain to be upgraded to new meter

and radio. Repaired water valve at County Rd B and Fry St. Repaired five water main breaks Worked with contractor and consultant at St. Croix Lift Station project to get training and

make system operational. Began 2016 flushing dead end sewer mains. Worked with facilities contractor to get bids on carpet and window cleaning Staff attended “Work Zone Traffic Safety” seminar Collected bacteriological samples

Attachments: A: 2016 Project Map B: MnDot Project Presentation

Lake Josephine

Park

Lake

ParkMcCarrons

Ramsey CountyOpen Space

(Ramsey County)

(Ramsey County)

Lake

Joseph

ineBe

ach Pa

rk

Park

LakeLangton

SandcastlePark

Lake

Park

Oasis

Central

Park

Acorn

ParkCentral

Park

Central Park

Park

Villa

Park

PocahontasPark

Park

Tamarack

Park

Reservoir Woods

Reservoir Woods

Rosebrook

Langton

Park

Park

AutumnGrovePark

ParkCottontail

VeteransPark

HowardJohnson

Park

Willow Pond

CedarholmGolf Course

Everg

reen

Park

KellerMayflower

Park

LexingtonPark

BruceRussellPark

PioneerPark

ConcordiaPark

MaterionPark

CentralPark North

OwassoBallfields

ValleyPark

OwassoHillsPark

LadyslipperPark

MapleviewPark

WoodhillPark

ApplewoodPark

ApplewoodOverlook

MemorialPark

LakeJosephine

Lake

Owasso

McCarronsLake

LakeBennett

PondWillow

ZimmermanLake

Oasis Pond

LakeJohanna

Lake

Lang

ton

BRENNER

STLY

DIA

AVE

LYDI

ACT

PATT

ON

RD

HIGH

CRES

TRD

MILLWOODST

BRENNERCT

LONG

LAKE

RD

STANBRIDGEST

MANSONST

MAPLELN

OLD

HIGHWAY 8

TROSE

TH

RD

COUN

TY H

IGHWAY

88

COUNTY ROAD D

RDPA

RTRI

DGE

ROAD C2 CENT

REPO

INTE

DR

AVE

INTERSTATE 35W

ROAD C

LONG

LAKE

RD

CLEV

ELAN

D

COUNTY

COUNTYPATT

ONRD

COUNTY ROAD D

WILD

ERST

MOUN

TRD

RIDG

E

EVEL

YNST

BRENNER AVE

PRIO

RCI

R STAR

THUR

DR

AVE

MILD

RED

ST

SHOREWOOD

AVEBRENNER

LYDIA

ARTH

UR PL

MILD

RED

DR STANBRIDGE

MILLWOOD

MAPLE

STWH

EELE

R

WHEE

LER SHORE

CURVWOOD

LN

LN

STAL

DINE

AVE

AVE

AVE

L INCOLN DR

RD C2

COUNTY

AVE

COUNTY RD C2 RD C2COUNTY

CENTENNIALDR

DRTERRACE

LINCO

LNDR

SNEL

LING

FAIR

VIEW

STAR

THUR

ROAD C

RD C2COUNTY

PRIO

RAV

E

COUNTY

HIGHWAY 51)

(STAT

EAS

BURY

RIDGEWOOD

ST

RD

GLEN HILLRD

AVE

AVE

WOODLYNN

CLARMAR

BRENNER AVE

ST

ST ST

ST

AVE

DR

AVELYDIA

ASBU

RY

ARON

A

SIMPS

ON

PASC

AL

AVEWOODMILL

STST

ALBE

RTAL

BERT

SHEL

DON ST

JOSEPHINE

E SN

ELLIN

G

COUNTY RD C2

RD

AVE

MERR

ILL

ST

BELAIRCIR

STFERN

WOO

D LEXIN

GTON

RD C2DR

DRTERRACE

ROAD C

TERRACEDR

AVE

DR

ST STSTST

GRIG

GSST

C IVI C

CEN T

ERDR

LEXINGTON

HAML

INE

AVEJUDITH

RDRAMBLER

PRIMROSE

CURV

TALISMAN CURV

SHELDONST

JUDITH

WOODHILL

HURO

N

FERN

MERR

ILLDELL

WOOD

WOOD

COUNTY

E SNELLING

DR

ST

AVEWHEATON

HEINEL

DRCIR

HEINEL

DR

TERRACE

STDA

LE

ST.ALBANSST

IONA

LN

HEINELS O

WASSO

ROAD C

AVE

STCH

URCH

ILL

OXFO

RDST

AGLE

NAV

E

AVE

LAKE

VIEWAVE

JUDITH

WOODHILL

COUNTY

COUNTY

ST

DR

KENT

BLVD

SANDY HOOK

DR

RD

SANDY HOOKDR

LITTLE BAY

TURNSTONE

CT (Private)

