2015-06-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

353 noted that, if stormwater runoff preventions were not addressed, everyone would 354 pay the consequences. 355 356 Mr. Johnson responded that Capitol Region Watershed District was taking the 357 initiative and lead role on the Como drainage area, and therefore, were also bearing 358 the brunt of those costs. For Langton Lake which is in the Rice Creek Watershed 359 District, most contributing water is from the Rosewood neighborhood flowing 360 north. Mr. Johnson advised that all of the area involved in Rosedale provided a 361 huge phosphorus contributor due to the extensive impervious asphalt surfaces. 362 Therefore, Mr. Johnson noted that anything addre§,IWg that area through treating 363 water in the broader area had a big bang for the buck and represented significant 364 cost benefits. Mr. Johnson noted the major accomplishments by addressing that 365 compared to smaller efforts with individual residential properties around Langton 366 Lake that, while removing a pound or two of phosphorus loading may not prove as 367 beneficial as something larger at Rosedale that could remov 60 pounds or more. 368 369 Mr. Johnson offered to work with other agencies specifically orts surrounding 370 Langton Lake, if so directed to do so. 371 372 Member Cihacek, opining that this invol ed passive versus reacti e measures, 373 questioned whether it was beneficial to seek assistance from those agencies; and 374 asked what was currently being done to address the issues at Rosedale and their 375 accountability from those educational outreaches versus them continuing to be a 376 passive player. 377 378 Mr. Johnson advised that in the end, it all came down to cost and the limited able. 380 � 379 resources avail � Nk 381 To that point a�n��lllld somewhat reactive in nature, Mr. Culver noted that the biggest 382 opportunities were often triggered by the more stringent stormwater management 383 rules now in place for any redevelopment or expansion of a site. Mr. Culver noted 384 that the City often had more stringent triggers in place than even those required by 385 the watershed districts. Using Rosedale as an example, Mr. Culver advised that 386 there may be a future opportunity to accomplish something significant related to 387 stormwater control measures; however, the biggest hurdle was often land 388 acquisition to accomplish that goal. If the City wants to be proactive, Mr. Culver 389 opined that it was difficult for the City to expect private business to do something 390 unless required to do so, such as through redevelopment when they are mandated 391 to address it. While not always a guarantee, and often requiring more land or an 392 underground system, Mr. Culver noted that City Code is more stringent than in the 393 past, and is as proactive as possible based on those circumstances. 394 395 Even with public improvement projects, Mr. Culver advised that the City had been 396 very aggressive to-date in finding opportunities for linear stormwater treatment, 397 using the Victoria Street project as another great example in addressing problems 398 as they come forward. Page 9 of 18