HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 05-08-2007 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
5:30 p.m.
Medicine Lake Room
1. Call to Order
2. Preliminary 2008-2009 Budget discussion
3. Discuss Street Sweeping Program
4. Set future Study Sessions
4. Adjourn
Agenda Number: d
TO: Laurie Ahrens,'City Manager
FROM: Jean McGann, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: 2008 Budget Process
DATE: April 30, 2007 for Study Session on May 8, 2007
1. PROPOSED ACTION.
Council is requested to review and discuss the 2008 budget objectives, challenges, and format.
2. BACKGROUND
As part of the Council's 2007 Goals and items for study, Council indicated interest in forecasting
General Fund revenues at least two years beyond the current budget year and review revenue
sources. For 2008, staff is proposing to prepare a 2 -year or biennial budget for all budgeted
funds. By'statute, the Council must formally adopt a budget each year. When approving a
biennial budget, the first year would be formally adopted and the second year accepted in
concept. In subsequent years, staff will extend the forecasting to include an additional one to
three years based on direction from Council.
Each year challenges are identified prior to the start of the budget process. Staff has outlined
some of those challenges below;
Wages and Benefits — this category of the budget comprises approximately 60% of the general
fund budget. For 2008, there will be additional increases in the PERA contribution required.by
the City as well as the employee. In addition, the City is anticipating the health insurance
premium increase to be significant. Increases in wages are difficult to predict as there are several
union contracts up for negotiation however, staff does have settlement history from other cities.
Fire Duty Crew — During the first quarter of 2007, the Fire department modified the Duty Crew
program, on a test basis, to include coverage on Sundays. This modification was a great success
however, due to funding concerns, the program has been returned to the original level of service.
Staff would like to review future staffing levels, considering the possibility of a 7 -day duty crew,
and levels of service for the Department.
Market Value Homestead Credit — If the current rules related to the Market Value Homestead
Credit remain, the City will receive approximately $507,000 in 2008. This is a reduction of
53,000 from 2007. This revenue source will continue to decline as home values increase.
Software Conversion — On May 22, 2007, staff will be bringing forward a request to go out for
bid on a new financial, payroll, human resource, budget, and utility billing software packages.
These software packages are well beyond their replacement dates. The software acquisition is
part of the 2007 and 2008 Capital Improvement Program. This is a significant expenditure and
time commitment.
Police Records Management System — The Police Department is currently utilizing a records
management system through LOGIS. This system has not proven beneficial to the operations of
the Police Department and the technology improvements promised have not come to fruition.
Additional clerical hours were added into the 2007 budget due to the redundancy of data entry
required. The 2 -year fulltime temporary position was added to give the City time to evaluate
options related to this software. Staff is in the process of preparing an informational document
outlining the current software and identifying some possible alternatives.
City Center Option — Council has been discussing options for the City Center area. If the
Council decides to make significant changes within this area then funding options need to be
identified. One'possible funding source would be the Community Improvement Fund.
3. DISCUSSION
Council is requested to consider the following questions;
1.. Does the proposed biennial budget meet the Council objectives and goals?
2. Are there challenges identified above that Council would like to discuss?
3. Has the Council identified other challenges or initiatives that need to be addressed?
4. Would the Council like to set budget study sessions for August and possibly September?
4. CONCLUSION
The following chart identifies key dates for the 2008 budget process. Staff has identified
possible study session dates that are shown in bold.
Date Description
May 8, 2007 Council Study Session to review budget goals and priorities
June 25, 2007 Budget Submissions due from Departments
July 10, 2007 Distribution of overall proposed budget to Directors
July 17 - 19, 2007 Budget Review by Directors and Budget Team
August 10, 2007 Distribute Proposed City Manager's Budget to Council
August 21, 2007 Council Study Session (Subject to Council Approval)
August 28, 2007 Council Study Session (Subject to Council Approval)
September 4, 2007 Council Study Session (Subject to Council Approval)
September 11, 2007 City Council adopts preliminary property tax levy and budget
December 3, 2007 Public Hearing on Budget (Truth in Taxation Hearing)
December 11, 2007 Council adoption of 2008 budget and approval of 2009 budget
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
e"n„rt nn
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1
PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
2 3 4
Ju12007
S M T W T F S
Sep 2007
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2:30 PM -5:00 PM
NATIONAL NIGHT OUT
KICKOFF EVENT, Fire
Station III
7:00 PM
RONMENTAL
TY COMMITTEEE(EQC),Medicine Lake
ooms A 8 B
7:00 PM PARK 8 REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
0:30 PM -9:30 PM
NATIONAL NIGHT OUT
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
ING 8
REDEENT
7:00 P:
Lake
AUTHHRA),
Medicinoom A
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
26 27 28 29 30 31
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
modified on 5/1/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
P.i tP-mhPY' 2007
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Aug 2007 Oct 2007 1
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 31
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LABOR DAY - City
Offices Closed
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION,
Parkers Lake Room
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Medicine Lake
MsABB
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
10:00 AM -5:00 PM
AUTUMN ART FAIR,
Parkers Lake Room
ROSH HASHANAH
BEGINS AT SUNSET
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
9:00 AM -3:30 PM
PLYMOUTH CLEAN-UP
DAY, Public Werke
Maintenance Facility
YOM KIPPUR
BEGINS AT
SUNSET
7:00 PM HOUSING 1,
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY(HRA),
Medicine Lake Room A
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
1:00 PM Plymouth on
Parade Celebration, City
Center Area
30
modified on 5/1/2007
DATE: April 26, 2007
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
FROM: W, P.E., Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: STREET SWEEPING STUDY SESSION
CITY PROJECT NO. 7113E
For most of Plymouth's most recent history, the Public Works Department, Street Maintenance
Division has provided street sweeping services for the City of Plymouth. The program consisted
mainly of a spring sweep, focusing on critical areas around lakes and other sensitive
environmental areas followed by routine sweeping of "problem" areas, especially after large
storm events. Sweeping was also performed on mill and overlay and seal coat projects. The
sweeper was also dispatched to address complaints on an as -needed basis. This program was
documented in 2003 when the City purchased the current Elgin Pelican SE mechanical sweeper.
In 2001, the City evaluated the option of expanding the street sweeping program to include leaf
collection. It was concluded at that time that a City-wide leaf collection was not economically
feasible.
In 2003, the street sweeping program funding was moved to the Water Resources Fund. It was
concluded that not only did street. sweeping have an aesthetic and ftmctional value, the program
offered environmental benefits as well. Street sweeping was further identified as a Best
Management Practice (BMP) for improving water quality by reducing phosphorus and total
suspended solids (tss) ' from stormwater run-off entering the City's lakes, streams and wetlands.
In 2004, the program was expanded to include a City-wide spring sweep and in 2005 the
program was further expanded to include a City-wide mechanical sweep followed by two City-
wide regenerative air sweeps. Data was collected on the material collected that demonstrated the
environmental benefits of the program (see attached staff reports and analysis).
Attached for your consideration are several articles and reports regarding the state of the practice
of street sweeping.
attachments
0:\Engineering\GENERAUMEMOS\DOPANU007\Ahrens StreetSweepingStudySession_042607.doc
Agenda Number g,, '-2_
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: December 29, 2006 for the City Council Meeting of January 9, 2007
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager through
Doren Cote, P.E., Director of Public Works
FROM: Dave Taylor, Senior Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: 2007 STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM
CITY PROJECT NO 7113E
ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion to adopt the attached resolution approving specifications
and ordering advertisement for bids for a 2007 Mechanical and Regenerative Street Sweeping
Program.
BACKGROUND: The program covers about 277 miles of City streets with a mechanical sweep to
remove larger dirt and sand particles and then with three follow up passes of regenerative sweeps to
pick up the finer particles.
The 2006 Combined Street Sweeping, contract was awarded to Reliakor Services on March 14, 2006
for $80,351.42. This contract also required regenerative air sweepers that pick up many of the fine
sediments missed by mechanical broom sweepers. Although the mechanical portion of the work was
acceptable, the regenerative work did not meet specification. After investigation, it was determined
that the equipment used, although within the written specification, did not perform as expected.
Therefore, by mutual consent, that contract was terminated per City Council resolution on August 8,
2006, with a total contract payment of $30,112.67, of which $25,958 was for mechanical sweeping.
The third and final regenerative street sweeping work was then awarded to Carefree Services, who
had performed similar work for the City of Plymouth in the past. Carefree Services used Tymco and
Swartz regenerative air sweepers that met this requirement, for a one-time cost of $31,336.80. The
cost of this one time sweep was more than typical due to the greater amount of materials missed on
the previous sweeps.
Reliakor collected material during their combined sweeps, while Carefree Services collected with
their single regenerative sweep. The total material picked up, for all combined contracts, was
equivalent to over 135 dump trucks. The materials collected during the mechanical sweep were
stored, sifted, transferred and disposed of outside city limits by Dirt Devils, Inc. for a one-time cost of
29,256.00. Materials collected during the regenerative sweeps were hauled out of the City, as
required by their contracts.
