Laserfiche WebLink
Member Seigler questioned why the property calculations were not measured <br /> from the road; with Mr. Culver responding that the road was not the property of <br /> the property owner, but the city. Mr. Culver suggested Member Seigler consult <br /> with staff outside meeting confines to address specific square footage outside <br /> right-of-way square footages. <br /> Member Thurnau asked staff for examples of partnership opportunities with <br /> watershed districts or other jurisdictions or agencies outside city limits to address <br /> regional drainage issues but of benefit to a larger, non-jurisdictional area. <br /> Mr. Johnson reviewed some of those more recent partnership opportunities the <br /> city had used for regional drainage mitigation by providing cost participation by <br /> the city as an example. As noted by Member Thurnau, Mr. Johnson agreed that <br /> drainage and stormwater issues didn't respect city limit boundaries. However, <br /> Mr. Johnson noted the limits for the city at this time and going forward without a <br /> fund such as the proposed Impact Fund and policy to fund or participate in those <br /> larger projects. Therefore, Mr. Johnson noted the current practice or priority <br /> consideration is to retain the majority of those funds locally, but noted when <br /> possible the city would participate in those cost-share opportunities with other <br /> agencies for stormwater treatment as funds allowed. <br /> Chair Cihacek asked if the intent was to use the fund as a replacement or for <br /> allocation from other funding resources. <br /> Mr. Culver agreed the funds would allow some flexibility for expanding <br /> stormwater treatment and projects that the city would otherwise be unable to do, <br /> and enlarge mitigation efforts and programs accordingly. <br /> Specific to sequencing projects outside the city addressed by Chair Cihacek, Mr. <br /> Culver noted it was only logical to connect the dots and address those bodies of <br /> water that the city's stormwater drained into even if outside the city, still <br /> benefiting everyone. Mr. Culver noted this would be based on those water <br /> resources of concern that Roseville stormwater flowed into and based on current <br /> versus future sequencing consideration and as permitted by the City Council <br /> depending on the situation. <br /> At the request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver agreed to review those areas <br /> highlighted on Attachment A to further clarify the language. <br /> Mr. Culver thanked the PWETC for their comments, and sought direction from <br /> the body as to whether they wished to make a formal recommendation to the City <br /> Council, or if staff should direct their comments to them accordingly. <br /> Member Wozniak stated his support for the Impact Fund as an alternative; and <br /> encouraged staff to continue discussion with the Community Development <br /> department to identify the maximum impervious coverage percentage. <br /> Page 7 of 19 <br />