Loading...
06-12-17 PC Minutes - Comp Plan Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, June 12, 2017. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blenker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Associate Planner and Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Utility Engineer R.J. Kakach, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, and BARR Engineering Consultants Karen Chandler and Greg Williams. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. 1. Presentation and Discussion (Water Resources) Goellner introduced the Water Resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and stated that the public values their water resources. She said the public has emphasized that they want to maintain parks and green space, embrace sustainability, be inclusive of diversity, accommodate an aging population, and make improvements to infrastructure. Goellner introduced the goals outlined in the Water Resources memorandum. R.J. Kakach, Utility Engineer, presented on wastewater and water resources. He said that only ten percent of Golden Valley's sewer system has been lined and rehabilitated, but that fifty-five percent has been inspected at point of sale. Typically corrections are needed before the house can be sold, which has improved inflow and infiltration compliance in the city. He said that Golden Valley's sewer mains run into a system managed by the Metropolitan Council and that studies done by the Metropolitan Council have detected a reduction as a result of the Point of Sale program. Segelbaum asked for more information about inflow and infiltration. Kakach explained that inflow is when rainwater enters through things such as manholes and private property sump pumps that feed into sanitary sewer system and that infiltration is when groundwater seeps into the pipes. He stated that Golden Valley is losing capacity in the sewer system as a result, and the goal is to maintain capacity and reduce inflow and infiltration. Waldhauser brought up the fifty-five percent inspection rate and asked if that included both residential and commercial properties. Kakach confirmed that it did. He explained Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 2 that the other forty-five percent has not been inspected because it is a voluntary program and corrections are not required until Point of Sale. He said that 47% of the city is compliant. Waldhauser asked how the city knows a property is compliant if not all properties are inspected. Kakach clarified that the properties not listed as compliant are either noncompliant or unknown. Kakach brought up challenges facing the City's system, which are inflow and infiltration, failing clay pipes from the 50s and 60s damaged by freeze-thaw conditions, and root intrusions which back up pipes. He said that the average cost per mile to repair the sanitary sewer is half a million dollars, and the challenge facing the city is how to prioritize the necessary repairs. Segelbaum asked what the difference was between wastewater and the sanitary sewer. Kakach said that they are the same system, but that the term "sewer" refers to both sanitary and storm sewers. Kakach clarified that this presentation refers to the sanitary sewer and that stormwater would be discussed later. Baker asked what the difference was between the cost of repairing the pipe and replacing it. Kakach said the cost he has referenced is an average for all rehabilitation but that repairing costs slightly less than replacing the pipe. Blum asked if rehabilitation mitigated root intrusion into the pipes. Kakach said that they could insert a grout into the pipes which would prevent root intrusions. Kakach outlined sanitary sewer and wastewater goals, which were to ensure adequate capacity, reduce or eliminate sanitary sewer overflows, and reduce inflow and infiltration to a manageable level. Kluchka asked what the frequency of sanitary sewer overFlows are. Kakach said that they are rare and occur mostly during high intensity rainfall. Baker requested information on what would be considered a manageable level of inflow and infiltration. Kakach said inflow an infiltration can be tracked based on meters, but is difficult to measure. He stated that a manageable level would reduce it across the board and they are trying to line or replace as much pipe as possible. Kakach began the water supply presentation on drinking water. He explained that New Hope, Crystal, and Golden Valley purchase water from Minneapolis together and that Special Meeting of the Golden Valley P�anning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 3 some of the water main is owned by the joint commission but most is owned by Golden Valley. Kakach said that a challenge facing the city is water main breaks because they are difficult to predict even though water main breaks are tracked. He said that the average cost to rehabilitate the water mains is 1.4 million per mile, much more than the sanitary sewer. Kakach outlined the goals for the city, which are to limit residential demand, limit daily demand, limit peak purchases from Minneapolis, and limit unaccounted for water, which is the difference between what is bought and what is sold to residents. He said the city wants to maintain the current level of service of the system while eliminating large breaks. Kluchka asked what the difference was between Golden Valley's capacity and peak usage. Kakach said that data indicates peak usage was over seventeen million gallons per day and that is has now decreased to five or six million. He said Golden Vatley has even eliminated a pump in the reservoir