2012-06-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WON 494 Member Felice spoke in support of more public involvement and interactive 495 programming with schools (e.g. students analyzing water); with consensus from 496 members for this idea. 497 498 Additional discussion and ideas included identification of existing drainage issues 499 and the need for the City to be alerted to those areas in case they're not already on 500 the radar; options such as school students monitoring water; and outreach for 501 cooperative efforts and monitoring with community or church groups or public 502 service agencies on specific projects and /or creating more awareness in 503 neighborhoods. 504 505 Ms. Bloom suggested that those efforts could be included in the Implementation 506 Plan in "seeking partnerships to implement BMP's." 507 508 Member Stenlund volunteered to parti ate in any gu t lecture series developed 509 as part of RAHS curriculum and related to Roseville water quality efforts; and 510 suggested funding may already be available via a ation -wide funding system for 511 those efforts. Chair Vanderwall sugges taf ult with the S ool District 512 Coordinator as to the ava' of such 513 514 Additional discussion inclu c an ymg goals olicies versus 515 implementation activities; with some of the implem tion activities identified as 516 BMP's in individual neighborhoods to reduce street hs (e.g. Matilda Street) 517 as part of complete streets or Green Steps program over the next decade's 518 generation of road construction and design versus continuing to build wide streets 519 and in consideration of multi -model transportation models; and development of 520 educational elements for good and bad BMP's based on their day -to -day use 521 and /or more modern technologies. 522 523 Ms. Nestingen questioned City was interested in maintaining their status as 524 the LGU and permitter for th tland Conservation Act or move to one of the 525 WSD's as the LGU, such as the R -WMWD who serves as the LGU for most of 526 their member cities. 527 'ad 528 Ms. Bloom advised that, while her review as the LGU staff contact is usually 529 limited to about one (1) review annually, with the review consisting of delineation 530 and mitigation efforts in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act and City 531 Code, it did require staff time. Ms. Bloom noted that when Roseville has a 532 project with wetland involvement, they used the Ramsey Conservation District as 533 the City's LGU, serving as an independent party for that review. Ms. Bloom 534 noted that area advantages and disadvantages for the City to continue as the LGU; 535 with the WSD's being the experts and up -to -date on rule changes, creating a 536 positive for transferring LGU responsibilities. However, her concern in 537 transferring that LGU role is lack of notification when WSD's (e.g. CRWD and 538 RCWD) performs reviews with their staff experts in- house, they fail to notify her. Page 12 of 19