My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_10358
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
10xxx
>
10300
>
res_10358
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:28:41 AM
Creation date
12/14/2005 11:25:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Meeting Date
12/5/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
Resolution #
10358
Resolution Title
CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF THEIR NEW RULES AND ESTABLISH A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. How much will the cost of street reconstruction projects increase? <br />. How much will the additional maintenance and future reconstruction of these facilities cost <br />the City and impact the residents? <br />. How effective are the proposed infiltration practices in linear applications (road projects)? <br />. With limited right- of- way, already crowded with utilities, where can we find the room to <br />install infiltration trenches? Do these trenches take precedent over existing utilities in the <br />right - of- way? What about street trees and pathways in the boulevards? <br />. Why are the proposed CRWD standards much higher than the existing state and national <br />standards under which the City currently operates? Is it true that these standards will be the <br />highest in Minnesota? <br />. The new rules go into effect in January 2006 as proposed by the CRWD, will the district <br />deny permits for the Roselawn reconstruction project that has been under development since <br />June 2005, with bidding anticipated during the winter? <br />. How much will the cost of private development on properties larger than one acre increase? <br />. Can the CRWD supply additional information regarding the effectiveness of the proposed <br />engineering solutions to meet the storm water infiltration rules? <br />. What about the timeliness of reviews and approval of permits? CRWD has indicated that <br />they will adhere to the 60 day rule for review; however, they will not review a project until it <br />has been approved by the City Council. This could be disastrous for City street <br />reconstruction projects. Once the plans have been approved by the council, we advertise for <br />3 weeks and usually start construction in an additional 3 weeks. The timeline would delay <br />our projects start date by at least an additional 6 weeks. <br />. How will storm water volume be controlled where infiltration does not occur because of the <br />clay-based soils that occur in a majority of Roseville? <br />. Has a cost benefit analysis been performed by CRWD to determine the relationship between <br />water quality improvements in the Mississippi River and the public and private costs <br />incurred by the City and property owners in the city. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, City staff believes the new deadline for comment on the proposed rules of <br />December 15, 2005, by the CRWD does not provide sufficient time for the City and other <br />affected jurisdictions to submit meaningful comments regarding any technical, engineering, or <br />cost benefit analysis of the draft rules and technical standards; <br /> <br />AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Roseville respectfully requests the <br />CRWD to delay adopting any rules and standards until such time as the CRWD establishes a <br />technical advisory committee comprised of representation from all jurisdictions within the <br />district for the purpose of reviewing the draft rules and finding mutually acceptable rules and <br />standards that will facilitate the needs of both the CRWD, the City of Roseville and other <br />jurisdictions within CRWD. <br /> <br />The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember <br />Schroeder and upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor thereof: Kough, Maschka, <br />lhlan, Schroeder and Klausing, and the following voted against the same: none. <br /> <br />WHEREUPON, the said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.