Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission

Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.

1.            Introduction / Call Roll

Chair Jan Vanderwall called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.

Members Present: Chair Jan Vanderwall; and Members Joan Felice; Steve Gjerdingen; Jim DeBenedet; with Member Dwayne Stenlund arriving at approximately 7:40 p.m.

Staff Present:        City Engineer Debra Bloom; with Chair Vanderwall noting that Public Works Director Duane Schwartz was attending a joint meeting of School District No. 621 and the Roseville City Council meeting at this same time.

Others Present:       Ron Leaf, Sr. Water Resources Engineer and Rebecca Nestingen, PE, Water Resources Engineer with S. E. H.

2.            Public Comments

No one appeared to speak at this time.

3.            Approval of April 24, 2012 and May 22, 2012 Meeting Minutes

Member Gjerdingen moved, Member Felice seconded, approval of the April 24, 2012, meeting as presented.

Ayes: 3

Nays: 0

Abstentions: 1 (DeBenedet)

Motion carried.

Member DeBenedet moved, Member Felice seconded, approval of the May 22, 2012, meeting as amended.

Corrections:

·         Page 2, Line 42: Correct Title of Member DeBenedet (no longer Chair) and identify his comments as related to County Road “C-2” (DeBenedet)

·         Page 8, Line 325: Specify blank acronym as “Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD)” (Staff)

·         Page 8, Line 328: Specify referenced acronym for DWSMA as “Drinking Water Supply Management Area” (Staff)

Ayes: 4

Nays: 0

Motion carried.

4.            Communication Items

City Engineer Debra Bloom provided an update on various construction projects were included in tonight’s meeting packet or available on-line at the City’s website at www.cityofroseville.com/projects, and as detailed in the staff report dated June 26, 2012.

Discussion among Ms. Bloom and PWETC Members included ongoing communication with City contractors, property owners, and private contractors doing work related to the 2012 Pavement Management Plan (PMP); drainage improvements at the Brenner storm water pond including a pipe extension; pond installation at the end of the Skillman Avenue cul-de-sac and two (2) separate drainage solutions for the Fairview Pathway project including addressing standing water on Fairview by Evergreen Park with the catch basin extended to mitigate that problem.

Further discussion included Member Gjerdingen’s observation about the Har Mar neighborhood streets and paths, and questioning how far the City and/or private paths extended (e.g. to the fence?) with Ms. Bloom advising that the City was responsible for installing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps as part of road projects, but identifying the private/ public portions and areas of responsibility for the City and those privately held by Har Mar Mall’s ownership.  Member Gjerdingen asked if Har Mar had been approached about the degrading pavement on the pathway connections on their private property, Ms. Bloom advised that, she would contact their management to determine their interest.

Member Felice noted several areas on Har Mar Mall’s private property where curb drops were also needed for pedestrian and non-motorized traffic

5.            Discuss Joint Meeting with the City Council

Chair Vanderwall sought individual Member comments on the recent annual joint meeting of the PWETC and City Council.

Chair Vanderwall expressed his appreciation for how the Commission had been received and for the City Council’s strong support for getting moving on organized trash collection.  Chair Vanderwall opined that the City Council’s positive support motivated him to keep that effort moving forward.

Past Chair DeBenedet opined that since this could be the result of the City of Maplewood moving forward with a similar implementation for organized collection, and had already met expectations of their residents in reducing costs for them, lending additional overall support.  Member DeBenedet noted Councilmember Johnson’s comments regarding the PWETC providing additional input to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Task Force to lend additional support for continued and consistent investment in the City’s infrastructure, particularly that underground infrastructure that was “out of sight, out of mind” for most of the general public.  Member DeBenedet suggested that the PWETC ask the City Council to forward additional information to the PWETC for further analysis and recommendations.

Related to CIP items, Member Felice questioned the status of the City’s Asset Management Software, with Ms. Bloom reporting that staff has evaluated a number of different software packages and has narrowed it down to four (4) different products.  Ms. Bloom stressed the importance for staff to recommend a software package to the City Council that is easy to use and tracks the right information.

