My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020_06-23_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
202x
>
2020
>
2020_06-23_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2020 8:33:30 AM
Creation date
6/23/2020 8:30:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/23/2020
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
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
81 Vice Chair Wozniak inquired if there was much discussion about addressing the <br />82 tree diversifying issue. <br />83 <br />84 Chair Cihacek explained part of the conclusion that came about was that there is a <br />85 jurisdictional issue inside 706 in which the Park Board is apparently given some <br />86 capacities as a tree board but it is not clear in 706 what that means because the next <br />87 section states the city overall has responsibility for planting and planning. <br />88 <br />89 Chair Cihacek reviewed other items that were discussed at the Forestry Task Force <br />90 meeting. <br />91 <br />92 Mr. Culver indicated the city Council interviewed two candidates for Chair <br />93 Cihacek's open position and Council will be appointing those members on March <br />94 9t'. <br />95 <br />96 Vice Chair Wozniak explained in January he received an email from a resident and <br />97 thought other Commission Members did as well regarding the poor driving <br />98 conditions when snowing on the on -ramps to Hwy 36 at Rice Street. The resident <br />99 did not want a response but did want to voice their concerns about the road and how <br />100 dangerous it is when it snows. He indicated he was bringing it up because he was <br />101 not sure what to do when the Commission receives an email from a resident at the <br />102 Commission level. <br />103 <br />104 Mr. Culver was fairly certain that staff responded to the resident to indicate the <br />105 email was forwarded on to MnDOT. <br />106 <br />107 Chair Cihacek thought staff should be the first communicator in those instances and <br />108 if needed staff will reach out to the Commission for a response. <br />109 <br />110 Member Misra thought as development occurs in the city certain intersections and <br />111 roads will become more congested and she wondered how the city is looking at <br />112 that. <br />113 <br />114 Mr. Culver thought the Commission could have an entire meeting on this. He <br />115 reviewed what the city currently does with new developments and the surrounding <br />116 intersections. <br />117 <br />118 5. Sump Pump Enforcement <br />119 Assistant City Engineer Luke Sandstrom provided abrief review of the Sump Pump <br />120 Ordinance. He noted city staff began an Inflow/Infiltration (UI) flow monitoring <br />121 study in May 2017. With three years' worth of sewer flow data staff would like the <br />122 Commission to discuss how to incorporate this data into how the city enforces the <br />123 new ordinance. <br />124 <br />125 Mr. Sandstrom made a presentation to the Commission. <br />126 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.