|
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
1. Introduction / Call Roll
Chair DeBenedet called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Members Steve Gjerdingen; Jan Vanderwall; and Dwayne Stenlund.
Members Excused: Member Joan Felice.
Staff Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; and City Fleet and Facility Supervisor Pat Dolan.
2. Public Comments
No one appeared to speak.
3. Approval of April 27, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Member Gjerdingen seconded, approval of the April 27, 2010 meeting as amended.
Correction:
§ Page 3 (DeBenedet)
Third full paragraph (Item 4), correct to read: “…next section of Rice Street scheduled for reconstruction in 2010 [2010] from north of County Road B-2 to Little Canada Road…”
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 0
Motion carried.
4. Communication Items
Public Works Director Schwartz summarized written items included in meeting materials as noted in the agenda packet. Discussion items included: 2010 Contract B Street Maintenance Project; Churchill/Oxford Watermain Maintenance Project; Roselawn Avenue Reconstruction Project; Fairview Pathway Improvements Public Hearing; Projects Update; and Metro Highway System Investment Study.
Discussion included funding for metropolitan highway reconstruction based on economic returns; recent award by the City Council of favorable bid for the 2010 sewer lining project; recent puncture of a sewer line in Roseville at a residence on Dale Street, and contractor and City response, with the finding that it was a city-contracted fiber cable to the Nature Center that was found through televising the section; the need for more detailed and accurate records of sanitary sewer locations and installations installed many years ago; and the need for extra caution by contractors and subcontractors in horizontal, directional boring; and the City’s plan to re-establish vegetation that was disturbed on that site.
Further discussion included the condition of landscaping along the County Road C corridor and staff’s ongoing discussions with subcontractors and dispute as to the actual problem, whether environmental (i.e., winter salt) or due to lack of maintenance (i.e., watering) and the responsible party for that maintenance; the subcontractor’s agreement for two (2) years of maintenance of the trees after their installation; intent to have the area back in shape before Rosefest in this public corridor; irrigation on the north side only; and how long it takes for the trees to be sustainable under normal weather conditions and root establishment.
5. Annual Public NPDES Stormwater Presentation (SWPPP)
City Fleet and Facility Supervisor Pat Dolan presented highlights of the City of Roseville Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the overall program goal to reduce the amount of sediment and pollutants that enter surface water from storm sewer systems through best management practices (BMP) and minimum control measures, as detailed in the report dated May 25, 2010.
Mr. Dolan reviewed the various opportunities for public education and outreach from elementary children, as well as adults and families at periodic “Roseville U;” required training for staff in accordance with state and federal mandates, and limited budget resources available to sustain that training.
Mr. Schwartz announced that the City had received notice that the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) would be performing a full audit in July of the City of Roseville on all six (6) Permit Areas, both in-house and in the field. Mr. Schwartz noted that staff was aware of some of those areas that may be insufficient; and advised that staff would be providing a substantial effort to prepare information for the PCA for that audit.
Discussion included how often site visits were done by staff of reconstruction sites to ensure silt fencing was in place, with staff advising periodic weekly inspections, in addition following rain events, and in accordance with City permit 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 projects 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 in putting 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 in cost-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.
Additional discussion included the role of the Commission to assist staff and become more involved, through volunteer and community involvement, and in engaging citizens through interaction between them and the Commission (i.e., a planned stormwater educational packet); with staff expressing interest in the Commission serving to further educate the public on the impacts to and cost of maintaining or improving water quality through individual awareness.
Commissioner Stenlund concurred, suggesting that Members get more involved, and work with students on fun ideas that would also serve as educational opportunities (i.e., MS4); and opined that the public needed further education about illicit discharges, while acknowledging the assistance provided by the public in helping to monitor potential violations or areas of concern.
Mr. Dolan concurred, noting that Commission Members were more involved in the community through various groups and venues that staff could ever be, and could use those gatherings as educational opportunities; and assist staff in encouraging students to help with inspections.
Member Stenlund suggested that staff make it a priority to incorporate the language of the Illicit Discharge Ordinance into the SWPPP before the formal PCA audit;.
Further discussion included clarification in Section 3.D.1 and Section 3.A.1 of the dates and whether they were historical reference or needed updated, with staff indicating they were for historical reference of when those items were completed; Section 5 related to post-construction inspections for development and/or redevelopment projects to ensure that stormwater ponds are functioning properly as designed; review of as-builts to ensure they were built as profiled in plans and that no loss of capacity was evident upon terminating the MPCA construction permit.
Member Gjerdingen provided an example at Northwestern College where in the process of putting up a new building, they discovered a higher water table than previous soil borings had indicated, possibly linked to construction of new roads within the campus (Arden Hills section) that had changed the flow; and expressed his concern that monitoring was in place to ensure that any stormwater containment plans function as designed.
Additional discussion included pervious and impervious surface requirements and innovations; under-drain sand filter designs; mitigation of properties exceeding the thirty percent (30%) maximum impervious surface coverage requirements; best management practices (BMP) for private property; and recognizing that the public wants clean water, but not realizing that it came at a cost.
Member Stenlund noted the interesting and excellent example to infiltration approach at the Bonestroo building on Highway 280.
Mr. Dolan noted the underground systems in Roseville recently installed at Target and Rainbow.
Unidentified Speaker in Audience
An unidentified speaker in the audience expressed interest in the intersection inspection tour scheduled and how it was determined which intersections were problematic. The unidentified speaker expressed specific safety concerns and provided examples at the intersections of Hamline Avenue and Lexington at County Road C-2, with one known fatality to-date; and noted that he submitted his concerns to the City via its website, with some questions directed back to him by staff.
Members noted that the original list received from the Roseville Citizens League (RCL) had been pared down from over thirty (30) to approximately sixteen (16).
Mr. Roger Toogood, representing the RCL, was also in the audience and participated in this discussion off microphone.
The gentleman was invited by Chair DeBenedet to join the Commission, Mr. Toogood, and staff on the upcoming intersection tour.
6. Recycling Community Values Discussion
Due to time constraints, Chair DeBenedet advised that this discussion would be deferred to the June meeting.
7. Agenda for Next Meeting – June 22, 2010
· Recycling Community Values Discussion, including related items from the Imagine Roseville 2025 process
· Agenda items for the joint meeting with the City Council scheduled for June 28, 2010; including accomplishments over the last year, and plans for the upcoming year
· Discussion on information gathered from tonight’s intersection tour to determine recommendations of the Commission to the City Council, pending additional information needed from staff before a formal recommendation is made to the City Council
8. Adjournment to Field Tour of Various Intersections
Chair DeBenedet adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:38 p.m. for a field tour of various intersections.
|