Member DeBenedet opined that the most important element to consider in such an Asset Management Program would be training and commitment to retain competency of those using the software program(s).  Member DeBenedet asked that a future PWETC agenda include information from staff on their recommendations for a program, and how it will be used, by whom, and how it will be managed in-house.

Ms. Bloom noted that the software programs, while varying in their sophistication, included components across city-wide departments, incorporating management of vehicles, utilities, buildings, roadways, sewer systems, pathways; as well as fuel consumption tracking, employee and equipment hours per project or program, and payroll components.  Ms. Bloom assured the PWETC that staff was carefully evaluating the programs to determine which product would provide what the City needed, while being user-friendly and capable of being easily maintained with limited staff resources.

Chair Vanderwall noted that “complexity” and “easy to use” were a difficult concept to address in one sentence.

Ms. Bloom concurred, noting that many cities contacted by City staff had chosen a system that required hiring additional staff to manage the system.

Chair Vanderwall noted that School District No. 623, his employer, had a document management system shared jointly with other school districts, with that system initially small and over time having additional layers.

Ms. Bloom advised that some programs can generate work orders from citizen website inquiries and disseminate them to the appropriate department; the products can track trees, parks and their various components, virtually any item that can be counted or tracked could be incorporated into the system.  Ms. Bloom advised that all departments, including the Parks and Recreation and Police Departments were involved in evaluating the software programs in order to make an informed decision.

Member Felice noted the need to allow for prioritization of areas and needs as well, with Ms. Bloom responding that the idea was to understand what the City had (inventory), what it costs to maintain those assets, and how to include that cost in annual budgets and how to prioritize those items, all generating the need for careful consideration before a staff recommendation is brought forward to the City Council.

Chair Vanderwall noted the City Council asking the PWETC to consider and make future recommendation for long-term funding alternatives and options for the existing Pavement Management Program (PMP).  Chair Vanderwall opined that discussions to-date on water/sewer infrastructure needs and rates to support that infrastructure have been beneficial for the public and their awareness of the needs and costs; and those discussions should continue in the public realm.  Chair Vanderwall suggested that a future PEWTC agenda should include discussing the PMP and funding options.

Member DeBenedet concurred with Chair Vanderwall’s comments regarding the support of the City Council for PWETC recommendations; and observed that everyone had the same interest across the community and were working toward those common goals.

Member Gjerdingen stated that he liked the variety of topics covered at the joint meeting, opining that it was the best joint meeting held to-date; and advised that he took away from the meeting a lot of things the City Council expected the PWETC to move forward with, including organized collection, how it was administered, and even whether the recycling and trash programs should be bundled.  Member Gjerdingen opined that this provided the PWETC with a lot of latitude in exploring ways to accomplish the goal; and provided direction for a more proactive approach in determining priorities.

Chair Vanderwall cautioned the need for the PWETC, as a citizen advisory group, to work with staff on how to organize moving forward on projects and initiatives in order to recognize staff needs and their work priorities.  Chair Vanderwall expressed his interest in looking at options; however, also expressed his concern in keeping those options open by defining the process moving forward and the responsible parties in that process.

Member Gjerdingen suggested that the PWETC become more proactive in providing the City Council with recommended motions on items moving forward, similar to that provided by staff in their reports to the City Council and action requests. 

Member Felice stated that a lot of ground was covered during the joint meeting, and she appreciated the receptiveness of the City Council toward the PWETC and its accomplishments and upcoming work plan.

Chair Vanderwall noted that he left the meeting feeling that, even thought the PWETC was a citizen volunteer group, the City Council considered recommendations of the group as meaningful and important to the work of the City Council.

6.            Final Vote on Organized Collection

Member Felice opined that, with all the time spent on this issue to-date and hearing from all parties, it was time to move forward and achieve a positive potential outcome.

Chair Vanderwall expressed his regret that Member Stenlund was not in attendance for this vote; however, he noted that Member Stenlund had been a strong and consistent advocate in support of organized collection.