S OW

ASSO

BLVD

LYNN AVEWOOD-

HIGH

POINTE CURV

OWAS

SO

HILLSDR

NHILLSCOURTE

WHILLSVIEW HILLSVIEW

E

ST

MARI

ONST

GALT

IER

STMA

TILD

AST

MAPLE LNRD C2

AVE

DRLN

IONA

CIR

IRENECIR

RAMBLERCT

TERRACE DR

JUDITH AVE

CENTENNIAL DR

WEST

ERN

AVE

ROAD C

AVE

VIRGI

NIA

STFA

RRIN

GTON

STMA

TILDA

STGA

LTIE

R

STMA

RION

STWO

ODBR

IDGE

OAKCREST AVE LNOAKCREST

BROO

KSCI

R

ROSE PL

COHA

NSEY

CIR

AVE

AVE

MATIL

DA STGA

LTIE

RST

RD B2

ST

WEWERS

RD

CIR

GALT

IER

STMA

RION ST

WOOD

BRID

GE

ST

STATE HIGHWAY 36

WEST

ERN

AVE

AVETOP

HILL

CIR

DR

SOUTHHILL

ST

SANDHURST

RICE

AVE

HAND

AVE

AUER

BACH

MATIL

DA

DR

CENTENNIAL

PASC

AL

PASC

ALST

ST

COUNTY

COUNTY ROAD D

CHUR

CHILL

CHAT

SWOR

TH

ST ST

WOODLYNN

BRENNER

AVELYDIA

MILLWOOD

STOXFO

RD

LYDIA DR

DR

LYDI

A

VICTO

RIA

AVE

AVE

AVE

STMILT

ON

ST

BRENNER

AVE

MILLW

OOD

AVE

STAV

ON

W OW

ASSO

BLVD

RD C2

ORCHARD LN

CIRSTANBRIDGE

HIGH-COURTE

MAPLE LANECT

COUNTY

FARR

INGT

ON

MILLWOODST

WEST

ERN

AVE

BLVDS OWASSO

WOODLYNN AVE

STWO

ODBR

IDGE

NORT

HVIEW

ST

RICE

LNIONA

STRI

CE

CTTERR ACE

HILLSC OURTE S

COUNTY

WOODHILL

IONA

MACK

UBIN

ST

KENT ST

STMACK

UBIN

STDA

LE

AVE

AVESEXTANT

COUNTY

AVEST

IREN

EST

IREN

EST

SEXTANTAVE

CTIRENE

CIR

VIRGI

NIA CIR

FARR

INGT

ON

MATIL

DA

BROOKS

TRANSIT

AVE

ST

ROAD B ST

MINNESOTA

LOVELLLOVELL

AVE

GRAND-VIEW

COHA

NSEY

SANDHURST

DR BLVD

COUNTY

VICTO

RIA

SEXTANTAVETRANSIT

AVE

BROOKS

TRANSIT

ST

BLVD

ST

ALBE

MARL

EST

SKILLMANAVE

WOOD

BRID

GEST

MCCARRON ST

AVE

WEST

ERN

AVE

FARR

INGT

ONST

AVEROMA

AVEDIONNE

GALT

IER

GRANDVIEW AVE

MINNESOTA AVE

WOODBRIDGE ST

CIR

CAPITOL MARI

ON

VIEW VIEW

CAPIT

OL VIEW

CAPITOL

CIR ST

DR

BOSSARD

STIR

ENE

AVE

OXFO

RD

CHUR

CHILL

AGLE

N

ST ST ST ST

COUNTY

ROSE

OAKCREST

FISKST GR

OTTO

ST

LOVELL LN N

AVE

RD B2

PL

AVE STALAD

DIN

CTRO

SET O

WN

DROVERLOOK

ST

STTRANSIT

AVE

PLNA

NCY

AVE

VICTO

RIA

LOVELL

GRANDVIEW

COPE GROT ST

.AL

BANS

TO

ST

ST

ST

NANC

Y PL

AVESANDHURSTMI

LTON

AVE

AVE

AVE

SANDHURST DR

ROAD B

ST

GROT

TOST

SHERRENST

OXFO

RD

GRANDVIEW

ST

ST

LOVELL

LOVELL LN S

LOVELL LN(Private)

SHERREN

COUNTY

AVE

CURV

SNELLING

ROSE PL

PASC

ALST

ST

SIMPSON

AVEBROOKS

AVETRANSIT

STARO

NA

SEXTANTAVE

AVESEXTANT

STHO

LTON

STAL

BERT

STSH

ELDO

N

COUNTY

OAKCREST

ROSE PL

WILLOWCIR

DELL

W OOD

CIRCHRISTY

RD B2

AVE

WILLOWBROOKS AVE

TRANSIT AVE

SEXTANT AVE

LN

PLROSE

STDU

NLAP

ST

ST

FERN

WOOD

DUNL

APST

AVE

HAML

INE

COLONIAL DR(Private)

ST

ALBE

RTST

DRSANDHURST

AVE

STDE

LLWO

ODDE

LLWO

ODST

MERR

ILLST

ROAD B

STFE

RNW

OOD

SHERRENST

RDLAURIE

DRSANDHURST

LEXIN

GTON

AVE

AVE

COMMERCE

COUNTY

STPA

SCAL

OAKCREST AVE

AVE ROSE

ROSE

AVEELDRIDGE

STST

SAMU

EL(P

rivate

)

LNS RIDGEWOOD

N RIDGEWOOD LN

LNMID OAKS

MID

OAKS

RD

AVE

BURKE

ELDRIDGE

BELMONT

RYAN

SHRYER

SKILLMAN

PL

OAKCREST

BEAC

ONST WH

EELE

RAV

E STHE

RSCH

EL

RD B2

COUNTY

CLEVELAND

C LE VE LA N DAVE

AVE

COUNTY

AVE

AVEPL

AVE

STAL

DINE

STCH

ARLO

TTE

STFR

Y

SNEL

LING

RD B2

PERIMETER

DR

FAIR

VIEW

N GLUEK LN

S GLUEK LN

LN

ROAD B

AVE

HERS

CHEL

AVE

RDMI

DLOT

HIAN

RDHADD

INGT

ONRDLAURIE

N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DRS HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR

PRIO

R

FERR

I SFE

RRIS

LN

GLUEK

COUNTY

W

WALN

UTST ROSE

PL

TERMINAL

ST

LONG

LAKE

RD

RD

RDTERMINAL

ST

ST. C

ROIX

ST. CROIX

ST

ST

STST

. STE

PHEN

STFU

LHAM

LAURIE RD

MARION

RD

ACOR

NRD

N HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR

S HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE DR

WALNUT

INTERSTATE

35W

EUST

ISST

(Private)