because demand had decreased and that he feels comfortable with the capacity of the system. Kakach said he believes there is enough for current uses and possibly for some expansion. Kluchka asked whether limiting purchases has an impact on the system. Kakach said that it is considered best practice and good for sustainability to limit water, but it is also likely easier on the system to not have as much water passing through it. Waldhauser asked if there was information specifically on commercial water usage. Kakach said that records are broken down by land use, but he did not have the information with him. Waldhauser brought up the issue of water waste in industrial and commercial uses, and Kakach agreed that would be a good place to look into conservation. Segelbaum wanted clarification on what was meant by the word "limit" and whether it referred to reduction in general or if there was a specific goal. Kakach agreed that "reduce" might be a better word. Segelbaum then asked why demand for water has decreased. Kakach explained that water fixtures have grown more efficient, and there has been education on water conservation. Blenker asked what causes water main breaks and how long they typically last. Kakach said they are the result of freeze-thaw conditions, loading on top of water main, pressure variation, and corrosive soils. He said that there is variation in how long they are estimated to last, but in Golden Valley's soils, water mains have failed earlier than anticipated. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 4 Kluchka asked if there was data on trends in water main breaks and if that data tracks breaks related to age. Kakach said the he would estimate twenty to thirty breaks a year with an upward trend and that suspected causes are tracked. Waldhauser asked about the lining and replacing of water mains. Kakach explained that it can be done but is more expensive than the sanitary sewer because it is a pressurized system and requires more work. Waldhauser wondered if anyone was looking at separating potable water from other types of water. Kakach said that in a commercial setting, some people look at recycling water, but at a City level there is limited research on the subject. Blum said that someone at an open house had mentioned to him that the City runs wells and he wanted to know if that was a program at one point. Kakach said he was unaware of any City run wells at this point. There are three emergency backup wells owned by JWC located in New Hope and Crystal that could supply minimal use in an emergency. Segelbaum asked how long the contract to buy water from Minneapolis is. Kakach stated that the contract was renewed for 20 years in 2004 and that Minneapolis has been selling water to other cities and appears comfortable with their capacity. Kluchka asked what the goal for inflow and infiltration is. Kakach said that there is not a specific goal but that the Metropolitan Council monitors inflow, as does the City of Golden Valley. The goal is to specifically address high volume areas and then reevaluate because measuring inflow and infiltration is difficult. Kluchka wanted to know how Golden Valley's inflow and infiltration compares to other cities. Kakach said that the inflow and infiltration program has been successful, although it is difficult to find comparable cities. He stated that the water main breaks may be slightly worse than comparable cities. Segelbaum said he was concerned about the age of the system and the financing of the repairs. He wanted to know if there was a timeline for repairs. Kakach said that it is early to answer these questions, but that options for financing are being explored, and problem areas are being prioritized. He said that by 2040 the system will be past its designed life and there is uncertainty about how to fund the needed repairs. He said there is a chance it may need to be repaired before 2040 but that it is difficult to predict an exact timeline. Kluchka asked how many mites of pipe have been lined or replaced. Kakach stated that there has been limited funding and repairs have been administered based on priority. Slightly over 10 miles of sanitary sewer have been lined and that he would estimate five Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 5 to ten miles of water mains have been replaced. Kluchka recommended discussing what has been rehabilitated in the future draft of this chapter. Baker inquired about the life expectancy of a lining. Kakach said that the lifespan is fifty to 100 years, similar to a new pipe. Water main lining, which is a new technology, has a longer projected design life. Baker asked if, with that in mind, the focus would be more on rehabilitation than replacement. Kakach said that the sanitary sewer focus is mainly lining. The water main uses both but they are moving toward lining. Baker asked if there was potential for saving money by doing multiple linings at the same time. Kakach said there was some potential for savings if nearby parts were done simultaneously. Baker asked about the safety of the water main linings. Kakach said that the Minnesota Department of Health signs off on the epoxy resins that are used. Oliver added that the linings being used have been certified as safe for consumption by the National Science Foundation. Baker asked if a replacement is higher quality than a rehabilitation. Oliver said there are testing protocols that are used to ensure safety in 100 years to meet National Science Foundation ratings. Based on what is known today, he said he is confident in the lifespan of the system because the materials used today are