2012-05-22_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

required in the Plan; with the Implementation Plan over the next ten (10)years developed to implement those ideas. Member Felice spoke in support of more public involvement and interactive programming with schools (e.g. students analyzing water); with consensus from members for this idea. Additional discussion and ideas included identification of existing drainage issues and the need for the City to be alerted to those areas in case they're not already on the radar; options such as school students monitoring water; and outreach for cooperative efforts and monitoring with community or church groups or public service agencies on specific projects and/or creating more awareness in neighborhoods. Ms. Bloom suggested that those efforts could be included in the Implementation Plan in "seeking partnerships to implement BMP's." Member Stenlund volunteered to participate in any guest lecture series developed as part of RAHS curriculum and related to Roseville water quality efforts; and suggested funding may already be available via a nation-wide funding system for those efforts. Chair Vanderwall suggested staff consult with the School District Coordinator as to the availability of such funding. Additional discussion included clarifying goals and policies versus implementation activities; with some of the implementation activities identified as BMP's in individual neighborhoods to reduce street widths (e.g. Matilda Street) as part of complete streets or Green Steps program over the next decade's generation of road construction and design versus continuing to build wide streets and in consideration of multi-model transportation models; and development of educational elements for good and bad BMP's based on their day-to-day use and/or more modern technologies. Ms. Nestingen questioned if the City was interested in maintaining their status as the LGU and permitter for the Wetland Conservation Act or move to one of the WSD's as the LGU, such as the R-WMWD who serves as the LGU for most of their member cities. Ms. Bloom advised that, while her review as the LGU staff contact is usually limited to about one (1)review annually, with the review consisting of delineation and mitigation efforts in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act and City Code, it did require staff time. Ms. Bloom noted that when Roseville has a project with wetland involvement, they used the Ramsey Conservation District as the City's LGU, serving as an independent party for that review. Ms. Bloom noted that area advantages and disadvantages for the City to continue as the LGU; with the WSD's being the experts and up-to-date on rule changes, creating a positive for transferring LGU responsibilities. However, her concern in Page 12 of 19