2016-08-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

629 something significant at that intersection for the foreseeable future was gone, 630 since the MnDOT had made a significant investment in the traffic signal at its 631 current location. 632 633 Organized Trash Collection 634 Member Wozniak pointed out that the City of St. Paul had recently enacted the 635 procedure to organize waste collection, a culmination of a lengthy study and 636 initiating the 90-day clock for contractors to submit a collective proposal. With 637 that step, Member Wozniak noted the City of Roseville was now surrounded by 638 communities with organized trash collection. Member Wozniak noted the new 639 TCAPP site development would also have organized trash collection. While 640 recognizing the City Council isn't interested in discussing it, Member Wozniak 641 noted it didn't preclude the PWETC's pursue of the issues. 642 643 In defense of the City Council, Mr. Cu ver noted the pr rity work they were 644 undertaking and length of their meeting agendas of late, and other related items 645 yet to come (e.g. SE Roseville redevelopment, Twin Lakes zoning) and from their 646 perspective and based on feedback on past community surveys, there appeared to 647 be no overwhelming interest by the community to pursue organized trash 648 collection, at least not as a priority. If the PWETC was seeking a discussion on 649 organized collection and processes and experience of neighboring communities, 650 Mr. Culver left that up to the PWETC to set it up as a future agenda item. 651 652 Chair Cihacek suggested that be part of the 2017 work plan in the future, allowing 653 time for the changes in the new recycling contract to take hold. 654 655 Member Seigler ree his would als e after the City of St. Paul went forward 656 with it. 657 658 Mr. Culver cautioned that the City of St. Paul was a much larger city as well; with 659 Member Wozniak countering that this also meant more people and more 660 challenges. 661 662 Pathway Master Plan Update 663 At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver addressed where the pathway master 664 plan fit into the upcoming comprehensive plan update. While the master plan was 665 not an actualNwi onent of the comprehensive plan, Mr. Culver advised it would 666 be referencein the document in the transportation chapter. Mr. Culver 667 advised that the reason not to consider it as an official component was so any 668 updates could be handled by the city without the lengthy, formal public input 669 process needed to amend the comprehensive plan. However, Mr. Culver stated 670 he had suggested and had the desire to incorporate that discussion into the public 671 input process along with other components versus the PWETC taking on the 672 updating of the master plan and priority ranking with it. Mr. Culver noted this 673 would allow the public meetings and discussion to inform the master plan update 674 and remaining gaps and priorities for those missing segments. Page 15 of 19