FULH

AM

COUNTY FAIRWAYS

LN

FULH

AMSTLA

KE

ST

MIDL

AND

HILL

SRD

ROAD B

N ROSEWOOD LN

LNS ROSEWOODAVESKILLMAN

AVEDRAPER

HYTH

EDR

CIR

ST

ROSELAWN AVE

CLEV

ELAN

DAV

E

AVE

PRIO

R

SHARONDALEAVE

AVEELDRIDGE

WILD

ER ST

ELDRIDGEAVE

SKILLMANAVE

SKILLMANAVE

EVER

GREE

N CT

AVE

AVE

SHRYER

RYAN

LORENRD

AUTU

MN PL

ROSELAWN

TATU

MST

DRDRAPER

FAIR

VIEW

BEAC

ON

HERS

CHEL

WHEE

LER

ST

STST

SHRYER

RYAN

ELDRIDGE

SKILLMAN

ALDI

NEST

AVE

AVE

SNEL

LING

AVE

AVEFRY

MIDL

OTHI

ANRD

ROSELAWN

AVE

AVE

AVE

LN

AVE

AVE

AVE

ASBU

RYST

STARON

AST

SIMPS

ONST

PASC

ALSHRYER

ELDRIDGE

BURKE

RYAN

DRAPERROSELAWN

DELL

WOOD

AVE

AVE

HAML

INE

LNSKILLMAN

BELMONT

AVE ST

DELL

WOOD

AVE

AVE

AVE

AVE

AVE

AVEAVE

WOOD

FERN

ST

AVE

LINDY

KARYLPL

LEXIN

GTON

AVE

AVE

HAML

INE

LARPENTEUR

GARDEN AVE

LEXIN

GTON

AUTUMN ST

SUMMER ST

RUGGLES STSTRUGGLESAV

E

HURO

N

MERR

ILL

DELL

WOOD AVE

AVEROMAFE

RNW

OOD

STDU

NLAP

LINDY

AVE

DIONNEST

AVE

AVE

BURKE

PARKER

SHRYER AVE

RYANAVE

AVERYAN

AVEDRAPER

HARRIETLN (Private)

OXFO

RD ST STCH

ATSW

ORTH

VICTO

RIA

AVEROSELAWN

PARKER AVE

AVON

ALAM

EDA

ST

ST AVEELDRIDG E

LNBELMONT

AVESKILLMAN

AVESHRYER

DALE

VICTO

RIA

AVE

RDST

ALAM

EDA

STUBER

ROMA

STST

. ALB

ANS

AVE

RIDGEEMERALD

CTPINEVIEW

DR

ALTA VISTA CT

DALE

DALE

ST

LARPENTEUR

ST

RUGGLESST

ROMA AVE

DIONNE ST

CHAT

SWOR

THSTSTST

OXFO

RD

AGLE

N

C OHA

NSEY

SHRYER AVE

AVEMOUNDSVIEW

AVERYANAVERYAN

AVEELDRIDGE

CRESCENTLNCOHANSEY

BLVD

STIRENE

WEST

ERN

HAND

AVE

AVE

FARR

INGT

ON

BURKE

BLVD

N MCCARRONS

DR

N MCCARRONS

ELMER

STGI

ES-

MANN

AVE

STWI

LLIA

M

STMA

RION

CTAL

BEMA

RLE

WILL

IAM

ST

BLVD

CTWOOD

BRID

GE

MARI

ONST

RICE

PLWA

GENE

R

SHADYAVE BEACH

CENTERSTHILLTOP AVE

GLENWOODAVE

WAGNER ST

AVE

KENT

ST

AVEROSELAWN BAYVIEW

AVON

ST

LONGLAKE

RD

ROSEGATE

ROSEGATE

DR

STAT

E HIG

HWAY

280

ROSE

-DA

LE WEST

-WO

OD

LYDIAAVE

W SN

ELLIN

GDR

W SN

ELLIN

GDR

ROSE VISTACT

(Private)

FERNWOODCT

FERN

-WO

ODST

DUNLAPST

CHAT

S-WO

RTH

CHAT

S-WO

RTH

FAR R

INGT

ONCT

COHA

N-SE

Y CIR

AVE

WOOD

-BR

IDGE

S HIGHWAY 36SERVICE DR

FARR

ING-

TON

KENT ST

CHAN

DLER

AVE

(Private)

(Private)

SAND-HURSTCIR

(Private)

(Private)

LN(P

rivate

)

MIDL

AND

VIEW

CT

STAR

ONA CT

APPLEWOOD

TERRACEDR

NATU

REVIE

W C

T(P

rivate

)

E SNELLING SVC DR

CLEVELAND SERVI CEDR

S COUNTY C SERVICE DR

CHAT

S-WO

RTH CT

WOODRUFF

S MCCARRONSRESERVOIRWOODS CIR

AMERICAN ST

MOUN

T RID

GE R

D

IONA LN

TWIN LAKES

LANGTON LAKE

MAPLE LN DUNLAPST

DUNLAPCIR

(Priv

ate)

MILT

ONCT

ASB URYST

PKWY

DR

Prepared by:Engineering Department

Data Sources and Contacts:* Ramsey County GIS Base Map (3/7/16)* City of Roseville Engineering DepartmentFor further information regarding the contents of this map contact:City of Roseville, Engineering Department,2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN

DISCLAIMER:This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is tobe used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to preparethis map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purposerequiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepanciesare found please contact 651-792-7075. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees todefend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties whicharise out of the user's access or use of data provided.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 Feet

Proposed 2016 Projects

March 15, 2016mapdoc: Proposed2016_AllProjectsLabels.mxd

map: Proposed2016_AllProjectsLabels.pdf

State- Lexington Ave. Bridge

Co

un

ty M

ill &

Ove

rla

y

Met Council Sanitary Lining

Met Council Sanitary Lining/Replacement

New Signal

35W & ClevelandInterchange

New Signal

Twin Lake PkwyEast Collector

Twin Lakes PkwyConstruction

B-DaleParking

Lot

Ballfields

Larpenteur Sidewalk Construction

St. AlbansCul-de-sac

EldridgeBackyards

Byerly's Pond

Oasis Pond

Victoria & Central Park

Heinel Direct Discharge

OwassoPrivate Drive

Add CB

Valley Park

TH 280State Project

35WState Project

Cleveland Sanitary

Lift Station

City PMP Projects

State & County Projects

Twin Lakes Area Projects

Pathway and Parking Lot Projects

City Sanitary Lining

Met Council Sanitary Lining/Replacement

Storm Projects

Watermain Projects

Lift Station

Mark Lindeberg, North Area Engineer Minnesota Department of Transportation

March 14, 2016

Attachment B

Add a general purpose lane between Rice Street & Lexington Avenue Reconstruct existing Pavement www.enhance694.com

