2010-06-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

instructions and inspection criteria outlined when permits are pulled; inspections performed by other jurisdictions (i.e., State of MN, Ramsey County) of some sites depending on the project; the process for rain garden proj ects in the City as part of the City's stormwater design and permit plan from watershed districts. Rain gardens are offered at no cost to residents when a part of reconstruction projects, with the resident being responsible for their ongoing maintenance. Further discussion included advantages of the proposed regenerative air sweeper versus current equipment based on a filtering system; comparisons with equipment in other communities; and ongoing need for education of property owners on the problems inputting their grass clippings on the roadway that eventually end up in the stormwater system, with staff continuing to personally alert residents when violations are observed or by leaving a door hanger if they're not at home; and staff's research into cooperative or joint efforts with area communities (i.e., Little Canada, Falcon Heights and Shoreview) and lack of interest from those communities incost-sharing or rental of their equipment. Members expressed interest in observing any future demonstrations of the regenerative air vacuum sweepers. Several specific areas of the Plan were reviewed, including Section 3.C.1(BMP Description) needing updating with the new ordinance in place; need for the City to be more aggressive in stormwater runoff control at single-family home construction sties (i.e., example on Woodhill) in requiring better silt fences around those sites that often become unstable after significant rain falls with dirt ending up on the street; and wetland buffer setbacks for weed and feed applications; for sod plantings up to the water line rather than maintaining a buffer zone. Members noted the difficulty in staff policing all properties for those property owners who will not conform, and how best to address those violations. Further discussion included stormwater inspections (20% of stormwater ponds); work plans to test a number of sites and classify them according to the new rules and to determine the actual cost for disposal. 5-year cleaning frequency; whether consideration of increasing stormwater utility fees was indicated to ensure that maintenance of the system was met; and lack of state legislation during this session on coal tar sealants, with some cities having initiated their own legislation of its use, with members supportive of such a mandate in Roseville, and seeking staff's differentiation between coal tar (with chemicals that were proven carcinogens) and other types of driveway sealant (with asphalt being oil-based). It was noted that it took longer for coal tar to break down, if ever, and made dredging ponds and that sediment somewhat hazardous to dispose of; with many building suppliers not selling the coal tar products anymore, but some still available at low cost. Page 3 of 5