2009-11-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Willmus suggested that the City of Roseville look at the City of Little Canada's program for comparison and competitive rates. Mr. Willmus asked if the City would be saving him taxpayer money or providing him with better service by going to a zoned service, or was that simply to accommodate a number of haulers. Further discussion included the politics and emotions of the issue; quality control if multiple haulers were used in a zoned system allowing them to maintain a market share; retaining a maximum number of bidders periodically (3-4 years?); and previous work of the City's Solid Waste Commission resulting in the residential curbside recycling program. Staff was directed to provide aone-page draft proposal concept for organized collection for Roseville. Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at 8:07 p.m. and reconvened at 8:11 p.m. In order to accommodate audience members, Chair DeBenedet amended the agenda to discuss the proposed illicit discharge ordinance upon reconvening (Item #8). 8. Proposed Illicit Discharge Ordinance Ms. Bloom provided a revised draft of the Storm Water Illicit Discharge and Connections Ordinance, based on comments since the November PWET Commission meeting, and incorporating comments from the City Attorney, the Commission and staff. Ms. Bloom noted that those areas needing further discussion, as detailed in the staff report dated November 24, 2009. Discussion included additional definitions needed, as suggested by individual Commissioners and those indicated and cross-referenced in other portions of the proposed ordinance, with Ms. Bloom tracking those items as applicable, and including; surface water versus ground water; chlorides being pushed into infiltration facilities; geological terms; vehicles (i.e., concrete trucks) versus construction equipment (i.e., wheelbarrows or other non-motorized equipment); construction activities covered under the NDPES, with this ordinance attempting to address residential activities; nuisance as defined under MN Rules; illegal versus illicit and their interchangeable and/or conflicted use throughout the document; rooftop connections; ditches and channels; definition of sanitary sewage; tidal versus non-tidal surface water; county ditches; and INI reduction program connecting pump sumps to the sanitary sewer system. Further discussion included the need for educational information process through door-to-door attempts, media and on the City's website; ability of staff to respond to illicit discharge complaints and to enforce the ordinance; areas of flexibility based on common sense versus blatant and continuing illegal practices; pervious and impervious surface Page 9 of 11