Member DeBenedet commented on one area of concern with the draft resolution on page 1 in the “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED…” introductory statement; and suggested revised language to read as follows:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Roseville, Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission hereby recommends to the Roseville City Council to [begin the state-mandated process to implement] organized solid waste collection in the City of Roseville with the consideration of the following goals:…”

Member DeBenedet opined that the actual PWETC recommendation is that the City Council begin the process, including the lengthy discussion between haulers and the City, and just recommending that the process be initiated, not whether it actually comes to fruition in the end.

Member Gjerdingen expressed concern in the PWETC appearing to make an actual commitment; with Chair Vanderwall clarifying that there was no commitment, just initiating a very lengthy process.

Member DeBenedet moved, Member Gjerdingen seconded, the adoption of a resolution entitled, “Resolution Recommending Consideration of Organized Trash Collection;” for formal recommendation to the Roseville City Council; with page 1 amended to read as follows:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Roseville, Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission hereby recommends to the Roseville City Council to [begin the state-mandated process to implement] organized solid waste collection in the City of Roseville with the consideration of the following goals:…”

Chair Vanderwall opined that he liked the idea that the first goal was economic.  Chair Vanderwall advised that he anticipated once the City Council received this resolution of recommendation they would return the issue to the PWETC to start the process as a commission, whether that included Public Hearings at the PWETC level or if those would be held at the City Council level.  Chair Vanderwall opined that his perspective was that the PWETC should serve as the body for public comment via Public Hearings.

Member DeBenedet, referencing Goal #5 (page 2) suggested the need for caution related with statements about safety unless there was reliable evidence to support that statement.  Member DeBenedet opined that, while the number of trucks on a road affecting safety may not have justifiable data to support it, obviously the more vehicles on a road, the more accidents occurring.

Chair Vanderwall, from his perspective with bus transportation and 1500 – 2000 bus stops in Roseville, advised that he frequently fielded questions from parents expressing concern with trucks going too fast on city streets; and other relevant pieces to this beyond trucks using city streets.  On a related note, Chair Vanderwall noted that there are currently 3,600 kids in summer school in Roseville, making it a year-round issue, not just during the regular school year.

Member DeBenedet clarified that he was not asking that Goal #5 be struck at this point just cautioned the need for more research or specific evidence.

Member Felice opined that, while it may be harder to measure actual data, perceived security and safety was an important factor to consider in neighborhoods as well.

Chair Vanderwall noted that this was a significant step by the PWETC; however, he noted that it had been under discussion and analysis for a considerable time, and opined that it was now time to move forward.

Ayes: 4

Nays: 0

Motion carried.

7.            Review DRAFT Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP) Update Discussion

City Engineer Bloom briefly introduced this item subsequent to the discussion held at the last meeting, and comments incorporated into this updated draft.

Ms. Bloom also reported on the informational meeting for the public held on June 21, 2012;, and the disappointing turn out (3 residents) even after a direct mailing to all property owners living on lakes, a published notice and on-line notices.   Ms. Bloom advised that staff and the consultant were currently reviewing options to invite the public again, perhaps – with the permission of the PWETC – at the July PWETC meeting.

S.E.H. Project Manager Ron Leaf, Sr. Water Resources Engineer and Rebecca Nestingen, PE, Water Resources Engineer with S. E. H. were present to review the latest revisions and seek additional Member comment.

Mr. Leaf advised that additional information had been received from the Lake Owasso Study and would be incorporated into the Plan.

At the request of Chair Vanderwall, Mr. Leaf led the PWETC through the goals section by section and noted comments for previous goals, as well as those added after the last discussion.

Section 1. Introduction

Member Gjerdingen expressed concern with the opening paragraph and reference to the freeway systems; suggested that the comment was out-of-date and indicated one mode of transportation and Roseville as a bedroom community.  Member Gjerdingen suggested alternative language indicating that Roseville was an inner-ring suburb, located in closer proximity to both Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Mr. Leaf concurred that such a revision also tied into the sustainability goals of the updated Plan, and should be reflected in the overall flavor of the plan.

