2011-02-22_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Fifth Annual Recycling Report was presented to the PWET Commission, with various components of the program highlighted and noting that the revenue sharing portion of the contract was showing some recovery. Discussion with members included tetrapack and aseptic packaging market trends; participation and frequency rates; outreach and educational opportunities, including the success of National Night Out outreach; confusion with holiday collection schedules; Styrofoam and plastic wrapping materials; zero waste events in Roseville during 2010 and the successful diversion rates at those events; comparisons of Roseville with other communities and their collection rates and demographics; addition of additional materials in 2011 (pizza boxes); quality of end market materials; organic and compostable materials; the need for improved accuracy in labeling for consumers; special pick up services for handicapped or elderly individuals (increasing from 88 to 104 in 2010); and other outreach materials for multi family complexes and single family homeowners. At the request of Chair DeBenedet, Mr. Pratt briefly reviewed revenue sharing rates and a comparable analysis over the last five (5) years. 6. Forestry Ordinance Mr. Schwartz advised that part of the requirements of the Emerald Ash Borer preparedness grant received by the City in 2010, was updating the City's forestry ordinance to include Emerald ahs Borer (EAB) and other forest pests. Mr. Schwartz advised that the Parks and Recreation Department was charged with forestry issues and their Advisory Commission had drafted initial changes and asked that the PWET Commission review it for their feedback; prior to the revised draft going before the City Council for public hearing and future adoption. The following input was discussed among Members and staff. Page 2 Discussion included rationale for removal of "diseased tree" language from the Purpose Statement 706.01, Section D through addition of "pests;" and whether to keep it in (Lines 46 -47); whether to clarify the edge of street as at the "pavement," or at the "property line" (Line 39); distinctions for easements and easement rights -of -way (Line 49) as defined in City Code and based on their location and how they were addressed in the subdivision and Erosion Control Ordinances; and common terminology for the understanding of citizens versus the terminology based on the legal power placed on the city -owned and /or private property;. Pie 3 Discussion included differences in distinguishing between shrubs and trees (also page 5 and 11) and the need for consistency and further definition; various types of hazards to the public and whether on private or public property, and whether those hazards impacted the public's health and safety; plantings that could block informational signs (stop and speed signs) as well as impacting visibility around Page 2 of 9