Based on available data, staff had estimated that one pound of total phosphorus per mile would be
collected by a regenerative street sweeping The quantities of the street sweeping in 2006 were as
0:\EngineeringTROJECTS\2000 - 2009\7113E\Memos\CC_streetsweep_orderbids_1_07.doc
SUBJECT: 2007 STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM
Page 2
follows (with 2005 quantities listed for reference), including the projected amount of total
phosphorus removed:
2006 2005
277 miles of street (193 miles of street
with 19 parking lots) with 17 parking lots)
Mechanical Sweepings (cubic yard: CY) 1,100 CY 1,240 CY
Mechanical Sweeping collected per mile 3.38 CY 5.46 CY
Regenerative Sweeps:
First sweep (around May) 34 CY
Second Sweep (around Aug.) 72 CY
Third Sweep (around mid -Sept.) 280 CY
Total Regenerative Sweeps collected; 386 CY
excluding parking lots, 15% of total)
Regenerative Sweeping collected per mile: 0.84 CY/mile
189 CY
133 CY
142 CY
464 CY
2.04 CY/mile
Estimated, lbs. of TP collected by Regenerative Sweepings 232.7 lbs. 393.7 lbs.
est. 1 lb of TP/CY/mile X street miles X CY collected/mile)
In 2006, staff also sampled and tested some of the street sweeping materials to collect additional
information. Samples were collected during each sweep and were sent to the University of
Minnesota Soil Laboratory for analysis. However, as stated previously, the first two regenerative
sweeps in 2006 were not meeting the City goals and the contractor was changed. The following are
summaries of the 2006 street sweeping total phosphorus (TP) rate and cost analysis:
Mechanical Regenerative Total
2006 Materials Collected 1,100 CY 386 CY 1,486 CY
Total TP removed 550 lbs 208 lbs 758 lbs
Average TP per CY, as tested 0.5 lb/CY 0.54 lb/CY 0.51 lb/CY
Cost of sweeping 25,958 35,491 61,449
Cost of material removal 29,256 Included 29,256
Cost of sweeping & removal 55,214 35,491 90,705
Average cost of TP removed 100 / lb 170 / lb 120 / lb
Therefore, in 2006 we have prevented about 758 pounds of TP from entering our drainage systems.
In addition, we have also prevented the accumulation of nearly 1,500 CY of sediment in City ponds
and wetlands. The average cost per pound of TP removed by the City's street sweeping program
fairs very well compared to other best management practices (BMP). For example, in the Medicine
Lake Watershed and Management Plan, the Plymouth Phosphate Free Fertilizer Ordinance was
estimated to annually reduce at least 84 lbs of phosphorous in Plymouth Creels Watershed at a cost of
12 per pound. The proposed Wood Creek Erosion Repair Project is estimated to remove about 95
pounds of TP by eliminating channel erosion at a projected cost of $290 per pound ($550,000 total
cost in 20 years). Similarly, the two recently constructed Medicine lake Water Quality ponds are
estimated to remove about 175 pounds of TP per year at a cost of $275 per pound.
0:\Engineering\PROJECTS\2000 - 2009\7113E\Memos\CC_streetsweep_orderbids_1_07. doe
SUBJECT: 2007 STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM
Page 3
Considering the cost, total phosphorous removal and sediment prevention, mechanical and
regenerative sweepings are very effective prograins and should continue to be implemented in the
City of Plymouth. The initial mechanical sweeping is needed to remove large debris and winter sand
particles from the roadways. It also improves the effectiveness of the regenerative sweeping.
Combining both programs improves coordination and sweeping effectiveness. This program also
helps the City to comply with anticipated requirements Federal, State, and local rules.
The all -City mechanical sweep, working closely with City Maintenance and broom crews, occurs
typically during the last week in March. In 2007, it will be followed immediately by the first
regenerative sweep to pick up fine materials that mechanical sweepers can not collect. The objective
is to get the materials off the street before spring rain washes these sediments into the City's storm
sewer system. Two more Citywide regenerative sweepings will occur through the summer, and will
be timed to avoid the dropping of leaves in September. The City will also coordinate all such
sweepings to avoid streets that have received recent road improvements (seal coat, reconstruction,
temporary overlay plus mill and overlay), to avoid damage to these renewed surfaces. See attached
map for anticipated road improvement locations.
BUDGET IMPACT: The cost for the one-year program is estimated at $130,000, and will be
financed by the Water Resources Fund. Funding for the first year is included in the approved 2007
Budget. The bids will be based on a one-year contract, and paid on an actual per mile cost.
SUMMARY: Street sweeping is one of the most cost effective best management practices in the
City of Plymouth. Street sweeping fulfills the implementation goals of the Water Resources
Management Plan, Environmental Protection Agency Phase II Permit and City's lake management
plans.
RECOMMENDATIONS: I recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving specifications for the combined Mechanical and Regenerative Street Sweeping Program
and ordering advertisements for bids.
Attachments: City Map including Street Repairs
Resolution
0:\EngineeringTROJECTS\2000 - 2009\7113E\Metnos\CC_streetsweep_orderbids_1_07.doc
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-123
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
2007 STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM
CITY PROJECT NO. 7113E
WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been prepared by the City's Engineering Staff,
for the 2007 Street Sweeping Program in the City of Plymouth and said plans and
specifications have been presented to the Council for approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA:
Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file in the City
Engineer's office and made a part hereof, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and
in The Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of
such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall be published twice, shall specify the work to be done,
shall state that bids will be received by the City Clerk until 10:00 a.m. on
February 16, 2007 at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council
Chambers of the Plymouth City Center building at 3400 Plymouth Boulevard,
Plymouth, Minnesota, by the City Engineer and that no bids will be
considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a
cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City
Clerk for five percent of the amount of such bid.
Adopted by the City Council on January 9, 2007.
0AEngineeringTROJECTS\2000 - 2009\7113E\Resol\res_approve_plans_and_specs_bid_1_07.doc
r
s
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
DATE: January 17, 2007 for the City Council Meeting of January 23, 2007
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
FROM: Doran Cote, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: 2007 STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM
CITY PROJECT NO. 7113E
ACTION REQUESTED: Review the attached information related to the proposed 2007 Street
Sweeping Program, City Project No. 7113E, and provide staff direction.
BACKGROUND: On January 9, 2007, staff provided the City Council with a staff report and
resolution regarding the 2007 Street Sweeping Program. The City Council tabled action on the
item pending receipt of additional infonnation.
As requested by City Councilmeinber Willis, staff has investigated the opportunity to include an
additional city-wide sweep to the proposed sweeping program in order to pick-up leaves. We
also examined the cost effectiveness, and explored the option of including a leaf pick-up as a bid
alternate. We were also able to recover the 2006 Street Sweeping Program sampling data
Councihnember Willis previously requested (copy attached). According to the samples tested,
the first (mechanical) sweep yielded approximately 2 lb/mile of phosphorous removal and
expectedly, the last (regenerative) sweep yielded a lesser amount of approximately 0.5 lb/mile of
phosphorous removal.
In order to detennine the effectiveness of phosphorous removal via leaf removal, in 2004 staff
contacted the University of Minnesota to find out if data were available regarding phosphorous
content in leaves. Attached is an email response from the University of Minnesota. Using this
data and snaking some very basic assumptions that all streets are tree -lined, that half of the leaves
would end up in the street, and that there would be no homeowner "contribution" to the leaf
collection, we can expect a removal rate of approximately 0.35 lb/mile (see attached rudimentary
analysis).
Staff also contacted a street sweeping contractor to determine an approximate cost to include a
city-wide leaf removal sweeping (see attached emails). The contractor indicated that based on
the anticipated collection of 24,900 cubic yards of leaves used in the above analysis, the
estimated cost to perform a leaf pick-up sweep would be $80,000, excluding disposal.
Based on this information, including a city-wide leaf removal sweep would contribute to
phosphorous removal, but at an expected lower removal rate than traditional sweeping.
0:\Engineering\PROJECTS\2000 - 2009\7113E\Memos\City_wideSweep_I_I7_Laurie.doc
SUBJECT: 2007 STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM
Page 2
Including the leaf removal sweep would also exceed the budget for this project unless other
portions of the sweeping program were eliminated. If the City Council desires to add the leaf
sweep and remain within the budget, we could eliminate the second and third regenerative
sweeps, or bid an alternate to include either the second and third regenerative sweep or a leaf
removal sweep at the City's discretion.