Section 4. Goals and Policies (pages 13 – 18)

Section 4.1 (Insert Narrative)

Chair Vanderwall noted the need to included in the narrative the areas of Roseville that have experienced flooding issues for years; and those things that had been significantly improved, as well as those things yet to be done.  Chair Vanderwall noted the need to recognize existing problems in the goal statement and the goal to correct those problems, while recognizing budget constraints and the need to prioritize those items or address them in the most cost-effective method possible.

Ms. Bloom reiterated that the purpose of this Plan was to establish policies and goals for use to guide discussions and the process to address problems.

Mr. Leaf opined that it was worth clarifying, to the best extent possible, that while there was no guarantee that there wouldn’t be ongoing flooding issues depending on actual rain events, the City would attempt to achieve a reasonable level of protection through design standards that supported the goals and policies of the Plan.

Goal 1 – Flood Protection and Runoff Management (Table 7)

Member DeBenedet expressed concern that, as a substantially developed community, a broader policy statement was needed that the City would attempt to provide flood protection through runoff management and through enhancement of existing drainage facilities and management of those facilities.  Member DeBenedet noted that consideration of time spent, resources committed, and cost-effectiveness, all needed to be part of the discussion.

Section 2.1 Climate and Precipitation (Table 1, page 3)

Member DeBenedet questioned if this section needed to be updated to give consideration to anticipated updated precipitation numbers coming in the next year; and in anticipation that those updated numbers may be higher.  Member DeBenedet suggested that it may be worthwhile to have a paragraph included in this section describing what could happen if those precipitation levels were increased and how it would affect this Plan.

At the request of Member Felice, Mr. Leaf provided a definition of “freeboard elevations” in Policy 4 related to the lowest homes level compared to the high water level for a 100-year design standard.

Member DeBenedet, related to that question, asked a similar question based on assumptions for freeboard calculations measured from the lowest floor elevations (e.g. Millwood Avenue pond); with Mr. Leaf advising that it could be dependent on various scenarios.

Using the Millwood Pond as an example, Ms. Bloom noted the project proposed for this year extended the flared end section to improve the freeboard for this pond. 

Member DeBenedet asked that the Plan include freeboard elevations accordingly.

Goal 2 – Surface Water Protection (Table 8)

At the request of Member DeBenedet, Ms. Bloom confirmed that the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) did not have the same standards for redevelopment in problem areas; and advised that the City was aware of problem areas and the need to implement long term solutions in those areas.  Ms. Bloom used the I-35W corridor and Fairview Avenue as examples of problem areas; and staff’s awareness of issues within that watershed area.  Ms. Bloom advised that whenever a redevelopment or improvement project came forward, staff made sure that the storm water review included requirements for property owner(s) to take care of their portion of the water capacity issues at that time.  Ms. Bloom noted that, while RCWD may not require it, the City did require compliance with water quantity concerns for larger rain events.  Ms. Bloom advised that the City had adopted a set of standards, identified what would work in specific drainage subareas, and mandated that those items be incorporated into redevelopment projects being pursued in those project areas.

At the request of Member DeBenedet, Ms. Bloom clarified that the CSWMP was considered a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and it had the full force of law and is used to review any and all redevelopment plans submitted.  Ms. Bloom noted that this Plan provided an overarching provision, and standards were in place to implement the law. (Reference Policy No. 3)

Chair Vanderwall questioned if the City had sufficient regulations regarding yard treatments (e.g. fertilizer, grass clippings) and other ordinances currently in place to protect surface water; with Ms. Bloom advising that staff and the consultant would take note of that concern and review policies to determine that sufficient regulations were in place.

Mr. Leaf expressed appreciation for Chair Vanderwall’s question, and suggested that it would be relatively easy to “cut and paste” language from City ordinance, or references to them, addressing lawn clippings and other items.  Mr. Leaf suggested that the narrative portions could reference them at a minimum.

Ms. Bloom noted that the City’s existing illicit discharge and nuisance ordinances addressed those items, but referencing it in this Plan would reinforce these items.

Mr. Leaf noted that referencing those things would set the tone of where the City is now, and where the City was headed during the ten (10) year duration of the Plan and its Comprehensive Plan as well.  Mr. Leaf clarified that the policies were intended to recognize those things that may change over the next decade and serve as a benchmark with some built in flexibility to adjust as things change.

