My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-02-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-02-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2010 4:06:14 PM
Creation date
3/23/2010 3:21:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/23/2010
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.
/
73
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
Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Page 7 -January 2b, 201.0 <br />Member Vanderwall noted that the weather would be more favorable for <br />attendance at the focus groups at that time as well. <br />Chair DeBenedet suggested the end of March or early April. for focus group <br />meetings, with the public invited to attend. <br />Mr. Schwartz suggested that the PWET Commission appoint a small <br />subcommittee or committee liaison for that group as an observer; and Mr. Pratt <br />suggested the need for a note taker at those meetings to generate data. <br />Member Vanderwall spoke in support of an open-ended di"scussion at the focus <br />group level to determine the best ideas, and then frc~tx tl-iat have the focus groups <br />prepare the issues by topics or next steps in a more organized way. <br />Member Felice suggested polling the focus nr~i~p to see ~~rhat they needed to <br />make a better decision, after their review end discussion of tht initial background <br />information provided by the PWET Comilis5ii~n. <br />Memmber Stenlund suggested that the focus grcxtp lie tasked to define questions for <br />the on-line survey and that they also lead discussions at a regular PWET <br />Commission meeting. <br />Staff was so directed to proceed a5 indir:~ted. <br />George Walters, «'nlters Recyclin and Refuse <br />Mr. Walters ~~rovidetl a bench ~~~ndout for staff to forward to PWET <br />Commissiottcrs by e-rnxl .Nand far the public to have benefit of that information as <br />well. <br />Mr. ~w'alters sought ihc'z~hjective of this discussion: whether it was far them to <br />focus on the road ~~~e~r' and tear from refuse and recycling trucks or a broader <br />issue. <br />Chair DeBenedet ad~~ised that the discussion was broader, and was seeking to <br />obtain m<>~~e competitive rates for citizens based on other comtmunity data for an <br />organized collert~n system. Chair DeBenedet noted that road wear and tear was <br />a huge item, i~Ten street maintenance budget constraints. <br />Mr. Walters provided past data, detailed in his bench handout, from past studies <br />by surrounding cities in the area, and engineering studies to determine the impact <br />of refuse trucks on roadways. <br />Mr. Walters advised that the conclusions of those past studies were that the main <br />source of road wear and tear was Mother Nature, and the frost/freeze cycles; <br />while admitting that heavy trucks did have an impact, but that engineers could not <br />provide actual measurements of that impact. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.