Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes of 8/27/07 <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Page 12 <br />Councilmember Kough questioned if this was the first biofiltration <br />system installation in Roseville and if the City would be responsible <br />for the cost of maintenance. <br />Mr. Schwartz responded affirmatively to both of Councilmember <br />Kough's questions; advising that since there was a public improve- <br />ment contract constructing a public road, it was typical City policy to <br />provide long-term maintenance to ensure public infrastructure re- <br />mained viable over the long-term. <br />Councilmember Pust questioned Mr. Schwartz on the soil types ad- <br />dressed in Mr. Thatcher's letter, and discrepancies between informa- <br />tion provided by Mr. Thatcher and that provided by staff on the soil <br />types. Councilmember Pust confirmed with Mr. Schwartz that certain <br />soil testing was required in light of the proposed biofiltration system, <br />that soil testing had been done, and staff was analyzing them. <br />Mr. Schwartz opined that, while he did not have the soil borings with <br />him tonight, he would be surprised if they were type B in that area. <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that two (2) minimum soil borings were re- <br />quired for the site, and were being analyzed. Mr. Schwartz further <br />noted that sizing of the infiltration basins was a design issue. <br />Mayor Klausing questioned staff on Mr. Boryczka's allegation that by <br />approving the grading plan, the City was approving everything on it. <br />Councilmember Roe noted that the City Council was not being asked <br />to approve the grading plan tonight, but had been provided an exam- <br />ple included in the public improvement contract, with five (5) condi- <br />tions as laid .out in the staff report, page 4, with easements and a num- <br />ber of elements that were a staff function during the construction <br />process. <br />Mayor Klausing sought staff comment on Mr. Boryczka's expressed <br />concern about his interpreted inconsistencies between the staff report <br />findings, Section 4.9c (i.e., storm water management report) and <br />summary of results (i.e., direction of flow, existing discharge, storm <br />events) and no increase in storm water runoff. <br />