At the request of Member DeBenedet regarding the 10,000 square feet reference, Ms. Bloom advised that this was a direct quote from the City’s current erosion control ordinance.

Goal 3 – Groundwater Protection (Table 9)

At the request of Chair Vanderwall, Mr. Leaf clarified that the intergovernmental collaboration reference in the goal statement was mostly referring to Ramsey County.

Member DeBenedet, with concurrence by Chair Vanderwall, noted his previously-stated concerns that a requirement for groundwater monitoring for larger underground infiltration systems be provided, particularly for commercial properties and/or parking lots; with the overall goal for groundwater protection.

Chair Vanderwall questioned if this was something that was primarily a City responsibility or was accomplished through collaboration.

Mr. Leaf noted that an additional Policy Statement could be included to incorporate monitoring; and advised that they would research what was currently available.  Mr. Leaf noted that it would be difficult to monitor every infiltration basin throughout the City; however, staff could identify high risk areas or smaller subwatersheds.

Chair Vanderwall suggested language that would provide for any impervious surface of 25,000 square feet or more, or something to that effect.

Member DeBenedet expressed his preference that it would tie more to land use or commercial uses.

However, Chair DeBenedet noted that it could also affect schools and churches with large parking lots and/or impervious surfaces.

Member Stenlund arrived at this time, approximately 7:40 p.m.

Goal 4 – Public Education and Outreach (Table 10)

Member Felice noted her ongoing frustration with the education and outreach opportunities provided and the few people who attend them, using the June 21, 2012 public information meeting for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan as an example.  Member Felice opined that people needed to be educated where they were; and suggested signage at storm water ponds and other applicable locations that would provide that education by graphics and statements of the purpose of the ponds and what was supposed to happen.  Member Felice opined that this would provide a better educational opportunity in the place of publishing information or holding meetings with little result.  Member Felice suggested that, while residents were walking, they could be educated at the same time through signage.

Ms. Bloom concurred; however, she asked for clarification if that was a Goal, a Policy, or an Implementation Strategy. Ms. Bloom restated Member Felice’s original statement as “educate people where they’re ready to be educated.”

Chair Vanderwall opined that he heard it as a Policy to ensure that the City had an “effective public education and outreach tool or process.”

Member Felice suggested a Policy or Implementation Strategy would be to identify areas where educational signs could have the most impact.

Member Gjerdingen suggested including that signage and narrative information on the City’s website as well.

Chair Vanderwall suggested that there may be other options as well to attract people’s attention as they moved throughout the community, and opined that it shouldn’t stop at signage.

Ms. Bloom suggested that to address these items a goal should be added to develop on-going educational opportunities.

Member DeBenedet noted that lack of public interest in the annual storm water permit meeting held at the PWETC, concurring that it did little to educate the public, but if someone walked by a pond and saw a graphic or information, they would be inclined to stop and look at it.

Chair Vanderwall noted the many acronyms used in these policies, as well as throughout the Plan, and the need to ensure that the public can understand the language and for it to be user-friendly.

Ms. Bloom duly noted that comment, advising that they would review the overall Plan for acronym use and make sure they were defined clearly.

Chair Vanderwall noted the need to promote stewardship through use of volunteers in that public education and outreach portion as well.

Ms. Bloom suggested an additional Policy or Goal to “Promote Stewardship.”

Mr. Leaf noted that, while a challenge in the past, a lot of effort could come forward as people became connected.

Chair Vanderwall opined that this was typical of any volunteer effort beyond an emergency situation.

Chair Vanderwall suggested that various presentations or annual updates be incorporated on the City’s website with a tracking of hits to determine the level of interest on specific topics.

Member Felice noted the significant interest of Roseville residents in environmental issues, and suggested that the narrative include that acknowledgement.

Chair Vanderwall noted the need to include coordination with area schools in the policies.

Goal 5 – Pollution Prevention and Maintenance (Table 11)

In Policy No. 4, Member Gjerdingen noted the need to address sweeping requirements, based on City Code, for private commercial areas as well. 