higher quality than they were when the mains were installed. Blum asked if the city had looked into the value of using plants to control stormwater. Kakach said he was not presenting on stormwater and thought that the next presenter could answer the question better. Blum asked whether the effects of permeable and non-permeable surFaces had been measured. He also wanted to know what kind of impact the use of pesticides and herbicides had on the system and how much it costs to remove it. Kakach said that there were requirements for herbicide and pesticide use. He said other people might be able to answer the question better. Kakach concluded his presentation. Goellner introduced consultants Greg Williams and Karen Chandler to present on surface water management. Williams began his presentation by outlining the focus of this section in the Comprehensive Plan. He said some of the things that were most important to residents were wetlands, habitats, shoreland, and stormwater runoff, but that other concerns such as infrastructure and water quality were very important to the City but might not be on residents' radars. For wetlands, habitats, and shoreland, Williams explained that the City is the Local Governmental Unit responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act. The Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 6 City may partner with County and watershed organizations to manage aquatic invasive species. The City has development and redevelopment standards that regulate storm water runoff. There are also retrofit and redevelopment opportunities. In a developed city there is little room to implement new best practices, so redevelopment is often the best opportunity to improve infrastructure. Williams said things like Minimal Impact Design Standards had been used to help limit stormwater runoff. Williams referred to Blum's question about vegetative management of stormwater runoff. Williams explained that the scale of precipitation events is an issue. The tree canopy provides interception for a fraction of an inch, but stormwater management is designed to deal with much larger precipitation events. Williams said vegetative swales that help slow the runoff once it is on the ground may be a better practice. Williams moved on to lake and stream water quality, which is another focus for surface water management. He said some water bodies in the City are listed as impaired by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency because they don't meet state water quality standards, including Bassett Creek, Sweeney Lake, and Wirth Lake, which does not meet chloride standards. Baker asked what the source of chloride was. Williams said that in the metro area, it typically comes from winter road management. Blum asked what type of precipitation events were typical for infiltration. Williams says that infiltration practices are best for smaller events because it varies so much depending on the type of soil. He explained that Golden Valley has a lot of clay soil, which limits infiltration opportunities. Williams said filtration is another option that is helpful but difficult and operates by binding pollutants in the soil. Williams said that, as well as restoring impaired water quality, it is also important to maintain areas with high water quality. Williams moved onto the topic of education and public involvement, the goal is to promote positive behaviors. He recommended educating residents about best practices methods for herbicide and pesticide use. Williams stated that it is important to develop community capacity for educating people who will be good stewards. He emphasized cooperation with other organizations such as the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission. Williams said the next topic, water quantity and flooding, is a significant issue because it can effect public health and safety. He emphasized the need to minimize risk of floods and minimize impact of floods. He said there was a need to adapt to changing Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 7 precipitation patterns because a trend toward larger and more frequent precipitation events increases the need for stormwater management, which is exacerbated by tight soils. Williams explained that erosion and sedimentation from stormwater runoff can carry dirt and pollution and can be combatted through permitting programs and implementing best management practices on City projects. For Infrastructure and Operations, Williams said that the City needs to maintain storm water infrastructure, including scheduled infrastructure replacement identifying funding for replacing storm water systems. Williams said he will be detailing these issues in the separate SurFace Water Management Plan to identify issues and create an implementation plan to achieve the City's goals. Referring back to Blum's question about fertilizer and pesticide use, Williams said that the impact depends on how they are applied and what the chemicals are. Some of what is washed away is treated through storm water management, but there is no chemical treatment to remove them from the water. Residues from fertilizer or pesticides either settle or are washed downstream, which may create problems in other places. Kluchka asked if phosphorous was currently being treated. Williams said that phosphorous was being treated through filtration and infiltration, binding the phosphorous to soil particles so it does not pollute the water. Blum asked if vegetative systems reduce the amount of phosphorous. Williams said that it may reduce the concentration. However, some does dissolve, and that is much