Currently, the 2007 Water Resources Budget includes $130,000 for. the 2007 Street Sweeping
Program. All other sweeping is funded out of the Street Maintenance operating budget with one
mechanical sweeper. The Street Maintenance Division sweeps leaves on a complaint or as
needed basis. Staff could examine the costs of providing a leaf removal program as part of
preparing the 2008 Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Staff is seeking direction from the City
Council on how they wish to proceed with the 2007 Street Sweeping Program. The City Council
could proceed with the 2007 Street Sweeping Program as originally proposed. The resolution
provided with the original staff report has been revised to reflect new publication and bid
opening dates. Alternatively, the City Council could direct staff to proceed with one of the
options described above and revise the resolution and specifications accordingly.
attachments: Email Messages
2006 Street Sweeping Program. sampling data
Resolution
0:\Engineering\PR0JECTS\2000 - 2009\7113E\Memos\City_wideSweep_I_17_Laurie.doc
Dates • Materials Cost RUNS / Sweeps JAI Ilr;ly-1' Olsmi-P I'll IC O.M. '% Cl
completed) CY S ppm) I)em) Ppm) Ppm) by LOI ppm)
15 -Mm• 30 Mechanical, spot Sample Area
1 7.9 10 5 306.5 34 1.6 1374.5
Cl lbs/Cl' _ 1.6 1 dup 7.9 9 6 358 40 1.6 1429.7
TP lbs/CY 0.8 2 8.0 9 5. 347.8 28 1.7 1066.7
Tolal TI', lbs 23.9 3 7.3 55 62 879.9 183 15.1 10.9
TP $Abs min 7.3 9.0 5.0 306.5 28.0 1.6 10.9
max 8.0 55.0 62.0 879.9 183.0 15.1 1429.7
ave 7.8 20.8 19.5 473.1 71.3 5.0 970.5
Cl'"(764.56UCY)"(Ave ppm)*(kg/ppm Ic-6)"•(2.205Lbs/Kg) sd 0.3 22.8 28.3 272.1 74.7 6.7 659.3
764.56 1.0013-06 2.205 n 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Whole City,
277 miles Slreet (85%)
39 acres Parking lots
15 -Apr 1,100 26,000 1M, Mcell Sweeper Sample Aren
CI lbs/CY 0.3 3A1 7.9 8 329.8 43 161.2
TP lbs/CY 0.5 261 7.8 6 318.6 49 195.9
Total TP, ibs 571.5 3BI 8.0 6 261.7 42 125.3
TP$/Ibs $ 45.50 6A1 8.0 6 253.2 34 370.2
5B1(n=2) 7.8 9 377.5 44.5 90.35
min 7.8 6.0 253.2 34.0 90.4
max 8.0 9.0 377.5 49.0 370.2
ave 7.9 7.0 308.2 42.5 188.6
sd 0.1 1.4 51.4 5.5 108.9
n 5 5 5 5 5
20 -May 34 2,100 IV, Vacuume (S)
Schwrre Model S 1 V2B 317 1.8 46.1
small IV3B 390 1.4 32.8
Cl lbs/CY 0.1 l V4B 191 0.6 58.3
TP Ibs/CY 0.5 1 V5B 526 8.5 300
Total TP, lbs 17.3 1 VCP 225 1.8 86.4
TP $/Ibs $ 121.57 1 VFP 230 2.2 9.2
1VPP 263 0.6 11.3
IVWP 269 2.3 9.8
min 191.0 0.6 9.2
max 526.0 8.5 300.0
ave 301.4 2.4 69.2
sd 109.7 2,5 97.1
8 8 s
1 -Aug 72 2,100 2V, Vacuume (S)
Schwrre Model S 2V26 642 11.2 263
small 2V3B 603 23.3 433
Cl lbs/CY 0.43 2V43 767 15.8 105
TP Ibs/CY 1.42 2V5B 1349 25.8 231
Total TP, lbs 102.0 min 603.0 11,2 105.0
TP $/IW $ 20.59 max 1349.0 25.8 433.0
avc 840.3 19.0 258.0
sd 346.3 6.7 135.1
4 4 4
18 -Sep 280 31,000 3V, Vacuume (A)
Schwrre Model A 3V2B 354.6 1.85 32.75
much bigger 3V36 260 2.2 69.8
Cl lbs/CY 0.06 3 V4 319 2.85 35.3
TP lbs/CY 0.56 3V5B 391.7 1.5 12
Total TP, lbs 156.4 min 260.0 1.5 12.0
TP $/lbs $. 198.21 Max 391.7 2.9 69.8
ave 331.3 2.1 37.5
sd 56.1 0.6 24.0
n 4 4. 4
Average slats: TP O.M. (`%) CI
ppm by L.O.I. ppm)
Cl lbs/CY 0.51 mil 301.4 2.1 37.5
1'P Ibs/CY 0.76 max 840.3 19.0 970.5
Total TP, lbs 853.8 ave 450.8 7.1 304.7
TP $/Ibs $ 71.68 sd 228.6 8.0 382.7
FALL LEAF SWEEP
Is it a BMP to let leaves collect in the street gutters over the late Fall and Winter, or
would it be appropriate to schedule additional sweepings to collect the materials
before they decay and/or otherwise enter our storm water system?
Based on phosphorus removal estimates, projected cost, and expected changes in citizen
involvement it would not be considered a BMP to initiate such a late fall leaf sweeping
program.. A study by Ron Struss of the University of Minnesota Extension shows if 28
trees are assumed per city block, and half of the tree leaves end up in the street, then the
P" load is .04 lbs/block. If 277 miles of Plymouth roads are swept it would equal 97.5
lbs of TP or .352 lbs P/mile.
The estimated cost to sweep 277 miles for such a regenerative late -fall leaf sweep is
80,000 (738 hours), plus $29,000 for transportation/disposal, for a total of $109,000.
Comparing this infonnation with the U of M Extension data, the expense would equal
1,118 per pound of TP removed.
Regenerative (vacuum -assist) sweeping needs be used rather than mechanical sweeping.
Mechanical sweeping tends to move loose leaves around more, while regenerative
sweeping picks them up more efficiently and compresses thein for better handling.
Presently, residents have been good stewards in collecting their own leaves, keeping them
out of the road and taking then to composting sites. This is usually done by the resident
or their refuse company after on-site bagging. Further, experience has shown that, once
regular fall leaf sweeping programs are expected, more leaves tend to end up in the street.
for disposal.
FORMULA
277 miles X 5,280'= 1,462,560'
600' /block/planning X .04 lbs P/block = 97.5 lbs TP City Wide
or .352 lbs TP per City mile
80,000 sweeping estimate from Carefree Services, who have done several City-wide
sweeps for the City of Plymouth.
26,000 hauling/handling based on final payment to Dirt Devils, Inc. for similar work in
2006.
0:\Engineering\PROJECTS\2000 - 2009\7113E\Lts\FALL LEAF SWEEP.doe
Connie (and Shane from last year's request!):
P in Grass Clippings:
From a Carl Rosen, UM Dept Soil, Water, Climate: Grass clippings contain about 0.13 lbs P per 1,000 sq ft
during the growing season. A typical yard is 5,000 sq ft, so you can do the math.
From a Penn State Publication "Land Application of Leaves and Grass
Clippings" (http://www.age.12su.edu/extension/factsheets/c/C2.pdf) are these figures on FRESH grass clippings:
Moisture: 16.7%
Density: 8.3 lbs / cu ft
N: 54.7 lbs / ton
P 18.7 lbs / ton
K: 45.9 lbs / ton
Since a bushel is 1.24 cu ft, there is 0.096, or 0.1 pound of P in a bushel of fresh clippings. So, if someone
blowing grass clipping out into the street puts about a bushel of clippings on the pavement (a reasonable guess),
they are putting 0.1 lbs of P in the street.
P in Tree Leaves:
I have figures on this, but they were hobbled together from several sources of information - Frankenstein style. It
is the best I have, but I'm looking for other sources.
A paper titled: "Phosphorus budget of a 70 -year-old northern hardwood forest" by Ruth Yanai (Yale and Cornell)
gives the following figures on the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (New Hampshire):
1.9 kg P / ha in leaves
0.8 kg P / ha in buds, flowers, fruit, frass
0.9 kg P / ha in twigs, stems, bark
Another paper titled "Wisconsin Forest Inventory Data", says a northern hardwood stand 66-75 years has a tree
10/21/2004
Page 2 of 2
density of 1,573 trees / ha, so combining info from the two papers we are getting 1.2 g P per tree in leaf fall, or
0.003 lbs. P per tree.
I did a count on the trees on city streets in Highland Park, St. Paul, and came up with 28 street trees per city block.
If half the leaves from these trees fall in the street, the P load would be 0.04 lbs P / block / year.
Double check my figures and see if you come up with the same!
What is worse???
If thesefgures_are correct, a "grass blowing homeowner" can put more P in the street in one mowing than all the
trees on the block can in 2.5 years.
RON STRUSS - rstruss@umn.edu - 651-215-1950
Educator, University of Minnesota Extension Service
Co -located with MN Board of Water & Soil Resources
1 West Water Street, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55107
aeJIN hal3 ;y L SEM- jr v FR ''i ." q Y`i n L ffi
5+ y
y 7ga +PJB#
Managem-entPavemen
Description
Streets and parking lots make up a significant portion of the total
impervious area within a developed watershed, and most, if not all
of these areas are directly connected to the storm drain system.