Ms. Bloom responded that this was required by the Illicit Discharge Ordinance.

Member Gjerdingen also addressed Roseville pathways and debris that could end up in the storm water system.

Member Stenlund suggested that all impervious surfaces should be included; however, he noted the need to prioritize them based on discharge loads.  Member Stenlund suggested the need to get the public involved in being sweepers of those impervious surfaces; not to rely on City employees to do so.  Member Stenlund opined that there was a significant amount of education yet required to help residents understand what constituted illicit discharges, and how to get that component to the knowledge of the general public.

At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom advised that the City’s nuisance ordinance addressed trash on commercial and other properties.

In Policy No. 5, Chair Vanderwall noted the need to address small spills on private property, not just public property; with Ms. Bloom advising that the City’s illicit discharge ordinance also referenced that.

Member Stenlund noted the need for all City staff, not just appropriate City staff, to be able to recognize problem areas, providing more eyes and ears for the staff responsible to be made aware of problems and address them.  Member Stenlund suggested a team approach with more eyes available when driving around the City on their daily work assignments, and the need to teach them what to look for.

Mr. Leaf suggested “walking the walk” and leading by example.

Chair Vanderwall suggested that the narrative Goal Statement could emphasize prevention, since prevention eliminated the need for more maintenance; and have the policies engender public awareness to prevent and reduce maintenance costs.

Member DeBenedet noted the ever-increasing attitude that it was better to seek forgiveness rather than ask for permission; and the need to make people aware that this is not always the case. Member DeBenedet noted that this needed to be part of the education process to avoid having flagrant disregard of rules by some when the majority of residents were attempting to follow the rules for the betterment of the overall community.

Member Felice concurred, noting that many of those decisions caused permanent damage and had considerable negative consequences.

Member Stenlund suggested including winter management in this section, not just summer management (e.g. snow storage); with Ms. Bloom advising that this was included Policy No. 7 and as part of the Implementation section as well.  Ms. Bloom noted the need, however, to include all property owners, not just residents in those discussion and implementation.

Chair Vanderwall suggested that staff check for consistency with the ordinance for phosphorus loading; and include language “near water resources,” in that section as well.

Member Stenlund noted that a phosphorus law was already in place, but the Plan needed to reflect that provision and based on soil tests to ensure water quality.

Goal 6 – Coordination and Collaboration (Table 12)

Ms. Bloom noted that while the Implementation Plan included coordinating with schools via HANC educational opportunities, the School District and other collaborative efforts could also be included.

Chair Vanderwall noted the overall desire for the City to coordinate with other agencies and groups.

Member Stenlund noted the need to make classification information available to students and provide opportunities for them to have access to that information and those features, and their understanding of the differences of those features (e.g. wetlands versus storm water ponds).

Mr. Leaf suggested that as a longer-term implementation goal to provide an interactive tool on the website.

Member Gjerdingen suggested this would be another good place to reference the City’s nuisance and/or illicit discharge ordinances for trash pick-up; with Ms. Bloom offering to follow-up on those references.

In Policy No. 2, Member Felice questioned the meaning of “educational materials;” with Ms. Bloom advising that the intent was to have a consistent message and build upon that foundation through use of partner activities and promotions as part of the implementation policy.

Mr. Leaf noted that the intent was to use those materials already available and not recreate them.

Member Felice suggested including that statement in the policy to clarify it.

Member Stenlund questioned the location of “engineered green space construction,” through the use of plant materials and trees to improve water quality.

Ms. Bloom advised that this was discussed via Low Impact Development (LID) efforts.

Member Stenlund noted the need, once developed, to regulate and maintain that green space and avoid it being converted to something else.

Ms. Bloom advised that such regulations were already required as part of City Code and part of the approval process addressing maintenance and sustainability.

Member DeBenedet suggested, as part of the land development process and permitting, there should be a maintenance agreement as part of the ordinance related to storm water management.

Ms. Bloom noted that part of the work plan is to update the drainage ordinance. 