Construction Cost of $35M

http://www.enhance694.com/

4

Repaint bridges Construction cost: $1.3M

Replace bridge Construction Cost $3.7M

Repave I-35W between Hwy 36 and I-694

Construction Cost: $2.5M

10

Replace bridges over Lexington Ave. Reconstruct ramps at Lexington Ave. and WB ramps at

Hamline Ave. Resurface Hwy 36 between Hamline Ave. and Victoria St. Estimated cost: $11 M

11

Resurface road, repair ramps

NB Hwy 280 to I-35W/Hwy 36

Estimated cost: $3.3M

12

Repair, resurface or replace

bridge decks Construction Cost: $4.2M

13

Rebuild pedestrian bridges over I-94 west of downtown St. Paul


14

Resurface road, repair bridges, construct auxiliary lane, noise wall

Estimated cost: $48M

15

Repair four bridges over I-35E, south of downtown St. Paul


Hwy 36 to Lexington Ave. Add a lane in each

direction Noise walls will be

evaluated 2019 construction

project ($210 million)

17

Develop a project on I-35W between Hwy 36 and Lexington Ave that: Reduces congestion and improves safety Provides a reliable congestion-free trip Sustainable for 20 to 30 years Utilize existing R/W

18

Only short-term benefits Improvements on I-694 both east and

west deliver more traffic to I-35W Hwy 10 commons area will become

primary bottleneck during both A.M. and P.M. peak periods

Congestion increases south of I-694 due to increased throughput

20

I-35W North Corridor Managed Lane EA and Pre-Design

Bridge over BNSF Railroad and Rosegate – High Abutment Alternative

Noise Walls at CR 96 Interchange 35

Noise Walls at CR 96 Interchange 36

mndot.gov/metro/projects/i35wroseville/

www.mnpass.org

Jerome Adams Bobbie Dahlke MnDOT Project Manager MnPASS [email protected] [email protected] (651) 234-7611 (651) 234-7088

37

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/i35wroseville/index.html

http://www.mnpass.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.511mn.org

Current Construction projects: www.mndot.gov

Mark Lindeberg North Area Engineer [email protected] 651-234-7722

38

http://www.511mn.org/

http://www.mndot.gov/

mailto:[email protected]?subject=I-694%20North%20Central

mailto:[email protected]?subject=I-694%20North%20Central


Agenda Item

Date: March 22, 2016 Item No: 5 Item Description: South Lake Owasso Private Drive Storm Sewer Improvements

Background: City staff has been working with residents along South Lake Owasso Boulevard for the past two years to address drainage concerns with the road. Currently this section of road east of Owasso Boulevard is a private road with a gravel surface. The road is in an easement from the railroad. Currently the drainage on the road is minimal and the storm water discharges into Lake Owasso with no treatment. Staff has met with residents on the road on two occasions to discuss improvements to the road that could be done. Staff held a neighborhood meeting with residents on January 19, 2016 to discuss the project and potential costs to adjacent property owners. The current proposal is to construct a permeable paver system (PaveDrain) with an angular stone subgrade to provide stormwater treatment and storage capacity. The system would have an underdrain that would be discharged to the lake. Attached is a draft plan showing the impacts of the project as well as a photo of the PaveDrain system. Recommended Action: Receive a presentation on the South Lake Owasso Private Drive Project and consider support for the project. Attachments: A: Project Area Map B: Draft Plan Sheet C: PaveDrain Photo

LadyslipperPark

3058

3062

3066

3076

3084

3090

3108

3085

30773071

3063

30593050

3060

3068

3078

3086

341337

333329 317 313

345349353355361

363365375 367381385

312

305130573055

30513049

420

304530433039303730333031

389391393397405411

421423

433 3047

3040

SOUTH OWASSO BLVD

WOODLYNN AVE

SOUT

HOW

ASSO

BLVD

(Private)

FARR

INGT

ONCT




0 50 100 150 200 Feet

ST-14-21 South Lake Owasso Drainage Improvement ProjectJanuary 14, 2016

mapdoc: SouthLakeOwassoDrainageNotification.mxdmap: SouthLakeOwassoDrainageNotification.pdf

Notification Area

CITY OF SHOREVIEW

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

Attachment A

5

+

0

8

.4

1

353

349

345

341

337

333

329

317

313

CB-1

CO-3

CO-2

CO-1

CO-2

OUTLET

EXISTING 12" VCP

SANITARY SEWER

REMOVE

EXISTING TREE

PROTECT EXISTING

POWER POLE

5'

INSTALL 9500 SF OF

PAVE DRAIN SYSTEM.

SEE DETAIL ON SHEET ??

EXISTING 8" VCP

SANITARY SEWER

EXISTING 6" CIP

WATER MAIN

885

890

900

89

8.1

1

89

8.1

89

9.2

1

89

9.2

1+00

RIM 898.57

INV 898.00 (NE)

CO-3

100'-6" HDPE @ 2.20%

RIM 897.38

INV 893.27 (E)

INV 895.79 (SW)

INV 891.00 (N)

CB-1

89

6.8

6

89

6.9

89

6.5

6

89

6.6

1+00

89

5.7

1

89

5.7

89

5.3

1

89

5.3

2+00

89

5.2

1

89

5.2

89

4.8

0

89

4.8

3+00

89

4.7

8

89

4.8

89

4.7

8

89

4.8

4+00

89

3.4

7

89

3.5

RIM 893.84

INV 893.27 (W)

CO-2

134'-6" HDPE @ 0.00%

280'-6" HDPE @ 0.00%

RIM 893.84

INV 893.27 (E)

INV 893.27 (W)

CO-1

INV 895.79 (SW)

INV 891.00 (N)

INV 895.79 (SW)

INV 891.00 (N)

INV 895.79 (SW)

INV 891.00 (N)

RIM 893.84

INV 893.27 (E)

INV 893.27 (W)

CO-1

EXISTING 8" VCP

SANITARY SEWER

EXISTING 12" VCP

SANITARY SEWER

EXISTING 6" CIP

WATER MAIN

89

1.4

9

89

1.5

89

5.9

6

89

6.0

1+00

RIM 887.37

INV 886.80 (S)

OUTLET

46'-6" HDPE @ 0.80%

RIM 891.18

INV 888.60 (S)

INV 887.17 (N)

CB-2

80'-6" HDPE @ 3.00%

RIM 897.38

INV 893.27 (E)

INV 895.79 (SW)

INV 891.00 (N)

CB-1

SHEET NO.

