2015-05-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regarding the permit itself, Member Seigler asked that future annual reporting include the actual cost to the City in undertaking each project to address MCM's, whether required mandates or voluntary efforts, to identify the specific and total amounts being expended. As a Roseville resident, Member Seigler noted his interest in knowing what a taxpayer was paying and whether those efforts were increasing or decreasing annually as progress was made. Member Cihacek concurred, citing an example of costs analyses for those MCM's, such as training costs. Mr. Johnson duly noted that request, offering to look into that data, from a historical and new mandate perspective. Mr. Johnson opined that education outreach was the least expensive MCM to accomplish; with obviously underground systems the most costly. However, Mr. Johnson noted that staff would provide data on the overall cost benefits as well as part of that analysis. Chair Stenlund cautioned that the numbers would be variable and not always very well defined. Chair Stenlund noted that initiatives, such as factoring the cost of an open house may not be identifiable. Member Seigler expressed his expectation that the numbers may be soft in some instances, and wasn't seeing a significant amount of staff time expended to provide the information, and was only seeking round numbers, and nothing specific. Member Seigler stated his interest was which of the MCM's had more requirements and how much was being spent, which he personally thought probably was considerable. In general, Mr. Culver reported that the preliminary 2015 Stormwater Utility Fund, from which most of these MCM's were funded, was anticipated to have $1.2 million in expenses. Mr. Culver clarified this included some staffing, annualized equipment, and other variables. Mr. Culver noted that the costs would not include less detailed costs such as the cost for renting a conference room to hold educational or informational public meetings or open houses specific to stormwater projects; but general costs were available. Mr. Culver opined that capital costs may be less identifiable, whether project related of an MS4 cost, or whether a component of the project may be a requirement or funded in part through partnership with the applicable watershed district. Mr. Culver offered to review costs on the staff level to provide some level of information. Member Cihacek opined, the purpose of the cost analysis was to determine if the outreach and education efforts were being successful or not, and what value was being realized. Member Cihacek recognized that it would be harder with soft categories to measure those goals. Specific to general water quality efforts, Member Cihacek noted the considerable algae growth in Langton Lake, and lack of residential improvements seen even in Page 8 of 19