Pollutants accumulate on these surfaces and are washed off during
storm events, particularly during spring snowmelt. A 1993 study in
Wisconsin indicated that streets and parking lots were responsible
for 54 percent of total runoff volume in residential areas and 80
percent in commercial areas. The same study found that streets and
parking lots were significant sources of runoff pollutants, including
suspended solids, phosphorus, copper, zinc and fecal coliform.
This document focuses on applications appropriate for sites of five
acres or less. For more in-depth discussion of municipal -level street
sweeping, see Best Practices for Street Sweeping (Metropolitan
Council, 1994).
Three main pavement -related maintenance strategies can help
prevent these problems:
Sweeping. When properly designed and implemented, sweeping
programs can significantly reduce street and parking lot contri-
butions to pollutant loads.
Alternative Products and Application Rates. Minimizing sand
and salt application rates and/or using alternative deicing
products can help protect waterways and potentially reduce
costs.
Purpose
Water Quantity
Flow attenuation N/A
Runoffvolume reduction N/A
Water Quality
Pollution prevention
Soil erosion N/A
Sediment control
Nutrient loading
Pollutant removal
Total suspended sediment (TSS)
Total phosphorus (P)
Nitrogen () U
Heavymetals
Floatables
Oil and grease
Other
Fecal coliform
Biochemical oxygen demand
BOD)
Depends on timing andfrequency of
sweeping, and extent to which other
measures are employed
Primary design benefit
USecondary design benefit
Little or no design benefit
Metropolitan Council/Barr Engineering Co., 3-35
a=E _ ffi
14sN4 IU
fS6 P 5 W il...f Nib h
Pavement 1Vl anagement
Other Prevention Measures. A variety of measures will prevent accumulation of sediments, salts and other
pollutants on pavement and stop them from washing off into storm drains and water bodies. These measures
include prompt pavement repair, spill cleanup and appropriate snow management.
Sweeping
Sweeping is a common maintenance activity, often done primarily for aesthetic reasons. Sweeping has important
water quality ramifications, however, and should be done in ways that increase its effectiveness for preventing
sediment loading of runoff and, whenever possible, decreasing costs. Sweeping is most effective for- removing
coarse particles, leaves and trash.,
Timing
At minimiun, pavement should be swept twice yearly: in early spring, to collect sand, salt and winter debris,
and in fall, to capture leaves and other debris..
Sweep as early in spring as possible (after snow has melted from an area) in order to capture sediment before
it is washed away by spring rains.
An additional sweeping in June, after
trees drop seeds and flowers, will prevent
a fair amount of phosphorus -laden runoff.
Sweep after activities or in locations that
generate debris, such as at construction
entry points.
When loading or unloading salt, sand,
gravel or other granular materials, sweep
the loading/unloading areas at the end of
each day, as well as along the paths that
the trucks use.
Equipment
Broom sweepers are effective at picking
up large particulate matter and cleaning
wet street surfaces. They also cost less to
operate than vacuum sweepers. Broom
sweepers generally create airborne dust
during their operation, which increases atmospheric loading.
Figure 1
Vacuum sweepers are more effective for removing fine particles, which is important because many pollutants
are adsorbed to them. However, vacuum sweepers have the disadvantage of being ineffective at cleaning wet
street surfaces. For heavy loads, use a mechanical sweeper for large particles followed by regenerative -air
cleaner.
Consider equipment that can be converted to other uses, such as sanding and plowing in winter.
3-36 Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual
ffrwzy aux e M elf
Pa''Ve"m""oht
f
N unag ement
Install an automatic greasing system on sweepers to
decrease maintenance time and reduce wear on
critical parts, which can cause unscheduled mainte-
nance and missed sweeping opportunities.
Techniques
Sweep in a pattern that keeps spilled material from
being pushed toward catch basin inlets
Locate storage and disposal sites for the material
collected during sweeping so it will not get back to
the storm sewer systems.
Before sweeping, manually rake sand from any adjacent turf areas onto the surface to be swept.
Use a small pool of highly trained operators.
Residual Material
Street sweepings may be reused by cleaning out leaves and other debris then mixing the sweepings with new
salt/sand mixture for winter application to roads, parking lots or sidewalks. When screening sweepings for
reuse in this way, use a small mesh for the final screening to ensure that all of the larger debris has been
removed. (A 3/4 -inch mesh will screen out much of the debris.)
Recycle fall leaf sweepings by finding a composting or agricultural facility that will use them.
Street sweepings may also be reused as daily cover material on sanitary or demolition landfills, but only those
that have ground water monitoring systems. While sweeping residuals are not considered hazardous waste, a
wide array of inorganic and organic pollutants are contained, so use caution in disposal.
Alternative Products and Application Rates
The sand and salt compounds applied to icy roads are easily carried into storm drain systems and receiving
streams, especially during snowmelt. High salt concentrations are harmful to streams. Furthermore, road salt
contains cyanide as an anti -caking agent; cyanide may cause acute or chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms. Since
salts are soluble and mobile, they may run off before sweeping can begin. So in areas where salts pose a problem,
alternative deicing products may help. However, these alternative products are usually more expensive than salt,
and may have other environmental impacts, which need to be carefully weighed.
Consider alternative deicers, such as calcium magnesium acetate (CMA), which, when used instead of road
salt, has been shown to decrease sodium levels in groundwater. Be sure to consider their expense and potential
environmental impacts prior to purchase.
Use a deicer additive or replacement in order to reduce rate of application. A liquid organic product called Ice
Ban,* derived from fermenting and distillation industries, has been
shown to be cost-effective used as an additive (it can also be used This mention does not constitute an
alone). However, it has raised some concerns about BOD loading.. If * endorsement of'product.
used alone, it must be applied prior to snowfall.
Metropolitan Council/Barr Engineering Co. 3-37
V } €moi
emend VI,n
DEW
UN
Pav agement
Apply deicers at the appropriate time to reduce rate of application. Applying before snow falls, based on
forecasts, means less material is needed to melt snow. The drawback: if the forecast is inaccurate, the deicer
will have been applied needlessly.
Store salt and deicers on an impervious surface and protected from rainfall to eliminate contamination of
runoff.
Use clean sand, that is, sand free of fines, which are difficult to collect via sweeping and are more trouble-
some when they reach water bodies.
Train operators to apply the minimum amount of sand necessary
Other Prevention Measures
Commercial and retail operators can help reduce and prevent accumulation of pollutants by:
limiting exposure of materials and equipment to rain and snowfall by storing indoors or covering
promptly cleaning up spills using dry instead of wet cleanup techniques.
promptly repairing potholes and other pavement damage to help prevent erosion of subbase material.
training workers about these principles
Snow Storage
Snow piles containing sand and salt that build up over the winter months, generate concentrated releases of sand
and salt during spring snow melt conditions. Also, trash and debris usually accumulate in snow piles during snow
plowing operations. Therefore, five months of potential pollution accumulation may occur over the winter months
for rapid release in the spring.
Plowed snow should not be directly discharged to lakes, streams or wetlands. Storage locations should be flat
and well -drained in order to avoid direct drainage into surface waters.
Pay attention to the location of snow piles, avoiding nearby surface runoff discharge points and impervious
surfaces.
Install berms, skimmers and detention ponds to settle sediment and trap debris.
Place snow piles so as to avoid or divert surface water run-on from areas outside the snow piles.
During spring melt conditions, visually observe the snow piles for runoff/run-on conditions and debris contained
in the snow that may be subject to blowing.
Do not pile snow into wooded areas, around trees or into vegetative buffers. The equipment operators usually
try to get the snow as far into the area as possible and wind up striking the tree trunks.. These injuries eventu-
ally lead to rotting of the trunks and premature tree death.
3-38 Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual
g
AM) 0101k.rr rt'r 5t' V,
nd
il ?7,.%;'ci .• s..pa- dx ...2. izri "^i3mN" •"'e _ 3`
Pavement IV 'a"nagement
Sources
1. Bannerman, R.T., D.W. Owens, R.B. Dodds and N.J. Hornewer. 1993. "Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin
Stormwater" in Water Science and Technology Vol.. 28, No. 3-5, pp. 241-259.
2. Center for Watershed Protection. 1997, Stormwater BMP Design Supplement for Cold Climates. Prepared
for U.S.. EPA Division of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and U.S. EPA Region 5. Ellicott City, MD.
3.. Environmental Technology Evaluation Center. 2000. "Ice Ban Anti-Icing/De-icing Product" on website
www.ceif.org/evtec/evaYieeban.htm. Washington, D.C.
4. Metropolitan Council. 1994. Metropolitan Council's Best Practices for Street Sweeping. Publication No.
71-94-020A. St. Paul,
5. Trumbo, John. 1999. "Ice Ban Replaces Salt, Sand on Pavement" in Tri City Herald. Nov 29, 2000..
Kennewick, WA„
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. 1999. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm
Water Best Management Practices.. Washington, D.C.