FIE

LD

B

OO

K:

Plot D

ate: 12/03/2015

Draw

ing nam

e: \\m

etro-inet\roseville\P

ublicW

orks\C

AD

\P

rojects\2014\14-21_S

o_O

wasso_D

rainage Im

provem

ents\D

raw

ings\P

rivateP

_C

601.dw

g

Xrefs:, X

-S

IT

E-E

XS

T, R

SV

L22-bdr, X

-S

IT

E-N

EW

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N O

F R

EV

IS

IO

NS

DA

TE

NO

.B

Y

LIC

. N

O.

DA

TE

CH

EC

KE

D

DE

SIG

NE

DD

RA

WN

CIT

Y P

RO

J. N

O.

SA

P N

O.

SHEET NO. OF SHEETS

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G D

EP

AR

TM

EN

T

I H

ER

EB

Y C

ER

TIF

Y T

HA

T T

HIS

P

LA

N W

AS

P

RE

PA

RE

D

BY

M

E O

R U

ND

ER

M

Y D

IR

EC

T S

UP

ER

VIS

IO

N A

ND

T

HA

T

I A

M A

D

UL

Y L

IC

EN

SE

D

UN

DE

R T

HE

L

AW

S O

F T

HE

S

TA

TE

O

F M

IN

NE

SO

TA

.

PR

OJE

CT

N

AM

E

PR

OJE

CT

N

AM

E 2

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

L E

NG

IN

EE

R

CIT

Y E

NG

IN

EE

R

42

00

2D

AT

E

1

885

875

910

905

900

895

890

SOUTH OWASSO PRIVATE DRIVE

880

885

875

910

905

900

895

890

880

SCALE IN FEET

0 15 30 60

Attachment B

Attachment C


Agenda Item

Date: March 22, 2016 Item No: 6 Item Description: Review of PWET Commission Tour Background: The PWET Commission will adjourn to a tour of a few sites around the City including:

Upper Villa Reuse System Water Distribution Booster Station Corpus Christi Stormwater BMP St. Croix Stormwater Lift Station

A map of these locations is attached. Also attached are fact sheets about each tour location. Recommended Action: Participate in tour of the above mentioned locations. Attachments: A: Map of Tour B: Fact Sheets

Lake Josephine

Park

Lake

ParkMcCarrons

Ramsey County

Open Space

(Ramsey County)

(Ramsey County)

Lake

Josep

hine

Beach

Park

Park

Lake

Langton

SandcastlePark

Lake

Park

Oasis

Central

Park

Acorn

ParkCentral

Park

Central Park

Park

Villa

Park

Pocahontas

Park

Park

Tamarack

Park

Reservoir Woods

Reservoir Woods

Rosebrook

Langton

Park

Park

AutumnGrove

Park

Park

Cottontail

VeteransPark

HowardJohnson

Park

Willow Pond

CedarholmGolf Course

Ever

gree

nPa

rk

KellerMayflower

Park

LexingtonPark

BruceRussell

Park

PioneerPark

ConcordiaPark

MaterionPark

CentralPark North

OwassoBallfields

ValleyPark

OwassoHillsPark

LadyslipperPark

MapleviewPark

WoodhillPark

ApplewoodPark

ApplewoodOverlook

MemorialPark

Lake

Josephine

Lake

Owasso

McCarronsLake

LakeBennett

PondWillow

Zimmerman

Lake

Oasis Pond

LakeJohanna

Lake

Lang

ton

BRENNER

STLY

DIA

AVE

LYDI

A CTPA

TTON

RD

HIGH

CRES

TRD

MILLWOODST

BRENNER

CT

LONG

LAKE

RD

STANBRIDGE

ST

MANSON ST

MAPLE

LN

OLD

HIGHWAY 8

TROSETH

RD

COUN

TY H

IGHWAY

88

COUNTY ROAD D

RDPA

RTRI

DGE

ROAD C2 CENT

RE

POIN

TE

DR

AVE

INTERSTATE 35W

ROAD C

LONG

LAKE

RD

CLEV

ELAN

D

COUNTY

COUNTY

PATT

ONRD

COUNTY ROAD D

WILD

ERST

MOUN

TRD

RIDG

E

EVEL

YNST

BRENNER AVE

PRIO

R CIR ST

ARTH

UR

DR

AVE

MILD

RED

ST

SHOR EW

OODAVEBRENNER

LYDIA

ARTH

URPL

MILD

RED

DR

STANBRIDGE

MILLWOOD

MAPLE

STW

HEEL

ER

WHE

ELER

SHORE

CURV

WOOD

LN

LN

STAL

DINE

AVE

AVE

AVE

L INCOLNDR

RD C2

COUNTY

AVE

COUNTY RD C2 RD C2COUNTY

CENTENNIALDR

DRTERRACE

LINCO

LNDR

SNEL

LING

FAIR

VIEW

STAR

THUR

ROAD C

RD C2COUNTY

PRIO

RAV

E

COUNTY

HIGHWAY 51)