more difficult to treat. Infiltration is the preferred practice because it does not show up in lakes if it goes into the ground. Alum can also be added to lakes and storm water flow, which will bind dissolved phosphorous. Williams said that Twin Lake has received an alum treatment in the past. Blum wanted to know if there was a metric to measure costs and effects and identify the impact over time. Williams said that concentration of nutrients in water bodies is commonly used as a metric to measure water quality and compare it to state standards. Models can also be developed to estimate how much pollutant loads are being reduced, which has been done on a project specific basis in Golden Valley. Blum asked if that was done every time a lot was developed. Oliver clarified that larger developments are required to implement best practices, but that as a fully developed first ring suburb Golden Valley has adopted a regional approach in stormwater management, conducting studies mainly on larger projects. He said that Golden Valley implements best practices strategically, where and when possible, like the constructed ponds by the Holiday Inn and on Xenia Avenue. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 8 Blum expressed concern about herbicide and pesticide use and said that he does not feel the City communicates well with residents about the issue. Oliver said that regulating individual properties and pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer use is difficult and best approached through education. Oliver said there is not a metric to measure it but that continued education is key, and he feels that Golden Valley's education program is very strong. Blum asked Williams to address the impacts of permeable and non-permeable surfaces and whether there was a way to monitor it. Williams explained that there are development standards that limit the rate of water coming off a property, and the best way to meet that is to limit the impervious surface. He said that there are policies to promote permeable surfaces and reduce runoff, which can be done partly by informing developers of best practices and indirectly through City regulations. Chair Segelbaum opened the floor for public comments at 8:00 p.m. Dawn Hill, resident of the City and Environmental Commissioner asked about drinking water and whether a situation like Flint, Michigan, could happen in Golden Valley. She wanted to know whose responsibility it would be to fix that and asked whether drinking water safety should be included in the Comprehensive Plan. She also wanted to know whether lining the pipes would reduce capacity. Marty Micks, 90 Louisiana Ave S, asked about Twin Lake. She said it was pristine in the 1990s and wanted to know how it went from being pristine to needing an alum treatment. She said she does not think residents are penalized for using additional water and that she thinks there should be some type of penalty to encourage residents to keep their water usage down. She also wanted to know what trees are best to plant near water pipes to avoid root intrusions and whether the City has looked into how the lining placed in Winnetka Avenue in 1994 is doing. Seeing no one else come forward, the floor was closed for comments. Answering the question about trees, Oliver said that forestry staff have a list of tree species that will do well. He said that trees with deep roots may impact pipes, but that there has not been a need for tree removal. Referencing Hill's question about whether lining water mains might reduce capacity, Oliver explained that friction is a factor in capacity, and the new lining is smoother. Even though the diameter is smaller the capacity remains the same or improves. He clarified that the sewer mains on Winnetka were replaced, not lined. Lining is a newer approach Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 9 that was not in use at the time. He said some liners have done very well and that they are moving in the right direction. Referencing the comment on incentives to reduce water use, Oliver explained that the City has a tiered rate based on usage of water for bills, with a slight increase with more water use. However, the low range of a tier may pay as much as the high range of a tier. It is not charged per gallon. Waldhauser brought up the question on drinking water quality. Oliver explained that the lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan was a unique combination of water chemistry and lead service pipes and that Golden Valley does not have those types of pipes. The water ' chemistry is consistent throughout the City of Minneapolis, and widespread contamination of water, like what happened in Flint, Michigan is not anticipated. Returning to the alum treatment in Twin Lake, Chandler explained that the alum treatment was actually a positive case. The Basset Creek Watershed Commission had a goal to protect bodies that have good water quality. Some phosphorous seemed to be causing water quality to decline in Twin Lake, so the alum treatment was used to address the phosphorous coming into water from the sediment. There was budget set aside for two treatments, but the second treatment has not been needed yet. Chandler emphasized that this was a positive story in which a potential issue was addressed right away and did not become a big problem. Baker wanted to know what the source of phosphorous from sediment was in the Twin Lake case. Chandler said it may have been as a result of higher temperatures in the summer. Oliver said that phosphorous in the sediment comes from natural sources and reminded the commission that the peninsula was a pasture for a long time, which may be a contributing factor in the increased phosphorous. Chair Segelbaum closed the public hearing at 8:15. Chair Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission should table the discussion of the goals for the Comprehensive Plan Water Resources Chapter until the next meeting since there was also a Regular Meeting Planned for the same night. Goellner recommended tabling the item on the agenda for the Regular Meeting instead since it was less time sensitive than the Comprehensive Plan discussion. She also suggested not focusing on specific language in the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives but focusing instead on broader topics and solutions. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 10 Segelbaum pointed out that Goals 4, 5, 6, and 7 and said that they seemed to relate to the sanitary sewer and water mains, whereas Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 seemed to relate to surface water. He proposed beginning with the second half of the Goals and Objectives. Segelbaum brought up an element that had already been discussed: the word "limit" used in Goal 6, where the intent was "reduce". Waldhauser asked what a realistic improvement would be and how that would be implemented in the planning process. Segelbaum expressed that he would like to see a more quantitative approach. Goellner clarified that this is a policy plan which does not generally have specific number targets, but that the implementation section of the chapter would have specific targets. The Commission agreed to wait and see what the specific targets in the chapter were. Baker brought up the idea of a metric to measure these things better. He said that seemed especially suitable for Goals 1-3, and that they should be measuring and reporting to the community. He pointed out that in other chapters there had been metrics and measurements provided. Segelbaum brought up the phrasing "manageable level". Baker said he would like that to be defined more specifically. Blenker asked about suggested implementation steps and said that she had seen those provided in other chapters. Segelbaum agreed that previous chapters had implementation steps listed and wanted to know why this one did not. Goellner said that working with three consultants on this chapter had complicated coordination and that that the strategies are likely to be similar now to what they were ten years ago. Baker brought up the second objective of Goal 5 and wanted to know what strategies it was referring to. Oliver said that when it comes to stormwater management the system is so large and so expensive that upgrades are often implemented when the opportunity arises rather than based on objective goals. He said that the current information is incomplete, which makes it difficult to set goals. With precipitation the focus will be on flood storage and minimizing property damage, which is already being done. Segelbaum asked for clarification about Goellner's earlier comments on implementation. He said hearing that the same strategies are being used as ten years ago worried him and that it sounds like the City is not making progress. Oliver said he agreed with Goellner's comment. The goals laid out in the last Comprehensive Plan remain the same because they are still applicable. He said the trend throughout the region has been to move away from reliance on groundwater to surface water, which Golden Valley Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 11 already does. He emphasized that the goals are viable but very difficult to measure and that he believed Golden Valley is ahead of many comparable cities in dealing with these issues. Segelbaum asked whether the City was pushing off necessary infrastructure repairs and what should be done to ensure that future residents are not burdened by lack of action now. Oliver agreed that the condition of infrastructure is important and that if the Commission thinks so they should rank that priority accordingly. Goetlner added that there are more policies in the water resources chapter than any other chapter, totaling 22 policies. She said she thought it would be better to focus on prioritizing which goals are most important during this nighYs meeting. Blum said he thought that to choose what is most important he needed some type of concrete measure to see what is being done over time. Johnson said there seemed to be a lot of data and was not sure what Blum was looking for. Blum said that he thought staff understood the metrics best and would like more guidance from staff about what is being done. Baker suggested that objectives for some of the goals be to provide or develop monitoring metrics. Oliver emphasized that there is regular monitoring by the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission and required standards that must be met. He said that there is continued progress on Sweeney Lake and Wirth Lake. He said that while not every project and goal is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan they were being worked on consistently. Segelbaum asked whether they should request that staff report these measurements, and the Commission agreed. Baker said that he thought there could be better integration of the goals. He said the integration of what used to be three chapters into one chapter did not seem effective and he thought staff could improve that. Waldhauser pointed out that Goal 4 effectively mentioned all components of water resources. She mentioned that many of the potential problems relate to Goal 4 and infrastructure. Segelbaum said that some of the goals do not pull all the aspects of water resources together. Segelbaum asked if any commissioners had further comments on Goals 4-7. Johnson brought up the third objective of Goal 5 and wanted to know that the data in the forecasts was legitimate. He also said he thought there needed to be a plan to pay for the cost of rehabilitating the pipes and that the goals and objectives should address this. Segelbaum agreed and said it was important to the community to show that steps are being taken to improve the situation. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 12 Waldhauser brought up Goal 7. She said she thought there was a public education component to all of the goals and that education did not necessarily need to be its own goal. She said she would rather see an objective for each goal addressing the public education component. Baker agreed that there is a public education component in each goal and suggested leaving the education goal but crafting an education policy for each goaL Blum suggested changing Goal 7 to "incentivize" the public rather than "involve". Segelbaum said he believed incentives could be built into the other goals. Goellner agreed that "involve" was a loose verb and that she liked the idea of incentivizing. Baker said that being more educated on a topic should incentivize people to do the right thing. Kluchka recommended that incentives be a policy and that the incentives be used to achieve a goal. He said he also believed that incentives should be addressed across the chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Moving onto Goals 1-3, Segelbaum asked if any of the other commissioners had input on those goals. Blum said that rather than achieving standards, he thought residents might like to see Golden Valley exceed the standards. He proposed more positive language like "exceed" rather than achieve. Segelbaum asked engineering staff if exceeding those standards was realistic. Oliver said that it is very difficult just to meet the minimums, and that while exceeding them would be admirable, he thought it would be very difficult. He said staff will discuss the desire and incorporate it in a way that makes sense. Segelbaum said that, where realistic, he thought the city should aim high. Baker said that knowing when exceeding was reasonable should be up to staff. Blum pointed out that Comprehensive Plans are aspirational, and that not all goals would be achieved. Johnson pointed out that the last bullet from Goal 1 was replicated in Goal 5. Goellner explained that had been done in an attempt to integrate more, but that using the same language may not have been an effective way to do that. Baker said he thought there should be an objective under Goal 1 to reduce the use of chloride in street maintenance. Segelbaum asked if there were other options, and Baker said that they could let staff deal with that since the Comprehensive Plan is aspirational. Segelbaum suggested adding it as a policy instead of an objective. Blum suggested generalizing it to say "reduce the use of harmful chemicals in maintenance", and Segelbaum agreed that sounded good. Waldhauser wanted to know what "minimize hydrological alterations to Bassett Creek" means. Williams clarified that referred to anything that might change the velocity or flow of water and have unintended negative environmental consequences. Baker asked if Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 12 June, 2017 Page 13 that could be framed in a more aspirational way to enhance the creek. Williams replied that he thought that had been addressed in other goals. Segelbaum asked whether the language could be changed to make more sense to laypeople. Waldhauser said she was surprised to see it there because there had been alterations to Bassett Creek that seemed positive. Williams said that recent alterations had been done to undo previous changes, which has been prioritized by the Minnesota Division of Natural Resources. He clarified that the language is in the spirit of maintaining things as they would occur naturally. The commission agreed they thought that point needed revision. Waldhauser said she liked Goal 2 and appreciated the emphasis on water as a desirable amenity. Segelbaum asked if she thought it was emphasized sufficiently, and Waldhauser said that she thought Goal 2 was very well done. Baker said he liked the second-to-last objective on Goal 2 and hoped to build on that as an opportunity to improve shoreland protection. Blum said that he frequently hears questions about pest control for mosquitoes and wanted to know if that should be addressed in this chapter. Segelbaum said that he agreed some of these items should be balanced with the livability of the community since it is difficult to enjoy the community with the mosquitos. Blenker state that the city is not involved in mosquito control. Goellner replied that there is a regional body that dealt with the mosquito population. Baker said he thought that the regional mosquito control body does a good job and he was not worried about it. Goellner suggested raising the question to the environmental commission. Segelbaum asked what the next steps would be for this chapter. Goellner said that the document would be presented to the City Council the next day, after which the consultants would begin work on writing the chapter. She said a completed document would be presented to the Planning Commission in the fall with a full detailed policy plan that they would be able to give feedback on. The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 pm. John Kluchk , ecretary Kayla over, Community Deve opment Intern