2009-12-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 - Novembex 24, 2009 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 staffreport 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 considerations; and using drywall as an example of a substance that could become a chemical .pollutant if left outside over a period of time without proper containment. Duane - degree-call Given the rurnerous revisions still under discussion, discussion ensued regarding the timing process in recommending a-final draft ordinance to the City Council, their. adoption and subsequent publication; based on Ms. Bloom's certification in March of 2010 of the City's SWPPP and its intent. Ms. Bloom advised that she could report that a re-write was in process if this ordinance remained incomplete at that filing; however, she expressed concern in a potential audit. If this ordinance were adopted in January of 2010, she expressed her support for that Further discussion included MPCA guidelines or requirements needing clarification by the City Attorney (i.e., page 4, #7 (properly disposed of..."); and the need for definition of "structural versus non-structural" based on best management practice (page 5, Section I) Ms. Bloom noted that a number of those items identified could be further discussed by staff and the City Attorney, and refocused Commission discussion to those items identified in the staff report. Some of those items were removed and others revised, with Ms. Bloom noting each specific item, and advising that she would return to the next meeting incorporating those specific items.