(STAT

EAS

BURY

RIDGEWOOD

ST

RD

GLEN HILLRD

AVE

AVE

WOODLYNN

CLARMAR

BRENNER AVE

ST

ST ST

ST

AVE

DR

AVELYDIA

ASBU

RY

ARON

A

SIMP

SON

PASC

AL

AVEWOODMILL

ST

ST

ALBE

RT

ALBE

RT

SHEL

DON

ST

JOSEPHINE

E S

NELL

ING

COUNTY RD C2

RD

AVE

MERR

ILL

ST

BELAIR

CIR

STFERN

WOO

D

LEXI

NGTO

N

RD C2

DR

DRTERRACE

ROAD C

TERRACE

DR

AVE

DR

ST STSTST

GRIG

GSST

CIV I

CC E

NTE R

DR

LEXINGTON

HAML

INE

AVEJUDITH

RDRAMBLER

PRIMROSE

CURV

TALISMAN CUR V

SHELDONST

JUDITH

WOODHILL

HURO

N

FERN

MERR

ILLDELL

WOO

D

WOO

D

COUNTY

E SNELLING

DR

ST

AVEWHEATON

HEINEL

DRCIR

HEINEL

DR

TERRACE

STDA

LE

ST. ALBANSST

IONA

LN

HEINELS O

WASSO

ROAD C

AVE

STCH

URCH

ILL

OXFO

RDST

AGLE

NAV

E

AVE

LAKE

VIEW

AVEJUDITH

WOODHILL

COUNTY

COUNTY

ST

DR

KENT

BLVD

SANDY HOOK

DR

RD

SANDY HOOK

DR

LITTLE BAY

TURNSTONE

CT (Pr ivate)

S O

WAS

SOBL

VD

LYNN AVEWOOD-

HIG H

POINTE

CURV

OWAS

SO

HILLS

DR

NHILLSCOURTE

WHILLSVIEW HILLSVIEW

E

ST

MARI

ONST

GALT

IER

ST

MATI

LDA

ST

MAPLE LN

RD C2

AVE

DR

LN

IONA

CIR

IRENECIR

RAMBLER

CT

TERRACE DR

JUDITH AVE

CENTENNIAL DR

WES

TERN

AVE

ROAD C

AVE

VIRG

INIA

STFA

RRIN

GTON

STMA

TILD

A

STGA

LTIE

R

STMA

RION

STW

OODB

RIDG

E

OAKCREST AVE LN

OAKCREST

BROO

KSCI

R

ROSE PL

COHA

NSEY

CIR

AVE

AVE

MATI

LDA

STGA

LTIE

RST

RD B2

ST

WEW

ERS

RD

CIR

GALT

IER

ST

MARI

ON ST

WOO

DBRI

DGE

ST

STATE HIGHWAY 36

WES

TERN

AVE

AVETOP

HILL

CIR

DR

SOUTHHILL

ST

SANDHURST

RICE

AVE

HAND

AVE

AUER

BACH

MATI

LDA

DR

CENTENNIAL

PASC

AL

PASC

ALST

ST

COUNTY

COUNTY ROAD D

CHUR

CHILL

CHAT

SWOR

TH

ST ST

WOODLYNN

BRENNER

AVELYDIA

MILLWOOD

STOXFO

RD

LYDIA DR

DR

LYDI

A

VICT

ORIA

AVE

AVE

AVE

STMILT

ON

ST

BRENNER

AVE

MILL

WOOD

AVE

STAV

ON

W OWAS

SO

BLVD

RD C2

ORCHARD LN

CIRSTANBRIDGE

HIGH-

COURTE

MAPLE LANE

CT

COUNTY

FARR

INGT

ON

MILLWOODST

WES

TERN

AVE

BLVDS O WA SSO

WOODLYNN AVE

STW

OODB

RIDG

E

NORT

HVIE

WST

RICE

LNIONA

STRI

CE

CT

TERRA C E

HILLS CO UR TE S

COUNTY

WOODHILL

IONA

MACK

UBIN

ST

KENT

ST

STMACK

UBIN

STDA

LE

AVE

AVESEXTANT

COUNTY

AVEST

IREN

EST

IREN

EST

SEXTANTAVE

CT

IRENE

CIR

VIRG

INIA

CIR

FARR

INGT

ON

MATI

LDA

BROOKS

TRANSIT

AVE

ST

ROAD B ST

MINNESOTA

LOVELLLOVELL

AVE

GRAND-VIEW

COHA

NSEY

SANDHURST

DR BLVD

COUNTY

VICT

ORIA

SEXTANTAVETRANSIT

AVE

BROOKS

TRANSIT

ST

BLVD

ST

ALBE

MARL

EST

SKILLMANAVE

WOO

DBRI

DGE

ST

MCCARRON ST

AVE

WES

TERN

AVE

FARR

INGT

ONST

AVEROMA

AVE

DIONNE

GALT

IER

GRANDVIEW AVE

MINNESOTA AVE

WOOD BRID GE

ST

CIR

CAPITOL MARI

ON

VIEW VIEW

CAPI

TOL VIEW

CAPITOL

CIR ST

DR

BOSSARD

STIR

ENE

AVE

OXFO

RD

CHUR

CHILL

AGLE

N

ST

ST

ST ST

COUNTY

ROSE

OAKCREST

FISKST

GROT

TO

ST

LOVELL LN N

AVE

RD B2

PL

AVE

STALAD

DIN

CTRO

SETO

WN

DROVERLOOK

ST

ST

TRANSIT

AVE

PLNA

NCY

AVE

VICT

ORIA

LOVELL

GRANDVIEW

COPE GROT ST

.AL

BANS

TO

ST

ST

ST

NANC

Y

PL

AVESANDHURSTMI

LTON

AVE

AVE

AVE

SANDHURST DR

ROAD B

ST

GROT

TOST

SHERREN

ST

OXFO

RD

GRANDVIEW

ST

ST

LOVELL

LOVELL LN S

LOVELL LN(Private)

