2017-06-27_PWETCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

264 265 At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson advised that the city typically paid 266 for approximately 1/3 of the total cost of clean-up day, with mattresses and 267 electronic costs up over the last few years, thereby increasing city costs 268 accordingly. 269 270 Mr. Johnson provided statistics from shredding day between 2009 and 2017, noting 271 the popularity of the event, and requests from residents to provide it 2-3 times each 272 year versus only annually. 273 274 Mr. Johnson concluded his report by outlining resident tips for reducing and/or 275 eliminating stormwater contaminants to benefit of water quality of area lakes. 276 277 Discussion included private versus public ponds each counted but managed 278 differently; the public infiltration pond at Corpus Christi Church; city credit for 279 public stormwater management efforts but not private ones, but still advantageous 280 to improve water quality and the city's duty to ensure private systems are well - 281 maintained for city credit for projects in place to improve rate control and water 282 quality. 283 284 Further discussion included communication efforts for the annual citywide clean - 285 up day and shredding event, with suggestions to continue seeking improvement in 286 those efforts; how to and if needed to target college campus and/or rental or transit 287 populations for disposal of items and timing of or expansion of future clean-up days 288 to encourage their participation; with Mr. Freihammer suggesting that staff check 289 with area colleges to see if they already had programs in place to do so; and Mr. 290 Ryan advising this was a good time to ask those questions as three-year contracts 291 and quotes for clean-up day were coming up. Chair Cihacek suggested further staff 292 research with multi -family and more transient populations (e.g. area universities 293 and landlords) as to whether tenants were aware of this city service, and any further 294 education and/or outreach that may be indicated. 295 296 At the request of Member Misra, Mr. Johnson reviewed illicit discharges of 297 anything going down a storm drain other than irrigation water that created problems 298 (e.g. grass clippings, paint, concrete slurry) and many calls fielded by staff from 299 residents alerting them to illicit discharges (e.g. home improvement projects and 300 wash water from mudding walls and painting) to the system. Mr. Johnson noted 301 that Eureka Recycling alerts staff of any spills (e.g. a recent hydraulic leak reported 302 that was caught before getting to a storm drain, but still reported as a spill). Mr. 303 Johnson expressed appreciation for the good job done by residents in monitoring 304 those situations and being extra eyes for the city. 305 306 At the further request of Member Misra, Mr. Johnson provided the process by staff 307 in dealing with those calls, depending on their nature, with the working streets 308 foreman typically popping the manhole for access in determining the problem and 309 tracking it downstream to see if there is evidence of the material moving to and Page 7 of 9