My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-05-26_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-05-26_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2015 8:49:49 AM
Creation date
8/6/2015 8:49:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/26/2015
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Even with public improvement projects, Mr. Culver advised that the City had <br />been very aggressive to -date in finding opportunities for linear stormwater <br />treatment, using the Victoria Street project as another great example in addressing <br />problems as they come forward. <br />Regarding new construction, Member Cihacek asked if other municipalities were <br />equally strict, or how Roseville's requirements compared to them (e.g. the recent <br />Wal-Mart development). <br />Specific to the Wal-Mart development as an example, Mr. Culver advised that <br />they actually built their stormwater management system to a higher level than <br />required, and thereby earned extra credits. Mr. Culver stated he was unsure how <br />Roseville's requirements compared to other jurisdictions or if they were on an <br />average level. <br />Mr. Johnson duly noted the requested information, and offered to research that <br />and report back to the PWETC. <br />Chair Stenlund noted his amazement at what some churches are doing in the <br />community to address stormwater management. Since this is a voluntary program <br />when no permit is required for retrofitting, Chair Stenlund suggested alerting the <br />public to the options available beyond raingardens or rain barrels. Using one <br />church and their installation of an interception system before any requirements, <br />Chair Stenlund noted that they had done so voluntarily. Chair Stenlund opined <br />that people don't necessarily know what they can do, and the options available to <br />them, such as addressing issues along Langton Lake that may be simple but still <br />make a huge impact. <br />Mr. Johnson noted the proposed additional educational efforts identifying those <br />available options. <br />Member Cihacek agreed with a general outreach as well as more concentrated <br />efforts for higher risk properties and subsequent water quality impacts. Member <br />Cihacek suggested including educational pieces allowing the public to see the <br />larger or broader benefits in their efforts to address those higher risk areas. <br />Mr. Johnson duly noted that request as well. <br />Chair Stenlund suggested that, for next year's annual report, staff didn't need to <br />provide a copy of the permit itself, only a link to it on the City's website. <br />However, Chair Stenlund asked that staff provide specific information on each <br />MCM (example: BMP No. 2 related to spring clean-up efforts) comparing from <br />one year to the next to identify those areas on which progress was being made and <br />those failing or losing ground. Chair Stenlund opined that this would provide a <br />trending point of view with several years of data available during the actual <br />permit period. <br />Page 10 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.