7.. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000. The Wisconsin Stormwater Manual. Madison.
Metropolitan Council/Barr Engineering Co. 3-39
Chapter
Contrary to Conventional Wisdom, Street
Sweeping Can be an .Effective BMP
Roger C. Sutlicrland and Seth L. Men
Recent work suggests that street sweeping programs can be optimized to
significantly reduce pollutant washoff from urban streets. The abilities ofseveral
different sweeping technologies to Pick up accumulated sediment of various
sizes were evaluated. In addition, the expected reductions in average annual.
washoff loads were evaluated using calibrated model simulations: of the Simpli-
Pied Particulate Transport Model (Sutherland acid Jelen, .1:993) for two stortnwa_,
ter sites in Portland, Oregon,.
l~requencies and associated reductions wouldvary with patterns of precipitation
sediment accumulation. and resuspension,' but it is clearthat sweeping technology
can have a profound effect on sweeping: results and achieve meaniiizFul runoff
quafity benefits.
These results stand in sharp contrast to earlier conclUsi ons dating back to +
Dec :ember 1983..A. t that time; street sweeping had been found to. be generally
ineffective as a technique for improving the quality of . urban runoff, This
conclusion resulted from the United States Environmental' Protection. Agency
sponsored Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) :in which over 30 million
dollars was expetided in an intensive three-year investigation of urban runoff
quality at 28 locations throughout. the United States (USEPA, 1983).
rlclvar:cesi i.dfc delingtlieMundge ii nGof'Storntwu8erl»pacts-l al,.5 W.James,Ed,.
Pab,:by C141, Guelph, Carinda 1997, ISBN 0•9697422-7-4..rnx. +519 767-2770
1'79
180. Street Stiveeping Can be an Effective AMP
9.1 Previous Research
The NURP studies of street sweeping effects on stormwatcr quality
USlP.A:,1983) concluded that street sweeping was.largely, ineffective at reduc-
ing the event mean concentration (IMC) of pollutants in. urban runoff. This
conclusion was reached;.mai:nly.because tte street sweepers tested°were not.;able
to effectively pick up very fine accumulated sediments that can often be highly
contaminated.
In general, street sweeping.equipment of the era was wlable to effectively
pick up the very .fine, highly contaminated, sediments that accumulate on
impervioua areas such as streets, driveways and parking lots. These same
sediments, located on paved areas that are directly connected to a city's storm
drainage system, have been identified over and over again as the primary source
of urban.nonpoin..tpollutants entering the receiving waters ofthe United States.
Broom sweepers of that era.removed hitter and large.dirt particles well, but
contaminants are known to concentrate primarily in tie fine particle sizes (e.g.
less than 63 microns). However, these finer and much more pollutant -laden
particles were, largely left 'behind, and moreover, they were left exposed to be
even more readily entrained in washoff since their armoring shelter by larger
sediment particles was removed.
However, recent studies by the authors over a period of .four years show
clearly that the NURP conclusions .from the early 80's are no longer valid today.
This is largely because of the considerable increase in street sweeping's effec-
tiveness at removing the smallest particles. Examples of this improvement
include the following:
1, lyven most mechanical sweepers (.e, broom and conveyor belt) now
available are much more effective at picking up fine sediments.
2. Tandem sweeping operations (i.e, mechanical sweeping followed
immediately by a vacuum -assisted .machine) have been:fouad to be
even more effective at fine sediment pickup.
3.. Regenerative air sweepers have been refined considerably since
their infancy during the NURP era, have also been found to be
effective at fine sediment pickup..
4. A revolutionary new vacuum -assisted dry sweeper has greatly
advanced the technology of'fine sediment pickup and containment.
These considerable advances in sweeping technologies result in a.need to.
re-evaluate the NURP conclusions and: incorporate new performance data and
benefits that result from more demanding and water -quality -.driven sweeping
programs,
9,2 Sweeping.Technologies
9.2 Sweeping Technologies
The pickup performance for the NURP era sweepers show typical values
Based on the authors' previous analysis (Sutherland, 1990) of the Bellevue;
Washington NURP data, as summarized by Pitt (I 985).Having been a consultanttant
tothe. City of'Bell'evue during the NURP study, the author had direct access to
the street sweeper pickup performance data collected as part of that study.. The
sweeper tested at that time was a Mobil standard mechanical broom street
sweeper, probably manufactured around 1978. It provides the baseline against.
which several modem street sweeping technologies are compared for immediate
pickup rate and expected long-term washoff:load reduction.
Against this, the performance: of a newer mechanical (i.e, broom and
conveyor). sweeper was compared, in order to establish the level of improvement
achieved in types of sweepers still in wide use, Data. for this comparison was
obtained when the authors measured the pickup performance of a newer
mechanical sweeper, which was a 1088 Mobil, as a result of a. Portland study
nientioned later.
Research by the authors has identified three promising technologies that'
may provide Sig1lificantimprovements In -performance beyond that observed for
NURP era or mechanical. sweepers, For each, the sediment pickup from sweep-
ings.by each technology wasmeasured.,in the field :by the aLithor§ Linder a variety
Of conditions. ResultiDg removals were obtained f6r each of eight particle size
ranges. These show significantly greater removals for each of these new
technologies than those typical for sweepers from the early 1980's,
The first technology is the use of a tandem sweeping operation..A. tandem
Operation i ' nvolves two successive elmning passes, first by a mechanical .(i.e.
broom. and conveyor belt) sweeper, then immediately followed by a: vacuum
assisted sweeper. The pickup performance.ofa tandem operation using the jVfobil
broom sweeper followed by a.TYAdCO vacuum sweeper was monitored for over
a year in a medium -density residential area located in Southeast Portland,
Oregon. The detailed description ofthis study and its results can be-foundin HDR.
1993 and were briefly summarized in Alter (1995).
The -second technology is the stand-alone use of a regenerative air sweeper.
R egenerative air sweepers blow air onto the pavement and immediately vacuum
it back in order -to entrain and filter out accumulated sediments. Regenerative air
machines were just in their infancy during the NURP era, and to the author's
knowledge were not extensively tested at any of the'NURP sites. Regenerative
air sweepers are generally considered to begood at removing fine sediment, .ifthe
accumulated loading is not too great, The authors measured the pickup perfor-
rnance of the Elgin Crosswind regenerative air sweeper in and near Seatac
International Airport on April 21, 1995.
1.82 Street Sweeping `Can: be mr;E,ffective BMP
The third technology is the stand-alone use.of;a new.; highly effective,
vacuum -assisted dry sweeper called.the Enviro Whirl 1 developed and manufac-
tured) by Enviro Whirl Technologies Inc., located in. Centralia, Illinois. This
sweeper applies technology developed and still used to remove spilled coal and
coal. dust along railroad tracks. The technology has also been applied to clean
similar materials from industrial sites where complete, removal without leakage
of airborne particles is important.
From these demands have evolved a technology that is extremely efficient
at removing the finest particles and preventing their escape into the air; In
contrast; most other units, especially mechanical',types, trail a visible cloud of
dust behind in the air orad on the street.
The Enviro Whirl I combines the important elements of tandem sweeping
into a single unit. It uses rotating sweeper brooms within the powerful. vacuum
head to provide both mechanical and aerodynamic particulate removal. Data
comparing the sweeping performance of this technology to others wcas measured
by the authors on an April 24., 1995 test: prepared by the City of Las Vegas,
Nevada (during an air quality conference). and in Centralia, Illinois during
September 199.5,
This data reveals narked improvements in the atred. sweeping technology
that:result in much more effective pimckup,of accumulated sediments, Using; the
NURP-era broom sweepers as a baseline, performances are compared for
irpproved mechanical sweepers and promising sweeping fevhnologi.es. As a
result, it becomes clear that street sweeping is now capable of removing.
significant pollutant loads from. urban surfaces and effecting significant reduc-
tions in urban pollutant washoff.
9.3 Evaluation Procedure.
The ability of street sweeping to reduce overall pollutant washoff loads
depends on several things.. First is the street sweeper's innate abil'.ity to remove
accumulated sediment. Another is the environmental dynamics. of sediment.
accumulation and resuspension„ and of sediment washofFduring storm events
plus suspended sediment removal by downstream water quality controls.
The Simplified Particulate Transport Model (S.I.MP. TM) can accurately
simulate this complicated: interaction. of :accumulation, washoff,, and street
sweeper pickup that occurs. over a. period of time (Sutherland, and Ielen, 1993).
The remainder of this chapter presents the issues involved in. applying the
SIMPTM model to successfully evaluate the overall effectiveness of street
sweeping technologies and programs as a water quality management practice.
