2017-01-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Culver clarified, however, that just because pervious pavement is installed, it didn't mean that all water infiltrates into the ground depending on the soil type. In Roseville, Mr. Culver advised that the impact would be small due to the heavy soils in the majority of the community, even though it would allow some rate control and slow drainage down some. Regarding funding, Mr. Culver noted that, 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 sustainable stormwater system, Mr. Culver clarified that the city would never be able to handle all rainfall events, and would be unable to design on those projections. Mr. Culver noted that the more money spent on incentivizing projects, the less available for maintenance. Mr. Culver advised that the city had been and continued to be deliberate in setting aside certain amounts for infrastructure improvements, it did tie its hands in the amount available for cost participation for stormwater management. As an example, Mr. Culver noted the city's cost participation in the 1-3 5W improvements; and reiterated that incentives were a good concept but were also limited. If moving toward a cost -share model, Chair Cihacek suggested the need to increase permits and fees to meet those future obligations and cost share opportunities. With Option 3, Mr. Culver opined that the most feasible option was a grant fund, and if used, carried over for subsequent years, similar to that used for the city's 20 - year capital improvement fund (CIP) policy to meet those needs and goals. Chair Cihacek noted other potential funding sources, including the Metropolitan Council, watershed districts, and private parties. By making people aware of those other funding sources, Chair Cihacek opined that it would meet the city's technical assistance goals. Mr. Johnson reviewed the next steps after tonight's feedback is incorporated into stormwater management standards, with those revisions brought back to the PWETC for recommendation 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. Page 13 of 17