SWM Meeting with City:
February 13, 2006
.
Meeting for February 13, 2006
City Hall
Attending:
Marylou Berg, Assistant to the City Manager City
Burt Hall, Director of Recreation and Parks City
Mike Critzer, Parks Services Manager City
Craig Simoneau, Director, Department of Public Works City
Nate Wall, Environmental Specialist,
Community Planning and Development Services Department City
Lise Soukup, Environmental Engineer, Public Works City
Dwayne Jenkins, Neighborhood Resource Coordinator,
City Manager's Office City
Mark Pierzchala, President CGCA
Jerry Leighton, Vice-president CGCA
Barbara Marinelli, Secretary CGCA
Paul O'Brien, SWM Chair CGCA
Charles Burroughs, observer CGCA
The meeting opened with comments from Mark praising the city's efficient clearing
of roads of snow in the College Gardens area. He also stated that the semi-annual
CGCA membership meeting would be held either June 5 or June 7 at the College
Gardens Elementary School. He informed the committee that a newsletter had
been distributed to the community the weekend of February 4-5 and that copies
were available for committee personnel.
Burt complimented the CGCA newsletter for content and appearance.
Marylou updated the group on the progress of the Request For Proposal (RFP)
for the Storm Water Management (SWM) consultant and stated that we needed
to start looking at some actual dates for milestones.
Craig's primary concern, Item 2 on the agenda, was to get a SWM consultant
hired and referred to an RFP that has been created for that purpose. He also
noted that even though changes will be made once we get into the project,
the timeframe for gathering information and the need to plan meetings are
first priorities.
A handout proposing a schedule of milestones was then the major topic of the
meeting and was discussed and reworked at several intervals. The handout did
not disclose proposed dates as nothing can happen until a consultant is hired.
City personnel explained that there is a stable of contractors with whom the
city works, but bids must be put forth and it will take at least two weeks
– to the end of February. (See note at end.)
Discussion ensued as to how long a time would be needed for the various steps,
taking into the equation the need to inform the community, look over several
plans, take a “park amenity” survey concerning options and deal
with a myriad of environmental groups and agencies. Despite all these factors,
the city sees no impediments to a project being chosen and executed.
At this point, the proposed milestones were put on the table, and a lengthy
clarification of how to reach these milestones ensued. The list of milestones
was to be revised by the City and shared with the Task Force.
Lise stated that there is a lot of work to be done with the planning team,
who will work together to brainstorm the pros, cons and solutions to the project
as presented by the engineer. There will be an effort to create maps made-to-scale
so that viable alternatives can present to the community. At Mark's urging,
it was decided to also have images created for the web. Lise pointed out that
one problem that occurs in these maps is the lack of capability to show elevations,
which can be deceiving on a flat map.
The task force would meet to digest the information from the consultant and
the survey and then meet with the community. Timing would then dictate that
the community be informed at a meeting when all the facts are in place. This
meeting would also be used to inform the wider community.
Paul noted that the earlier in the process the community sees the options
or pieces, the less the committee would have to deal with reactions based
on rumor. It is important for everyone to be kept up to date on what is happening.
Mark reminded the group that basically this is a City project that is being
imposed on the community and the College Gardens Civic Association is trying
to work with the city to minimize impact from the SWM project and maximize
the redesigning and upgrading of the park.
Jerry Leighton asked that if the edge of the forest preserve off Princeton
Place and College Parkway is considered, and if part of the city project includes
measures to improve the stream banks, how will equipment be brought into the
area and with what impact. Lise discussed possible points of entry
The definition of the forest preserve boundaries was raised by Mark since
some land now in the Forest Preserve was once school property, the point being
whether there were any boundary issues within the Forest Preserve. It is all
considered a preserve complete with the agreement that it will not be developed
for extended park features (playing fields, bike paths) nor for commercial
or residential growth. There are stream valley restrictions as well as restrictions
for the area of the 100-year flood plain.
The Mayor and Council have to approve any plan that evolves from the task
force in addition to providing funding for the project.
Burt pointed out that the Upper Watts Branch Park (the forest preserve) is
over 60 acres and that any impact from SWM would affect only a small percentage
of acreage. At the same time, if the SWM pond is set in the College Gardens
Park, it will absorb at least 40% of the approximate 5-acre plot.
In summary Marylou asked that everyone review the steps to proceed and stated
that the city would revise the milestones list from which the committee worked
in this meeting to suit requests from Mark and others.
Mark and Craig stated that the most important immediate actions will be to
get a consultant, hold a meeting with the consultant and make a field visit
to proposed sites by early in March.
Lise briefly outlined what the consultant will do once the RFPs have been
sent out, received by potential contractors and a consultant hired. The most
important factors are to work quickly, eliminate designs that are not feasible
and initiate the survey of CGCA members.
End of Meeting Summary: Summary by Barbara Marinelli as edited by Mark Pierzchala.
Further Notes:
This meeting summary was held up awaiting the list of milestones from the
City (see point 6 below).
The next meeting of the College Gardens Civic Association is tentatively scheduled
for Monday June 5, 2006.
As of March 24, 2006, a Storm Water Consultant had not been hired. The City
expects to hire one in April.
The City sent responses to CGCA questions the week of March 20. These will
shortly be posted on the CGCA website. The CGCA posed about 50 questions within
19 question numbers. The City document of answers is 17 pages long.
The CGCA has advocated consideration of the use of a small part of the Forest
Preserve and/or the upper part of the College Gardens Park, as locations that
could be considered for part of a Storm Water Management facility in order
to mitigate overall impact on the park. Thus the CGCA considers one of the
most important, and early, outcomes from the consultant to be a statement
of what is technically possible and what is technically not possible both
in the Forest Preserve and in the upper part of the College Gardens park.
Once the possibilities are known (as well as their possible scopes and impacts)
it will be possible for the CGCA to conduct a survey of the CGCA membership
to ascertain community sentiment with respect to various options. The survey
will be taken with enough supporting material that the community can make
an informed choice based on technically accurate information.
A revised, and still tentative, list of milestones was received from the City
the week of March 20. Mark Pierzchala expressed to the City that the process
looked very long and drawn out and more complex than need be. The list of
milestones as received from the City should be considered tentative. The CGCA
will work to reduce the length of the process. In the bullets below: PAI=Potentially
Affected Individuals. Charette=A group activity that explores various design
options for a facility. Public=Rockville residents. Community=College Gardens
and surrounding area. Community Meeting=A City-run meeting, not necessarily
a meeting of the College Gardens Civic Association. The milestones received
from the City are:
Upcoming Public / Task Force Meetings
Task Force Meeting
Review process goals
Review upcoming meeting dates
Go over survey results
Revisit PAIs and decide if others need to be included
Kick off meeting with Task Force and Consultant
Introductions
Site visit – led by consultant
Task Force Meeting
Consultant to recommend which options are worthy of pursuit
Plan Charette
Charette
Using preliminary SWM concepts (pond placement and size) and survey results,
groups will “design” the park.
Task Force Meeting
Review Charette “designs”
Plan next community meeting
Public meeting
Display “designs” and gather public comment on each
Task Force Meeting
Review public comments on “designs”
Review feasibility and costs
Whittle down to 3 (or more, or less) initial concepts
Public meeting
Gather comments on 3 initial concepts
Task Force meeting
Review public comments
Hear recommendation from consultant
Determine task force recommendation to council