2016-07-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

something significant at that intersection for the foreseeable future was gone, since the MnDOT had made a significant investment in the traffic signal at its current location. Organized Trash Collection Member Wozniak pointed out that the City of St. Paul had recently enacted the procedure to organize waste collection, a culmination of a lengthy study and initiating the 90-day clock for contractors to submit a collective proposal. With that step, Member Wozniak noted the City of Roseville was now surrounded by communities with organized trash collection. Member Wozniak noted the new TCAPP site development would also have organized trash collection. While recognizing the City Council isn't interested in discussing it, Member Wozniak noted it didn't preclude the PWETC's pursue of the issues. In defense of the City Council, Mr. Culver noted the priority work they were undertaking and length of their meeting agendas of late, and other related items yet to come (e.g. SE Roseville redevelopment, Twin Lakes zoning) and from their perspective and based on feedback on past community surveys, there appeared to be no overwhelming interest by the community to pursue organized trash collection, at least not as a priority. If the PWETC was seeking a discussion on organized collection and processes and experience of neighboring communities, Mr. Culver left that up to the PWETC to set it up as a future agenda item. Chair Cihacek suggested that be part of the 2017 work plan in the future, allowing time for the changes in the new recycling contract to take hold. Member Seigler agreed this would also be after the City of St. Paul went forward with it. Mr. Culver cautioned that the City of St. Paul was a much larger city as well; with Member Wozniak countering that this also meant more people and more challenges. Pathway Master Plan Update At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver addressed where the pathway master plan fit into the upcoming comprehensive plan update. While the master plan was not an actual component of the comprehensive plan, Mr. Culver advised it would be referenced within the document in the transportation chapter. Mr. Culver advised that the reason not to consider it as an official component was so any updates could be handled by the city without the lengthy, formal public input process needed to amend the comprehensive plan. However, Mr. Culver stated he had suggested and had the desire to incorporate that discussion into the public input process along with other components versus the PWETC taking on the updating of the master plan and priority ranking with it. Mr. Culver noted this would allow the public meetings and discussion to inform the master plan update and remaining gaps and priorities for those missing segments. Page 15 of 19