My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-06-27_PWETCPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2017
>
2017-06-27_PWETCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2017 9:38:24 AM
Creation date
6/28/2017 9:33:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/27/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
35 restricted in their use (e.g. pathway maintenance and pavement management plan); <br />36 and an explanation of how those shifting categories may impact short- and long - <br />37 term. CIP allocations and in light of negative trends due to lift station and other <br />38 programmed improvements to the city's aging infrastructure as well as other <br />39 priority items. <br />40 <br />41 Further discussion including timing for some current development projects as <br />42 indicated on the monthly Community Development Department report; a staff <br />43 update and future presentation to the PWETC on alternate locations for the Ramsey <br />44 County organic drop-off site with Member Wozniak cautioning that a decision was <br />45 needed sooner than later to ensure Roseville was one of the chosen sites currently <br />46 in competition with other area communities with staff advising that they were still <br />47 working with Ramsey County representatives on the general logistics and overall <br />48 process, anticipating a final site identified by mid -summer and coordination with <br />49 the PWETC and Parks & Recreation Commission, with the site currently under <br />50 consideration at Dale Street Soccer field area. <br />51 <br />52 Additional discussion included a requested update to the PWETC from staff and <br />53 Eureka Recycling on the pilot recycling program at Lexington Park as data become <br />54 available at the end of the summer use season, its evolution and suggestions to move <br />55 forward at other sites; with Chair Cihacek requesting that the report be a separate <br />56 subject after the summer months, and not part of Eureka's annual report; and Mr. <br />57 Johnson anticipating that preliminary data may not be available until later in the <br />58 year (e.g. October or November of 2017). <br />59 <br />60 Further discussion ensued regarding the placement of recycling containers and <br />61 confirmation of their locations at the east end of the ball fields; and first full pick <br />62 up held on May 8"'. <br />63 <br />64 At the request of Member Wozniak and with a bench handout provided by staff on <br />65 the program details, PWETC commissioners were encouraged to attend the daytime <br />66 and/or evening seminars to be held by the Alliance for Sustainability and <br />67 relationship to the current comprehensive plan update processes. <br />68 <br />69 5. Right -of -Way Vegetation Cost/Benefit Analysis <br />70 As detailed in the staff report and presentation materials, Environmental Specialist <br />71 Ryan Johnson provided a cost benefit analysis of turf grass versus natural plantings <br />72 in city rights-of-way as previously requested by the PWETC. Mr. Johnson's <br />73 presentation included initial installation and annual maintenance costs for both <br />74 options. <br />75 <br />76 Discussion included comparison costs for decorative and open space plantings per <br />77 acre; water quality cost benefits available for tracking and economic impacts to <br />78 track and avoid phosphorus impacts from either option related to stormwater and <br />79 reduced volumes over a number of years for plantings versus turf; and how <br />80 reducing that runoff is included as an additional cost consideration. <br />Page 2 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.