2017-01-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

chipped away at those most problematic flooding areas as projects, time and funding were available, Mr. Johnson noted that there remained large gaps in improving overall stormwater management in the community. At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson reviewed average costs for replacing stormwater systems, typically at $25 to $30 per foot for a 12 inch pipe, with larger diameter pipes costing more, at the current rate of replacement on an as -needed basis, there remained many segments nearing or exceedingthe end of their life span, creating more failures. As a less expensive or impactful way to address some of that stormwater management, Mr. Johnson noted additional best management practices (BMP's) with variable costs as well as larger systems involving pervious pavement or underground containment systems as a larger expense. Due to capacity issues downstream and watershed district requirements, Mr. Johnson advised that the city often couldn't upsize replacement BMP's, often having to replace them at the same size, line the pipes, or pond stormwater. As examples, Mr. Johnson used the Saint Rose of Lima and Ramsey County Library — Roseville Branch as areas of concern based on historic flooding issues. Mr. Johnson also reviewed several options for stormwater as parking lots throughout the city are redeveloped where current problematic runoff areas could be addressed for possible improvements. As part of those options, Mr. Johnson provided cost comparisons for city underground projects, a complete parking lot reconstruction and potential increases for a parking lot project in addition to annual maintenance costs, with the city's cost coming from its Stormwater Impact Fund. Mr. Johnson noted that this represented a big issue for availability of land and cost if not all stormwater management could be addressed above -ground. As part of the presentation, Mr. Johnson reviewed Option I.a (no change); Option Lb (no policy change but added clarification); Option 2 (requiring treatment when parking lot based material is exposed through BMP installation or payment into the city's Stormwater Impact Fund); or Option 3 (providing city support for BMP's through design or financial assistance, whether or not stormwater requirements are needed but assisting with the overall drainage system). Also, Mr. Johnson asked the PWETC to consider whether or not to only apply city policy in special designated zones with the city (e.g. in areas historically known to have drainage issues or affecting water resources for impaired water bodies); parking lots with defined minimum sizes and how they would be addressed when improved; and project cost caps or costs per square foot caps as applicable. Considerable discussion ensued regarding costs to a property owner in redoing their parking lots, using those examples given by Mr. Johnson. That discussion included how the various options and their pros and cons would apply; how staff could identify and monitor parking lots when open to the base or native soil versus current triggers in city policy; with the overall goal to be encourage not only parking lot but drainage and stormwater management improvements without discouraging those improvements due to unwelcome requirements and additional costs for Page 11 of 17