My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009-05-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2009
>
2009-05-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2010 3:02:38 PM
Creation date
3/23/2010 2:29:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/26/2009
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.
/
52
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
There was a new code about water runoff. There were two administrative <br />deviations. One was to run the water from the roof into drain the and the second <br />was a rain garden <br />The city monitors the rain fall on an annual basis. On average rainfall was about <br />an inch to an inch and a half. <br />Member Stenlund asked for clarification on what is the difference between a rain <br />garden and a property that is not being maintained. Member Felice reported the <br />University of Minnesota has done research on this topic. Deb Bloom stated the <br />answer will be looked into. <br />9. City Assessment Policy Review <br />Duane Schwartz reported the assessment policy needs to be reviewed due to <br />funding challenges. The City assesses for 25% of the cost of a project. Member <br />Vanderwall questioned the language about assessing residents for 25% of a <br />project. He thought it should state that 25% is the maximum that would be <br />assessed. Duane Schwartz responded that the language was from years ago and <br />explained residents would not be assessed more than the 25%. Deb Bloom <br />reported on resolutions about temporary roads. A temporary road is one with no <br />curb and gutter. <br />Member Vanderwall asked if a resident would be assessed for a project if a <br />developer wants to develop an area adjacent to a resident's property. Deb Bloom <br />responded there would be a public hearing about the prof ect before any <br />assessment is made. <br />Duane Schwartz reported the policy for utilities that there is not special <br />assessment for storm drainage improvements. This is funded through water <br />usage. Sanitary sewer drains are assessed only on new projects. The water mains <br />are the same as sanitary sewers. <br />There is also no assessment for pathways. Member Vanderwall asked what if <br />residents requested a pathway and said they wanted to pay for it. Duane Schwartz <br />answered it would need to be presented to the City Council. Member Gjerdingen <br />asked if the residents petition to build a pathway is it added to another project. <br />Deb Bloom responded there is a process that needs to be followed to have it <br />approved before anyone can be assessed. The City has a budget for pathway <br />repairs and maintenance. <br />Duane Schwartz reported residents are not assessed for city street lights. Member <br />Felice asked if residents are assessed for the maintenance of the lights and how is <br />that collected. Duane Schwartz reported it would be added to property taxes. <br />Member Stenlund asked for clarification on curbs for a permanent road. Deb <br />Bloom responded a concrete curb is a permanent curb which makes the road a <br />permanent road. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.