SHERREN

COUNTY

AVE

CURV

SNELLING

ROSE PL

PASC

ALST

ST

S IMPSON

AVEBROOKS

AVETRANSIT

ST

ARONA

SEXTANTAVE

AVESEXTANT

STHO

LTON

STAL

BERT

STSH

ELDO

N

COUNTY

OAKCREST

ROSE PL

WILLOW

CIR

DELL

WO O

D

CIR

CHRISTY

RD B2

AVE

WILLOW

BROOKS AVE

TRANSIT AVE

SEXTANT AVE

LN

PLROSE

ST

DUNL

AP

ST

ST

FERN

WOO

D

DUNL

APST

AVE

HAML

INE

COLONIAL DR

(Private)

ST

ALBE

RTST

DR

SANDHURST

AVE

ST

DELL

WOO

DDE

LLW

OOD

ST

MERR

ILLST

ROAD B

STFE

RNW

OOD

SHERRENST

RDLAURIE

DRSANDHURST

LEXI

NGTO

NAV

E

AVE COMMERCE

COUNTY

STPA

SCAL

OAKCRESTAVE

AVE ROSE

ROSE

AVEELDRIDGE

STST

SAMU

EL(P

rivat

e)

LNS RIDGEWOOD

N RIDGEWOOD LN

LNMID OAKS

MID

OAKS

RD

AVE

BURKE

ELDRIDGE

BELMONT

RYAN

SHRYER

SKILLMAN

PL

OAKCREST

BEAC

ON

ST WHE

ELER

AVE ST

HERS

CHEL

RD B2

COUNTY

CLEVELAND

CLE VELA NDA VE

AVE

COUNTY

AVE

AVEPL

AVE

STAL

DINE

STCH

ARLO

TTE

STFR

Y

SNEL

LING

RD B2

PERIMETER

DR

FAIR

VIEW

N GLUEK LN

S GLUEK LN

LN

ROAD B

AVE

HERS

CHEL

AVE

RD

MIDL

OTHI

AN

RDHADD

INGT

ON

RDLAURIE



PRIO

R

FERR

ISFE

RRIS

LN

GL UEK

COUNTY

W

WAL

NUT

ST

ROSEPL

TERMINAL

ST

LONG

LAKE

RD

RD

RDTERMINAL

ST

ST. C

ROIX

ST. CROIX

ST

ST

STST

. STE

PHEN

ST

FULH

AM

LAURIE RD

MA RIO N

RD

ACOR

NRD



WALNUT

INTERSTATE

35W

EUST

ISST

(Private)

FULH

AM

COUNTY FAIRWAYS

LN

FULH

AM

STLAKE

ST

MIDL

AND

HILL

SRD

ROAD B

N ROSEWOOD LN

LNS ROSEWOOD

AVE

SKILLMAN

AVEDRAPER

HYTH

E

DR

CIR

ST

ROSELAWN AVE

CLEV

ELAN

DAV

E

AVE

PRIO

R

SHARONDALE

AVE

AVEELDRIDGE

WILD

ER S

T

ELDRIDGE

AVE

SKILLMANAVE

SKILLMAN

AVE

EVER

GREE

N

CT

AVE

AVE

SHRYER

RYAN

LOREN

RD

AUTU

MN

PL

ROSELAWN

TATU

MST

DR

DRAPER

FAIR

VIEW

BEAC

ON

HERS

CHEL

WHE

ELER

ST

STST

SHRYER

RYAN

ELDRIDGE

SKILLMAN

ALDI

NEST

AVE

AVE

SNEL

LING

AVE

AVEFRY

MIDL

OTHI

ANRD

ROSELAWN

AVE

AVE

AVE

LN

AVE

AVE

AVE

ASBU

RYST

STARON

AST

SIMP

SON

STPA

SCAL SHRYER

ELDRIDGE

BURKE

RYAN

DRAPER

ROSELAWN

DELL

WOO

DAV

E

AVE

HAML

INE

LN

SKILLMAN

BELMONT

AVE

ST

DELL

WOO

D

AVE

AVE

AVE

AVE

AVE

AVE

AVE

WOO

DFE

RNST

AVE

LINDY

KARYL

PL

LEXI

NGTO

NAV

E

AVE

HAML

INE

LARPENTEUR

GARDEN AVE

LEXI

NGTO

N

AUTUMN ST

SUMMER ST

RUGGLES STSTRUGGLESAV

E

HURO

N

MERR

ILL

DELL

WOO

D AVE

AVEROMA

FERN

WOO

D

STDU

NLAP

LINDY

AVE

DIONNEST

AVE

AVE

BURKE

PARKER

SHRYER AVE

RYAN

AVE

AVERYAN

AVE

DRAPER

HARRIETLN (Pr ivate)

OXFO

RD

ST STCH

ATSW

ORTH

VICT

ORIA

AVEROSELAWN

PARKER AVE

AVON

ALAM

EDA

ST

ST AVEELDRIDGE

LN

BELMONT

AVESKILLMAN

AVESHRYER

DALE

VICT

ORIA

AVE

RD

ST

ALAM

EDA

STUBER

ROMA

ST

ST. A

LBAN

S

AVE

RIDGE

EMERALD

CT

PINEVIEW

DR

ALTA VISTA

CT

DALE

DALE

ST

LARPENTEUR

ST

RUGGLES

ST

ROMA AVE

DIONNE ST

CHAT

SWOR

THSTSTST

OXFO

RD

AGLE

N

COHA

NSEY

SHRYER AVE

AVEMOUNDSVIEW

AVERYAN

AVERYAN

AVEELDRIDGE

CRESCENT

LNCOHANSEY

BLVD

STIRENE

WES

TERN

HAND

AVE

AVE

FARR

INGT

ON

BURKE

BLVD

N MCCARRONS

DR

N MCCARRONS

ELMER

STGI

ES-

MANN

AVE

STW

ILLIA

M

STMA

RION

CT

ALBE

MARL

E

WILL

IAM

ST

BLVD

CTWOO

DBRI

DGE

MARI

ONST

RICE

PLW

AGEN

ER

SHADYAVE BEACH

CENTER

STHILLTOP AVE

GLENWOOD

AVE

WAGNER ST

AVE

KENT

ST

AVEROSELAWN BAYVIEW

AVON

ST

LONGLAKE

RD

ROSEGATE

ROSEGATE

DR

STAT

E HI

GHW

AY28

0

ROSE

-DA

LE

WES

T-W

OOD

LYDIAAVE

W S

NELL

ING

DRW

SNEL

LING

DR

ROSE VISTACT

(Private)

