My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009-07-28_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
2009-07-28_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 12:02:09 PM
Creation date
3/22/2010 12:01:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/28/2009
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.
/
8
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
Member Gjerdingen stated there is a newsletter that is emailed to residents as a <br />communication process. He also heard that 1500 feet could be a more appropriate <br />distance than 300 feet. <br />Member Felice suggested putting notices in the newspaper to reach those <br />residents that are beyond the 300 or 500 feet who might be affected by a project. <br />Tim Pratt stated from a staff perspective it is difficult to know which subjects will <br />be controversial and should be advertised in the newspaper. <br />Member Felice mentioned perhaps any subject that deals burning and things that <br />get into the air or with water should be thought of as controversial and should be <br />communicated. <br />Member Vanderwall mentioned if there are many comments from the public <br />about an issue perhaps the City Council can hold off on the discussion until we <br />can get the word out about the subject. Member DeBenedet stated the problem <br />with holding off on a subject is that there is a 60 day limit from the time the <br />application is filed until they take action. Duane Schwartz stated the City Council <br />did discuss revisiting the notice policy. <br />6. Organized Collection Study /Next Steps <br />Duane Schwartz mentioned there is a statute for cities considering a waste <br />collection process. The City Council holds the hearing about organized waste <br />collection. The topic that needs to be discussed is prior to starting the statutory <br />process what types of research is needed or what additional study is needed. <br />Member DeBenedet stated they were given a copy of the City Attorney's letter <br />dated January 8, 2009 along with a 30 point question and answer list that staff <br />developed from Tim Pratt's office. Duane Schwartz added that this list has been <br />updated since then. <br />Tim Pratt mentioned there are two tracks. One is the statutory process that Duane <br />Schwartz mentioned. The other is the process of the Public Works Environment <br />and Transportation Commission gaining the knowledge it needs to know to make <br />informed decisions and recommendations. Tim suggested the Commission goes <br />down the second track to first to gain knowledge before this topic goes to the City <br />Council and the public hearing. Generally what has happened in other cities is <br />once this topic goes to the public hearing the waste collection companies begin <br />their own campaign of sending out information and any information from the <br />Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission is lost. <br />Duane Schwartz stated they should gather enough information to be able to make <br />a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not the Council should <br />start the statutory process. They should be able to tie a recommendation to a list <br />benefits of why starting this process would be a good idea for the City. <br />Page 5 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.