Member Stenlund emphasized the need to include it as part of an operations plan to avoid pond evolution and standard designs for a rain garden community.

Ms. Bloom made note in the Policy section to include maintenance for construction of LID’s.

Member Stenlund concurred, noting the need to preserve the engineer-built system.

Ms. Nestingen suggested adding that to Policy No. 10; with Mr. Leaf clarifying that the preservation and maintenance of the system should address the entire system.

Mr. Leaf, upon learning that the City did not have a template for a maintenance agreement, advised that he would provide an example to staff.

Chair Vanderwall noted that it was addressed in Policy No. 9 of Goal 5 (Table 11) as well.

In Policy No. 1, Member DeBenedet noted that language should be revised to ensure that the City was not held liable, since laws and rules change constantly; with Chair Vanderwall suggesting language be revised to state that the “City shall ENDEAVOR to inform developers…”

Discussion ensued about various options for forums or workshops, tours and presentations that would engage students and residents, while recognizing the limited staff resources available.

Goal 7 – Sustainability (Table 13)

Ms. Bloom questioned if Policies No. 2 and 4 specifically addressed the concerns of Member Stenlund; with Member Stenlund enthusiastically supporting exploring additional multi-use facilities from a sustainability perspective (e.g. soccer field and storm water pond) and providing multi-use of green spaces.

Chair Vanderwall, referencing the Goal Statement, questioned if sustainable was intended as self-renewing and specific to water, or what was actually intended.

Member DeBenedet opined that, in part, sustainability tries to reach ponds versus pipes; however, he noted the unknown consequence and costs for clean-out of hazardous materials from those ponds.  Member DeBenedet noted that pond locations could also be perceived to be an amenity for land uses.

Mr. Leaf noted the improving technologies and cost of management based on those improving technologies and sustainability efforts now compared to that interest in the past.

Ms. Bloom noted that an entire section of this Plan addressed parks (pages 6 and 7); with Member Stenlund recognizing that collaborative sustainability efforts could see part of the Parks budget assisting with the Storm water budget.

Mr. Leaf noted that this also included more people using parks, and providing an educational technique.

While recognizing that the Parks & Recreation Commission may want to limit multi-use options at some parks, Member DeBenedet opined that if they were designed properly, there should be minimal problems within limits.

Ms. Bloom noted that this includes porous pavement in some multi-use areas as well in the General Goal Statement.

Member Stenlund noted that this would provide more treatment at the source versus along the path.

Member Gjerdingen sought the threshold of when storm water ponds were fences and when they were not, opining that the fences were a major eyesore.

Ms. Bloom advised that storm water fencing was a property owner decision; and while she did not encourage it, some private developers perceived that they provided a level of safety to avoid liability issues.  Ms. Bloom advised that her typical response was that fences don’t keep people out; they keep emergency responders out; as well as being unattractive.

Member Stenlund noted that there were also options to keep ponds more shallow or sides less steep, providing for a safe as well as sustainable design.

Member Gjerdingen questioned to benefit of having more and smaller storm water treatment ponds dispersed throughout a property rather than one large pond; and how that affected sustainability.

Member DeBenedet suggested that not be included as a goal or policy, but that staff and the consultant provide a recommendation.

Ms. Bloom noted that the Policies said to “encourage,” and “support” and staff could provide options accordingly.

Member Stenlund noted that they could be pieces of the puzzle, rather than relying on one option.

At the request of Ms. Bloom regarding Policy No. 2 and whether that achieved the intent, Member Stenlund opined that it did not; and that phosphorus needed to be identified as a stressor, and an option provided for phosphorus reduction that could be managed and maintained.

Ms. Bloom suggested that staff could add another goal to address those stressors.

Member Gjerdingen suggested a fifth policy that the “City shall review BMP’s that lend to long-term or easy maintenance…” 

Member Felice advised that it would be useful to have some record retained by the City of successful projects to serve as models for residents.

Ms. Bloom advised that this would be a good Implementation Strategy.

