Agenda Packets - 2008/08/25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It should be noted that the SIP appeal process outlined above can be readily applied to future projects in the program, with the dates changed to fit each specific project. Other Items: Program Name Throughout the activities of the Streets and Utilities Task Force in 2007, as well as during development of the proposed 2007 – 2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project (SUIP) prior to that, the program to address stormwater treatment for the SUIP had generally been referred to as the “Raingarden Program”. However, given the development of the program over the past few months, it has become apparent that this name is misleading, as the standard feature constructed to address stormwater treatment will not be a raingarden. To establish consistent terminology when referencing the program adopted by Resolution 7319 from this point forward, the Committee passed a motion (by a vote of 6-0) to re-name the Raingarden Program the Stormwater Infiltration Program or SIP. Staff does not feel it necessary for Council to adopt the name by resolution; however, Council should indicate their concurrence with the name either through a simple vote or motion. Neighborhood Meeting During the discussion at the August 4, 2008 City Council Work Session, the Committee presented their recommendation that a provision in the motion to establish the components of the SIP be added to extend an invitation to all property owners with a proposed feature adjacent to their yard to meet with the City to discuss the project on-site. In an effort to consolidate meetings and reduce costs, the Mayor suggested that staff invite all property owners with an infiltration swale adjacent to their property to a public meeting, combining a number of the individual on-site meetings into a single meeting. The Committee discussed the Mayor’s suggestion at the August 18th Committee Meeting. It was the feeling of the Committee that a neighborhood meeting held without knowing the attendees would be difficult and costly for staff to prepare, as they would have to be ready to discuss every feature location within the project area. Committee and staff reached a consensus recommending that staff coordinate a neighborhood meeting only after hearing from those property owners requesting an on-site meeting and if grouping property owners together for a joint neighborhood meeting would be cost effective and increase efficiency.