FERNWOODCT

FERN

-WO

ODST

DUNLAPST

CHAT

S-W

ORTH

CHAT

S-WO

RTH

FARR

INGT

ONCT

COHA

N-SE

Y CI

R

AVE

WOO

D-BR

IDGE

S HIGHWAY 36SERVICE DR

FARR

ING-

TON

KENT ST

CHAN

DLER

AVE

(Private)

(Private)

SAND-HURSTCIR

(Private)

(Private)

LN

(Priv

ate)

MIDL

AND

VIEW

CT

STAR

ONA

CTAPPLEWOOD

TERRACEDR

NATU

REVIE

W CT

(Priv

ate)

E SNELLING SVC DR

CLEVELANDS ER VIC E DR

S COUNTY C SERVICE DR

CHAT

S-W

ORTH CT

WOODRUFF

S MCCARRONSRESERVOIRWOODS CIR

AMERICAN ST

MOUN

T RI

DGE

RD

IONA LN

TWIN LAKES

LANGTON LAKE

MAPLE LN DUNLAPSTDUNLAPCIR

(Priv

ate)

MILT

ONCT

A SBU R YST

PKWY

DR




0 750 1500 2250 3000 Feet

Public Works Commission Tour

March 17, 2016mapdoc: PublicWorksTour_3_16.mxd

map: PublicWorksTour_3_16.pdf

St. Croix

Corpus Christi

BoosterStation

UpperVilla

Attachment A

Attachment B

CORPUS CHRISTI BIOFILTRATION BASINS

Project Cost: $96,000

RCWD Funding: $26,000

Roseville Funding: $70,000

The Corpus Christi Filtration Basins were installed in partnership with the RCWD, and the church. The goal of the project is to slow

the overland flow of water that drains into a catch basin, and help alleviate the Fairview Truck Storm Sewer System. An analysis of

the Fairview system was completed in 2011, and the City needs to manage 13 acre feet of stormwater to reduce localized flooding

of the area. This project manages 0.5 acre feet of the 13 acre feet the City identified as a goal.

Left: The preconstruction condition of the Corpus Christi Field.

Below: Excavation of the Eastern basin. The heavy soils were

overexcavated 3-5’ to promote as much infiltration and stor-

age as possible. A draintile was added and then had rock and

sand backfilled around it.

Right: The filtration basins will slow down and filter

the 10 year rain event (4.2” of rain). This will help

alleviate flooding by allowing water to slowly drain

into the system versus the fast

Below: All excavated soils were kept onsite to create

a multi use field for the church.

Above: The contractor hydromulching in the snow. Proof

that it can be done.

Left

: Final stab

ilizatio

n o

f the sw

ale on

the

sou

th sid

e of th

e pro

ject. This w

as add

ed

to gu

ide w

ater into

the b

asins.

Righ

t: Final stab

ilizatio

n o

f the eastern

basin

. The en

tire p

roject w

as seed

-

ed w

ith a n

ative se

ed m

ix to e

nh

ance th

e area with

a sho

rt grass prairie

that w

ill also h

elp red

uce ru

no

ff an

d in

pro

ve local w

ater q

uality.

UPPER VILLA STORMWATER HARVESTING AND

UNDERGOUND INFILTRATION


MPCA Grant: $275,000

BWSR Grant: $360,000

CRWD Funding: $182,500

Roseville Funding: $182,500

The stormwater harvesting and underground infiltration has a drainage are of 249 acres of mixed land use. Annually, 6.8 million

cubic feet of stormwater drains through this system carrying 84 pounds of phosphorus that drain to Lake McCarrons. The system

will remove up to 30% of the stormwater and 48 lbs of phosphorus annually.

Left: Stormwater harvesting concrete vault installa-

tion. 20,000 cubic feet of water will be used to irri-

gate the ballfields. The ballfields can be watered 4

times a week with a coverage of 1” over the entire

green space before the vault is empty.

There is a real time storm monitoring system synced

with the cloud that will empty the concrete vault into

the infiltration system if a runoff producing rainfall is

expected. This will maximize the systems water qual-

ity potential.

Right: 10’ diameter perforated pipes that have a

volume capacity of 60,000 cubic feet. This water is

infiltrated into the sand below the system.

Below: Backfilling of the pipe to match the current

grade.

St Croix Lift Station Upgrade

Engineering: $ 58,817

Construction: $865,000


Funding: Storm Water Fund

The existing storm water lift station was built in 1968 and pumps water from the north and south Fulham Ponds. The station had

two existing pumps (125-HP @ 10,000 GPM, 22.3 cfs and 250 HP @ 20,000 GPM, 44.6 cfs). The storm water is pumped through a

1,150 foot, 36” forcemain and discharges into a open channel to the north.

Left: The old storm water lift station prior to up-

grades. The overall structure remained in the same

location but new pumps and controls were added

and the layout was modified to provide a safer work-

ing environment for maintenance.

Right: The two new pumps and motors after installa-

tion. The pumps are both 200-HP pumps. The new

pumps are run with a variable frequency drive (VFD)

to improve the flexibility of flow rate and to allow

more control of the pond elevation.

Below: New generator being installed. The new gen-

erator is 625 KVA and is capable of running both

pumps. The system is designed to turn on automati-

cally in the event of a power outage.

Engineering: SEH

Construction: Magney Construction


Agenda Item

Date: March 22, 2016 Item No: 7 Item Description: Look Ahead Agenda Items/ Next Meeting April 26, 2016 Suggested Items:

ADA Transition Plan East Twin Lakes Collector Improvements

Recommended Action: Set preliminary agenda items for the April 26, 2016 Public Works, Environment & Transportation Commission meeting.

roseville public works, environment and transportation

Documents