Implementation Plan

With Mr. Leaf seeking initial comments of the PWETC related to the Implementation Plan, Ms. Bloom suggested that those comments be held until the next meeting.  Ms. Bloom advised that staff would incorporate tonight’s comments in the next draft.  Ms. Bloom noted that, as always, individual feedback and comments were encouraged from Members between meetings for review off-line.

Member DeBenedet reminded staff of the request that revisions from tonight’s discussion be provided at least one (1) week prior to the next month’s meeting.

Member Stenlund suggested a goal be included to provide an understanding that progressive thinking to address future needs will need to be provided beyond today’s water quality technologies and efforts.

Mr. Leaf noted that this was the intent of the Plan, to address where the City should be going.

Member DeBenedet questioned how to focus on those proactive technologies for implementation (e.g. upgraded water data for large rain events, and monitoring large site infiltration systems).

Mr. Leaf noted that he considered that part of the entire sustainability process for the whole system, and taking all factors into consideration.

Chair Vanderwall questioned if that proactive thinking needed to be a separate goal or to recognize that the Plan is continuing to evolve and will be adjusted as appropriate.  Chair Vanderwall suggested that this needed to be a separate goal or included in the Preface.

Ms. Nestingen noted that Section 7 talked about plan amendments; however, Ms. Bloom noted that depending on the nature of the amendment, they needed to go through a formal approval process.

Ms. Bloom noted that the Master Plan should serve as a foundation, with items included in the Implementation Plan.  Ms. Bloom noted that past efforts by staff in attempting to celebrate accomplishments were relegated to the City Council’s consent agenda and eventually phased out as staff resources were reallocated and reprioritized.

Member Stenlund, referencing Page 107, noted that the goal of the Plan was to have unimpaired waters when done; and to have a measurable outcome of how various stressors were addressed over the ten (10) years to achieve those goals.

Mr. Leaf opined that the overriding goal addresses that intent.

Due to the lateness of the hour, Chair Vanderwall advised that the remaining agenda items, Assessment and Complete Streets Policies, would be taken up at the next meeting of the PWETC.

8.            Assessment Policy Revisions

9.            Review DRAFT Complete Streets Policy

10.         Possible Items for Next Meeting – July 24, 2012

·         DRAFT Complete Streets Policy

·         Assessment Policy Revisions

·         Storm Water Management Plan Update Discussion (continued)

Members asked that staff and the consultant provide revisions at least one (1) week in advance of the July meeting to allow sufficient time for PWETC review.

Ms. Bloom questioned at what point the PWETC wished to invite formal public comment on the Storm Water Management Plan.

·         Organized Trash Collection Process

Chair Vanderwall cautioned that, once the City Council had taken action on the PWETC recommendation for the organized trash collection, that item needed to be immediately included on the next PWETC agenda following City Council action, and other items would need to be prioritized accordingly.

·         Pathway Master Plan

Member DeBenedet asked that additional and updated information on the existing build-out of the pathway system, based on the original Pathway Master Plan, be incorporated into the Complete Streets discussion.  Based on discussions at the joint meeting of the PWETC and City Council, Member DeBenedet noted their request to review the Master Plan and determine how it relates to the Parks Master Plan Implementation program; and what is and is not included. 

Ms. Bloom confirmed that staff could provide a priority list and those pathways incorporated in the Parks Master Plan Implementation program as additional information for the PWETC.

At the request of Member DeBenedet and previous concerns of Member Stenlund to include trees as storm water management options for Complete Streets, Ms. Bloom advised that this information was included in the SWMP’s Implementation Plan (page 22).  Member DeBenedet, in reviewing the draft Complete Streets Policy modeled from that developed by Ms. Bloom for the City of Falcon Heights, noted that it tied in with the CSWMP as well.

At the request of Member Gjerdingen to look at Parks bond allocated funding for pathway build-out, Chair Vanderwall suggested waiting until the Parks Commission provided their available numbers before moving further with discussion at the PWETC level.

Member Stenlund confirmed that, had he been at the meeting during the vote, he would have voted in support of the organized collection resolution and recommendation to the City Council.

11.         Adjourn

Member Stenlund moved, Member DeBenedet seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:43 p.m.

Ayes: 5

Nays: 0

Motion carried.