My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0718
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2016 3:26:11 PM
Creation date
7/26/2016 10:10:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/18/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 18, 2016 <br />Page 11 <br />that term "pending" actually meant and how completion of each was monitored <br />and by whom. Councilmember McGehee stated her preference that items no <br />longer be "pending" when coming before the City Council, but already approved <br />by other agencies. <br />Also in her personal review of this ERW, Councilmember McGehee noted that, <br />while it may not be well known in the community, neither the Minnesota Pollu- <br />tion Control Agency (MPCA) nor the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWSD) <br />agencies have sufficient staff to oversee this type or project or others done in the <br />greater metropolitan area; and that oversight was left to the particular municipali- <br />ty to oversee. <br />Also, Councilmember McGehee advised that in referencing various codes listed <br />throughout the ERW (e.g. construction codes) stating review would be performed <br />by an environmental engineer/consultant, typically a consultant hired by the de- <br />veloper/contractor doing the actual building, and not hired by the city whose re- <br />view would be most concerned with protecting Roseville resident's health, wel- <br />fare and safety. Councilmember McGehee submitted that it may be worth the <br />city's consideration as part of its process to escrow funds from the develop- <br />er/contractor for hiring an independent environmental person reporting back di- <br />rectly to the city to guarantee residents are well protected. <br />Councilmember McGehee further expressed her disappointment in this specific <br />ERW that the intent was to re-use contaminated soils for a 50/50 mix in refer- <br />enced documents for use in other places rather than stepping up to clean this area <br />further. Also, referencing documentation related to fill coming onto the site, <br />Councilmember McGehee noted there was no actual reference to who would re- <br />view that documentation. She suggested it would behoove the city to have that <br />information available and reviewed. Specific to the referenced field technician <br />cited to review soils for potential contamination, Councilmember McGehee stated <br />she was dubious about that accountability. <br />In general and throughout her review of this documentation, Councilmember <br />McGehee suggested the need moving forward for the City Council to put a policy <br />in place for hiring a consultant approved by the City (and paid for by the develop- <br />er in an escrow account), a consultant that was accountable and answerable to the <br />city versus only to the contractor/developer. <br />On the MPCA letter (page 2), Councilmember McGehee referenced their discus- <br />sion of and encouragement to the city to look at low impact design. Since 2005, <br />Councilmember McGehee noted mitigation through special ditches, vegetative <br />strips, parking lot swales and other options that were all contributions to the <br />Green Cities efforts and more forward looking building practices. When time al- <br />lows, Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope that the health, welfare and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.