The following are addressed:
94 Pic4p,Perfortnance Model 183
1, how to model street sweeper pickup performance;
2. how4he SIMPTM-model compares to real pickup performance data;
3., how various technologies can be compared using their calibrated
SIMPT-M model parameters; and
4. how technologies can be best compared using their average annual
pollutant reductions, as simulated for two: example stori-nwater
basin sites in Portland, Oregon,
9.4 Pickup Performance Model
The street sweeping component of the SINIP-TM model was based on the
results of Pitt's street sweeping study conducted for the. USE - FA in San Jose,
California (Pitt, 1.979). This model was confinned in additional studies con-
ductedAn Alameda County, California (Pitt and-'8hawley,, 19,82) and in Wast oe
C punty...N.evada,(Pittand Sutherland, 1982).
Th.ase studios found that sweeping removes little, if any, ina.t.erial below a
oer,Oiin base residual which was found to vary by particle size. Above that base
residual,'the street sweeper's removal effectiveness was :described ,as a straight
line. percentage which varied by particle size.
Figtire.5.1 illustrates the street cleaning component and equations used by
SIK-PT.M, Por each of ei htsi. 9 Ize groups, fbe-amourit removed, (Prem),is re*]a'ted
lineady to the initial accumulation (?q) using: wo parameters - a. base residual
SSm. in.) and a.sweeping efficiency (Sselft
Prem = SSeff x (Po — SSmin) for Po > SSmin
Themfore, todescribe aunique street sweeping operation; one. needs
to know the operations SSi.nin and SSeffvaluc,s for each of theeight particle size
ranges simulated. by SIMPTM. Note that SSeff is dimensionless, while that for
SSMM.-mustmatch that for accumulation, usually either pounds per curb rntle.,or
pounds per paved acre, The initial, accumulAtion,(Pb) is asimulated pararneteri
or may be measured in. the field (from a-similar.surface near that-Swept):in order
to. evaluate the SSmin:and SSeffparaniaters,
Figure 9.2 shows an example of bow this model, component, actually
compares to real pickup perforniance data for each of the eight particle site
groups. The pointsplottedpoins are the data. obtained from monitaTing :thq tandem
street sweeping operation on Portland7s Sellwood drainage basin (AUR, 19*93).
Note that the correlation coefficients (R2) for the fits of the eight partipte size
184 S.IreetSiOeqping Can fie an Effecrive BMP
The Those restclualloading•parUculate,
SIZO fahgq J
SSOU(J). - 17io street cleahkig;effertNeness as a
ipaction.oUthe particulate Wdings.-In excess 011ie
We reslduaI for a tze range (J)
9 0A
ssaff(j) art(j)
0,3
0.
1
0
0.0 0'.1 0.2 6.3 QA 0 5 0.0 0.7 *08 6.9 IX
11LItial Accumulation lit'size Range (J)
Figure%.j Street sweeping .r.n od6lzcompon.p.ntofS.I..MPTM.
groups- ranged: from 94.30la to 99.9%, so the model is doing an excellentjdb of
reproducing the observations. These high'W values were typical. of all of the
model fits to the .pickup data from the, various sweeping tech . nologies.
Table 9.1 compares the S-Smin sweeping'parameters mode.(arameters calibrated to, mode.(
each of the five sweeping terhAo1bg[e& It shows dramatic improvements in
reduding residual loadings for all the newer technologies when compared to the
NURP sweepers, While, both tandem sweeping and:the Elgin Crosswind regen-
erativeair are very impressive, the across-the-board zero residual loadings for the
Envi,ro Whirl I is the best possible,
Table 9.2 compares the corresponding marginal sweepingrate, SSeff, for
sweeping loads that exceed the.threshold SSmirt. They were also calibrated to:
model each .of the five sweeping te6hnologics. The results mi.tror those for -the
SSmin parameter, and show impressive reiiioval -efficiencies,above the'.residen-
061 loadings. Dramatic improvements are again evident since the NURP era. It
mustb ' emcogntzed . that this'table shows only marginal removal rates. The overall
removals must:,also incorporate the residual loading that.always: remains after.
sweePing. Thus although the rates of -the Elgin Crosswind (regenerative air) and
the Enviro Whirl I for the finerparticle size groups may not°be,imPressiYe,'the.ir
residual loadings wareverylo, or even, zero, resulting ib.by . erall removal.
affidiencies that are essentially the same as the rate shown. Other technologi6s
with larger SSmin's would be significantly less efficient.
9.4.Plckutr Perfarn:arrce Madel
Table9:1. CalibratedSSminsweepingresidualsforalte.rnative'technologies.
Particle
Size
Group
Size
gange.
microns
Street Sweeping Technolo&
NURP Newer Tandem: Regencrafln
Mech. Mech, Sweeping Air
Enviro-
Whirl,
1
X63 9,01 5.8 2.0 0,0 0,0
2 1,25 12,0 5:8 Id 0.0 0.0
3
so i8:0 3 23 0,9 ` 0.0
4 400 18.0 2.5 2.3 ED 0.0.
3 1000 12.0 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.0
6 X000 4:2 O.S. 0',(r 0:7 0;0'
7 6370 3.6 03 0:5 0,0 0.0
a 67o is o'o oai opo u:o
Data.from various s(iidi.cs, minimum pouti is per paveA aore remaining after strbet.
sweeping;
185
Table.9.2 Calibrated SSeff- marginal:sweeping, efficiencies;foralternative teclinologies..
Panicle
Size
Group
Site
Range
microns
Street SiveepingTeChr.10lpgy
NURP Newer Tandem Rogcm,rative
Much. Meeh. Sweeping Air
nviro-
whir)
1 63 44% 1.00% 93%4 32% 70"/0
2 125 52% 100% 95% 7.1% 77%
3 250 47%u 92% 9.3%q 94'% WA
4 600 50% 57% 89% 100% 88.%
5 1000 55% 48% 84% 100%n 90%n
6 X000 6011/6 39% sm. 1000K 9a01.
7 6370 78% 8l%a 980/0 4%0 92l
8 6370 799/. 70% 87% 92o%u y6%
Data from various. studies, marginal. removal rate Only for accumUlatl9ns greater than
SSni n.
Slze Group I
63 microns
SSeff = 93%
SSmin = 2' .0
LbslPaved Acre
Size Gr6ub 3
C250:1b1crotls
R2
SSeff =:93%
SSmin = 2:3
Lbs!Paved Acre.
0
ti
I
J__
F ! •
0 +0 20 sc. 40
Tandem 0 -Wore fibslcurb.mlt
fi0
SUAT..r a aesTA d—
E 4 -- --- - -
X30' - - - - - -- --- -----
n
G20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E
0:
0 10 70 70 40 60 fi0
Tandem 03 - 6erai h.(lba/emb 00.)
Size Group 2
126 microns
R2 = ().962
SSeff = 95%
Ssmin = 2;0
LbslPeved Acre
size :Group 4
600 microns
R.2 - 0.98.8
SSeff:= 894/0
SSmin = 233
LbsEPaved.Acre
49
SAd Tatem x.0®3 TaMe:ii
20 .----- - - - - -- - -.-------
s
0
0
0 10 20 30 40
Tandem_02 - Mo. m (lb,-Jcu b: nllej
Figure 9,2 Tandem ."street sweeping model in SIMPTh41 size groups I-4.
9.4 Pckup Performance Afodel
co a cS0cn
II
E
IS7
co
0
E
r- "g EDO
it
it
CUR,
1)
L
AL
04,
co a cS0cn
II
E
IS7
co
0
E
r- "g EDO
it
it
CUR,
1)
L
co a cS0cn
II
E
IS7
co
0
E
CUR,
L
co a cS0cn
II
E
IS7
co
0
E
Street Swe ping CanbqanB i.'ctjv_d B Tl : ff
9..S* Pollutant Wis-hoff Reduction C'6MpdH*s6n
Working with. a calibrated version of the SIMPTM program; the: average
annual. expected reduction in total suspended soli4(TSS) wash.offfroin, two of
Portland's NPOES stormwater sites were projected for varying sweeping
n . frequencies ,usigt
I
lie NURP era sweepers, the .newinochanical sweeper and the
three promisingsweeping technologies.:, (Fora more detailed description of the
SIM. PTMprogram:and its cali bration to the, City ofPorddnd's.NPDES nionitbring
sites, the reader is ref6rred to the program documentation or the study report
Sutherland and Jelen, 1995),
Figure 9:3 shows the resultin9annualcurves of expected annual washoff reduc-
tions for varied intensity of street sweeping in residential areas by each of the
attematiy.etechn.ologies.,Itcleal-ly shows that aft ofthe.newersmweeping technolp-
gies would be significantly more effective than :the - NUR_'P era: sweepers in.
reducing TS,S w.ashoff from single family residential areas with curb and gutter
dram. age in Portland Oregon, Note that the Enviro Whirl is the, best, k1lowed
by the Elgin regenerative air and the tandem 'operation, Even the newer
mochanie'al sweepers will provide reduciio-.ns.in.the..20% toM%range. Also note
that weekly or biweekly sweeping appears-tubooptimum for-thistypp of
I
land use
in Portland, Oregon.
