2015-06-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

308 interest in knowing what a taxpayer was paying and whether those efforts were 309 increasing or decreasing annually as progress was made. 310 311 Member Cihacek concurred, citing an example of costs analyses for those MCM's, 312 such as training costs. 313 314 Mr. Johnson duly noted that request, offering to look into that data, from a historical 315 and new mandate perspective. Mr. Johnson opined that education outreach was the 316 least expensive MCM to accomplish; with obviously underground systems the most 317 costly. However Mr. Johnson noted that staff wo provide data on the overall 318 cost benefits as well as part of that analysis. 319 320 Chair Stenlund cautioned that the numbers. variable and not always very 321 well defined. Chair Stenlund noted that ' ves, such as factoring the cost of an 322 open house may not be identifiable. 323 il mimu 324 Member Seigler expressed his expectation that the numbers may be soft in some 325 instances, and wasn't seeing a significant amount of staff time expended to provide 326 the information, and was only seeking round npmbers, and nothing specific. 327 Member Seigler stated his interest was which of�MCM's had more requirements 328 and how much was being spent, which heiiiionally thought probably was 329 considerable. 330 331 In general, Mr. Culver reported that the preliminary 2015 Stormwater Utility Fund, 332 from which most of these MCM's were funded, was anticipated to have $1.2 333 million in expenses. Mr. Culver clarified this included some staffing, annualized 334 equipment, and other variables. Mr. Culver noted that the costs would not include 335 less detailed costs such as thgkbst for renting a conference room to hold educational 336 or informational public meetings or open houses specific to stormwater projects; 337 but general costs were available. Mr. Culver opined that capital costs may be less 338 identifiable, whether project related of an MS4 cost, or whether a component of the 339 project may be a requirement or funded in part through partnership with the 340 applicable watershed district. Mr. Culver offered to review costs on the staff level 341 to provide some level of information. 342 343 Member Cihacek opined, the purpose of the cost analysis was to determine if the 344 outreach and education efforts were being successful or not, and what value was 345 being realized. -Member Cihacek recognized that it would be harder with soft 346 categories to measure those goals. 347 348 Specific to general water quality efforts, Member Cihacek noted the considerable 349 algae growth in Langton Lake, and lack of residential improvements seen even in 350 this area of high concern. Member Cihacek questioned how proactive the City 351 could be in education outreach and working in those areas we know are at risk, and 352 providing more benefit than other residential areas less at risk. Member Cihacek