2017-02-28_PWETCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes Page 13, January 24, 2017 while the city's Stormwater Utility Fund was available, it also needed to fund all stormwater maintenance, including street sweeping and more aggressive pond clean-up of late, as well as addressing other existing stormwater infrastructure needs. Mr. Culver cautioned that the city was on the edge of experiencing some large failures, similar to those experienced in the recent past in the water distribution and sanitary sewer systems. While this Fund is available and had been well-managed to -date by forward thinking investment, Mr. Culver cautioned the need to retain the Fund in a sustainable manner based on the overall asset management system. While agreeing with the concept of maintaining a s Mr. Culver clarified that the city would never be abl and would be unable to design on those project more money spent on incentivizing projects, th e Mr. Culver advised that the city had been a ti aside certain amounts for infrastructure ' roveme amount available for cost participat or sto example, Mr. Culver noted the cit ost improvements; and reiterated that incentive limited. If moving toward increase permits opportunities. With Optio and if use , 20 -year capital assistance goals. ust tormwater system, handle all rainfall events Culver noted that the ss a le for maintenance. ued to iberate in setting nts, it did hands in the water mana As an icipation i the I -35W a good concept but were also suggested the need to igations and cost share the most feasible option was a grant fund, Vars, similar to that used for the city's icy to meet those needs and goals. ntial' funding sources, including the Metropolitan I private parties. By making people aware of those Cihacek opined that it would meet the city's the next steps after tonight's feedback is incorporated into nt standards, with those revisions brought back to the dation and subsequent approval by the City Council. Further discussion included minimum and maximum parking lot sizes to trigger stormwater drainage improvements and rationale for those triggers; the considerable number of parking lot applications received by the city in a given year, typically consisting of a two-inch mill and overlay that didn't trigger drainage requirements; and how to clarify those thresholds. Chair Cihacek opined that, at a minimum, that trigger needed to be defined.