AftrnplW TOTAL T.1 SWwft6.RaduVoii
to- ......1 ................... .........................
20 au co .80 Im
NDmbaraf 411tog( Cliap6ih9s.(por Year).
Ch) --i— Newer WO, -0- Tonrlorn (M -M -Ea- Ragan. Air Err&6041
Figure 9.3 Alterhative:washoff reductions by sweeping r6sidwithil streets.
9„6 Conchefohs 1.89
Figure 9,4 stows how results .change significantly when sweeping is
applied to major .arterials instead. It even moreclearly demonstrates the
superiority.ofthe Enviro Whirl I sweeper in reduci tg:TSS washoff.frvm highly
impervious major arterialswith gutter:drainage lin Portland, O.rega:n,
The Elgin regenerative air provides some TSS reduction; whereas the other.
technologies appear to -be largely ineffective on this type ofland .use. Tbis same
land use was found to- provide the, highest pollutant washoffs on a pound per.
paved acre of the six homogenous land uses studied,(Suthedwid:and Jelen,
1995)..
AlomatIV4 TOTAL. T6S W+tdof R.doutf.o
Co')gdry it Mijbi"fliGl
y6b _....... ........................af':..._..._..,.
r.-__.......... ........,............
ia, m, ap no, Fa eo
NounWr0r3kreul Cimino. (puryobo..
M Nwp (Molt.) --1-a NoWor'M.
10, -
49-- T.DW.m (M+Vj -F}- Rl qpm Alr, —s!— ErMmWW?i
Figure 9.4 ttiternative.waslioff redddidria by sNVeep iig;major arterials.
Cleady, though,, isoth f gufes'show that theNURP erasweepers were almost
totallyiiieffective intheir ability to reduce TSS washoffs fr6m either ofthe bas..ins
simulated, So this..co.tafirms the earlier conclusions of the NU.RP hi regard to
sweeper performance, while Suggesting that significant beaef.ts could now be
expeoied.
9.6 Conei*gns
Contrary to conventional wisdom, this chapter clearly demonstrates that
street sweeping can be an effective best jtianageni.ent practice (13NIP). The actual
Pollutant reduction effectiveness. of any given. street sweeping operation. will
19Q Street Sweeping Can. be an .Zfj°ectiva BMP
depend on characteristics of land use; precipitation., and the aecumulation
dybamies of contaminated sediments.
The-SIMPTMprogranrhas been. usedsuccessiullyto accountforAll of -those
issues korder to project:the potential performance of various street•sweeping
programs, ltwas used to evaluate the optimal levelof effort to be .ianpl.emented.
Finally,, it was used to. evaluate the effect of employing updated technologies. In
this:regard, the Enviro Whirl I.sweeper was found to .be far superior to the other
promising technologies ,reviewed.
Given the increased concern. about the water .quality related impacts of
urban stormwater pollution throughout the country and the difficulty of:identi
Tying and implementing cost-effective- BMP's to address them, the pollutant
reduction benefits possible from a cost effective street sweeping program..must
be.re-evaluated.
References
Alt r, W., 1995. "The:Changing Emphasis of.Municipal.Sweeping. — IvlaybeTan:dem;"
American Sweeper, Volume 4,:Number. 1, p6.. 3pp.
Hak,lnc., 1993. Combined Sewer Overflow SFO Compliance Inter inCOntrotivfeasures
Study and Final Report, prepared for the: City, of.Portland, Bureau of:Environmenta:l
Services, p17-1.. 19pp.
Kurahaslii and Associates, Inc., 1995. Seatac International Airport Stormwater Qwaity
Characterization; Mcnioranduni to HDR Engineering Inc., 53pp,.
Pitt; R:E., 1979. Demonstration of Nonpoint. Pollution Abatement Through Improver!
StreetCle..aning Practices,.EPA 600/2 -79461,270 -Pp,
Pitt, R.E.,1985: Characterization, Sources and Control of Urban Runoff by Strect and
Sewerage Cleaning, Contract Number R-8059701,2, U,S.. Environmental. Protection
Agency, Offices of Research .and Development,.467pp.,
Pitt, R.E. and G. Shawley, 1982. A Demonstration of:Nonpoint Pollution Management
on Castro Valley Creek;. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District, Hayward, California, 1.73pp.
Pitt, R.E. and R,C, Sutherland,1982. Washoe County Urban Storm water lvfanageinent
Fro ram - Volume It Street.Particu.late Daia,Collectiowand Analysis, Prepared by
CH2M Hill for Washoe Council of Governmet ts, Reno, Nevada, 124pp.
Sutherland, R.C., 1990. Water Quality Related Benefits to the Citj,.'s Current.Street
CleaningProgram . Phasc2 Results, letter to M's, Lori Faha, City:ofPortland, Bureau
of Environmental Services,.l2pp,
Sutherland R,C. and S.L. Jeten,1:993, Shnplified Particulata Transport Model Users
Manual, Version 3.1., 6Gpp.
Sutherland, R.C. and S.L. Jelen, 1996. Sophisticated: Siormwater (duality Modeling :Is
WorthtbcEfPort. Published in.AdvancesinlDiodelingtheMonagement.ofStormwater
Impacts, Edited by Dr. William James, Ann Arbor Press, pl-14.
U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, Water Planning, Division,. 1:98.3; Results of the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volume :1 -.Filial report, 186pp..
by Ranger Kidwell -Ross
Sweepers Remove
Stormwater Pollutants
Designers of sweeping programs need to learn about the relatively inexpensive
role sweeping has in removing pollutants from the runoff stream.
treet cleaning has the broadest potential for reducing stormwater
pollution in the urban environment. That's because half of all the
rain that falls on impervious surfaces connected to urban
stormwater collection systems is falling on pavement.
This close-up shot shows how a sweeper picks up leaves before they enter stormwater
drains.
28 March 2007 Better Roads
In the past five years, updated
sweeper designs that are much
more efficient at picking up accu-
mulated contaminants have en-
tered the market.
Yet, many jurisdictions that are
now imposing stormwater runoff
taxes and spending high dollars in
an attempt to reduce their runoff
pollution have, at the same time,
cut back on their sweeping efforts.
The only rational reason can be
that they lack knowledge about
the positive, relatively cost-effec-
tive impact a well-planned envi-
ronmental sweeping program now
can attain.
CWA requirements
Wherever Clean Water Act com-
pliance is required, sweeping pro-
gram designers need to learn
about the role newer sweepers can
have in removing pollutants from
the runoff stream.
Studies confirm the real-world
pickup efficiency of today's broom
sweepers is probably only between
20 and 35%. Despite this fact, me-
chanical broom sweepers continue
to be the leading type used by mu-
nicipalities in the United States.
As municipalities struggle to
A Tymeo 50OX gets set to remove debris
that might otherwise pollute water
reduce non -point source pollutants
and meet the Best Management
Practices requirements of Phase I
and II, newer technologies of re-
generative air and vacuum sweep-
er models are clearly a better
choice. These have both been
shown to raise pickup efficiencies
into the 60 to 90% and above
range.
A study of structural BMPs by
the California Department of
Transportation indicates the cost
per pound of pollutant removed
as Total Suspended Solids) runs
10 to $60, not including land
costs. In contrast, sweeping indus-
try studies by well-known re-
searcher, Roger Sutherland, of
Oregon -based Pacific Water Re-
sources, indicate that newer me-
chanical broom sweepers reduce
TSS in stormwater at a cost of $5
to $10 per pound. Regenerative
air and vacuum -assisted sweepers
offer an even higher level of effi-
ciency, removing TSS at a cost of
2 to $5 per pound.
sweeping can occur in snowbelt
areas) for residential areas was
about once every three weeks.
Every two weeks is typically rea-
sonable for higher -density resi-
dential and general commercial.
In major traffic areas, like arteri-
als, optimal sweeping was deter-
mined to be once per week. Opti-
mal frequency depends, however,
upon accumulation of the contami-
nated material typically called
street dirt. Monitoring accumula-
tion can be of great value, as well
as determining the chemical com-
ponent of what is collecting on giv-
en roadways.
Not only can a correctly de-
signed sweeping program remove
a significant amount of targeted
chemicals; correct sweeping also
has a positive impact on the gross
pollutants that contribute sedi-
ment, silt, and organic debris to.
streams and other waterways.
Another efficiency sweeping of-
fers is that it prolongs the opera-
tional efficiency of structural -
Regenerative air and vaCUUMa -S vt d sweepers offer
cost ::f S9- -to $ 5 .per pound.
Sutherland's company has also
developed modeling software that
uses historic rainfall data, which
in most locales spans over 50
years, to accurately predict sweep-
ing efficiencies for watersheds.
This has aided a number of mu-
nicipalities in determining rela-
tive pickup volume at given
sweeping frequency intervals
without having to conduct costly
studies of their own.
