Laserfiche WebLink
typically proposed; equipment needed to monitor storm systems during storm <br /> events; and potential for pilot programs initially, with many variables and <br /> reliability factors coming into play that had a potential for misinterpretation when <br /> overland drainage may occur in several different directions from one site. <br /> Further discussion included assuring long-term performance for larger sites by <br /> requiring them to have five-year inspections by an independent, certified engineer <br /> to certify the inspection and that it was still working as designed, with smaller <br /> items (e.g. rain gardens on one- or two-family residential properties) handled by <br /> staff <br /> Additional discussion included indications to determine if and how an <br /> underground system was functioning through infiltration and retention, often <br /> difficult to measure during storm event versus measuring the rate of infiltration <br /> after the fact when the system is full; and clarification by staff that most of the <br /> existing large systems had maintenance agreements in place, as required by the <br /> applicable watershed district and having to provide that proof periodically. <br /> Mr. Culver noted that the point made by Mr. Schwartz was worthwhile to realize <br /> that projects most likely eligible for credit were probably extensions or <br /> expansions of a required project that the site was undergoing due to <br /> redevelopment on their site according to City and watershed district standards <br /> necessary to meet pre-development rates and runoff, but their pursuit of additional <br /> mitigation beyond those requirements to capture more water. As noted by Mr. <br /> Schwartz, Mr. Culver noted that this would then require a maintenance agreement <br /> as negotiated by the City and watershed district, with mandated inspection <br /> requirements as part of that agreement. Mr. Culver advised that this stormwater <br /> credit would simply piggyback on that agreement to reward those developers <br /> and/or property owners choosing to be proactive with stormwater management <br /> effort s. <br /> Mr. Johnson noted that another advantage was that often local watershed districts <br /> had grant monies available for those seeking to be proactive, in addition to this <br /> proposed credit, which served to decrease the overall cost of their project, and <br /> provided more incentive and allowed them to capitalize on available resources. <br /> Chair Vanderwall, with confirmation by Mr. Johnson, noted that this available <br /> grant information could be obtained from watershed district websites, and <br /> outlining the application requirements and process; with the information also <br /> available by calling Engineering staff at Roseville City Hall. <br /> Member Gjerdingen expressed concern that, if enough credits were given, the <br /> stormwater fund may be jeopardized; however, Mr. Johnson advised that the <br /> stormwater fee would never reach zero, based on the proposed credits, but <br /> anything to get less stormwater into the system, or get it treated before reaching <br /> water bodies would serve to positively impact the area environmentally, making <br /> Page 5 of 14 <br />