Sutherland's Livonia, Michigan,
study found the optimal frequency
during the nine months when
based devices, as well as reduces
the ongoing maintenance they re-
quire. Although by no means a sil-
ver bullet, widespreadagreement
is developing that sweeping
should begin taking a more cen-
tral role in stormwater runoff
plans.
Charging off costs
Well-informed NPDES man-
agers, aware of how cost-effective
sweeping is when compared to in-
frastructure -based solutions, are
now making an increase in air
sweeping frequency a foundation
of their stormwater runoff plans.
The problem they're faced with is
that; even in the face of the EPA
mandates, their budgets are still
largely based on the frequency of
sweeping needed to provide a
pleasing aesthetic value and, to a
lesser extent, keep storm drains
flowing.
Because of sweeping's now -
demonstrated lower -cost -per -
pound of pollutant removal, juris-
dictions under Phase I or II man-
dates clearly should develop an
optimal sweeping frequency de-
signed to minimize the overall
cost of meeting their non -point
pollutant reduction goals.
Only by comparing sweeping to
end -of -the -pipe solutions, like sed-
imentation tanks and filters,
grassy swales, detention ponds,
and all the other infrastructure -
based solutions now emerging, can
the most cost-effective mix of
sweeping and other technologies
be attained.
Once an optimal, least overall
cost for achieving TMDL limits (or
attainment of other goals) has
been established for a given wa-
tershed, the next question is figur-
ing out how to pay for that mix-
ture of solutions. Some cities are
now including the sweeping de-
partment within the overall budg-
et for stormwater runoff reduc-
tion. That way, if a stormwater
utility fee is being collected
through NPDES mandates, the
cost of sweepers and sweeping can
be funded as a component. BR
Ranger Ifidwell-Ross heads zip the world's
largest information resource dedicated to power
sweeping, www.WorldSweeper.eom. E-mail him
at editor@worldsweeper.com.
Better Roads March 2007 29
Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed Schilling Consultant Services Phone: (651) 773-3598
District June 2005 46 Bertha Court
r i Fax:
Mahtomedi, MN 5511r E-mail: jgschilling@comcast.net
Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District
2346 Helen Street
North St. Paul, Minnesota 55109
651.704.2089
http://www.rwmwd.org
June 2005
Executive Summary
The Street Sweeping Project is organized into the following three reports:
1. Street Sweeping — Report No. 1, State of the Practice
2. Street Sweeping— Report No. 2, Survey Questionnaire, Results and Conclusions; and
3. Street Sweeping— Report No. 3, Policy Development and Future Implementation Options for Water
Qualify Improvement.
The reports are the information base for the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District to advance
efforts to improve water quality within its jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, the reports serve as an
education tool for members of the Ramsey—Washington Public Works Forum and other public works staff
within Minnesota and across the United States and Canada. The Ramsey -Washington Public Works
Forum is a monthly discussion group focused on increasing communications and collaboration related to
stormwater quality improvement concerns of the city and county governments within the Ramsey -
Washington Metro Watershed District.
Street Sweeping— Report No. 1, State of the Practice summarizes and analyzes recent literature, WEB
search reviews, personal communications with pertinent industry experts and yet -to -be -completed street
sweeping research projects.
Street sweeping equipment has evolved significantly .in the last 15 years and will continue to do so as two
aspects relating to the practice move forward. First, Phase I and 2 storm water permits and associated
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) will likely become more comprehensive as regulatory
agencies require further controls on non -point source pollution. With Total Maximum Daily Load
TMDL) studies being completed over the next ten years, these same permits will contain more stringent
requirements. Street sweeping equipment and the associated practice will be looked at more favorably as
a cost-effective non -point source control measure.
Second, additional research studies may shed information on street sweeping as a practice that improves
water quality. Subsequently, this may result in equipment and operational upgrading that may produce
more fuel-efficient sweepers, greater use of waterless sweepers or implementing new technology (e.g.
captive hydrology). Regulatory requirements and research findings may drive street sweeper
manufacturers to respond to an increasing market for newer technologies.
Mechanical brush sweepers are effective at removing coarse materials and gross pollutants. They are less
effective removing fine materials often associated with various pollutants and may expose such materials
to wash -off. High -efficiency street sweepers and associated operations may increase the percent of total
solids removal from 30 — 70+%. Street sweeping frequencies approximately monthly to biweekly and
varied depending upon land use and transportation features have been shown as being most effective for
pollutant removal.
As a pollution control practice, street sweeping is cost-effective when compared to structural best
management practices such as detention ponds, and settling or filtering devices and prolongs their
operational efficiency and required maintenance. As a pollution prevention or source control measure
when integrated with other structural and non-structural BMPs, high -efficiency street sweeping improves
water quality and reduces ongoing habitat deterioration.
Report No. 1 has not identified definitive studies pointing to receiving water quality improvement as a
direct result of street sweeping alone. However, as a pollution prevention or source control measure
when integrated with other structural and non-structural BMPs, high -efficiency street sweeping improves
water quality and reduces ongoing habitat deterioration.
A 2004 mathematical optimization study for BMPs provided information on which storm water
management strategies are likely to be cost-effective in reducing non -point pollution and which are not.
Sweeping of commercial areas will likely be a priority while residential areas will not. The optimization
model study shows insensitivity to a reasonable range of street sweeping costs, but sensitivity to sediment
removal effectiveness. This suggests it is more important to address sediment removal effectiveness for
street sweeping rather than cost.
The following are suggested topic areas for further research as it relates to street sweeping:
High -efficiency sweeping and water quality improvement;
Street sweeping as a component in subwatershed modeling;
Disposal of street sweepings and recycling practices;
A Life cycle costing of street sweeping practices; and
Integration of street sweeping practices into local government MS4 permits.
iv
Conclusions
1. Streets need to be clean of sediment, trash and dissolvable pollutants. With emerging new
technologies, cities and watershed management organizations may shift water quality improvement
efforts from structural Best Management Practices to implementing non-structural practices directed
at pollutant source control on street surfaces. Street sweeping equipment technology and practices
have reached a level of sophistication that is it now possible to come close to accomplishing a goal of
significantly cleaner street surfaces before major rain or snowmelt events.
2. Mechanical brush sweepers are effective at removing coarse materials and gross pollutants. They are
less effective removing fine materials often associated with various pollutants and may expose such
materials to wash -off. High -efficiency street sweepers and associated operations may increase the
percent of total solids removal from 30 — 70+%.
3. Street sweeping frequencies approximately monthly to biweekly and varied depending upon land use
and transportation features have been shown as being most effective for pollutant removal.
4. Street sweeping equipment has evolved significantly in the last 15 years and will continue to do so as
two aspects relating to the practice move forward. First, Phase 1 and 2 storm water permits and
associated Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) will likely become more comprehensive
as regulatory agencies require further controls on non -point source pollution. With TMDL studies
being completed over the next ten years, these same permits will contain more stringent requirements.
Street sweeping equipment and the associated practice will be looked at more favorably as a cost-
effective non -point source control measure.
5. Second, additional research studies may shed more information upon street sweeping as a practice
that alone improves water quality. Subsequently, this may result in equipment and operational
upgrading that may produce more fuel-efficient sweepers, greater use of waterless sweepers or
implement new teclunology (e.g. captive hydrology). Regulatory requirements and research findings
may drive street sweeper manufacturers to respond to an increasing market for newer technologies.
6. As a pollution control practice, street sweeping is cost-effective when compared to structural best
management practices such as detention ponds, and settling or filtering devices and prolongs their
operational efficiency and required maintenance.
7. As a pollution prevention or source control measure when integrated with other structural and non-
structural BMPs, high -efficiency street sweeping improves water quality and reduces ongoing habitat
deterioration.
8. Report No. 1 has not identified definitive studies pointing to receiving water quality improvement as
a direct result of street sweeping alone. However, as a pollution prevention or source control
measure when integrated with other structural and non-structural BMPs, high -efficiency street
sweeping improves water quality and reduces ongoing habitat deterioration.
33
9. A 2004 mathematical optimization study for BMPs provided information on which storm water
management strategies are likely to be cost-effective in reducing non -point pollution and which are
not. Sweeping of commercial areas will likely be a priority while residential areas will not. The
optimization model study shows insensitivity to a reasonable range of street sweeping costs, but
sensitivity to sediment removal effectiveness. This suggests it is more important to address sediment
removal effectiveness for street sweeping rather than cost.
10. The following are suggested topic areas for further research as it relates to street sweeping.
High -efficiency sweeping and water quality improvement;
Street sweeping as a component in subwatershed modeling;
Disposal of street sweepings and recycling practices;
Life cycle costing of street sweeping practices; and
Integration of street sweeping practices among local governments.
34
Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed Schilling Consultant Services Phone: (651) 773-3598
46 Bertha Court Fax:
District - June 2005 Mahtomedi, MN 55115 1 E-mail: jgschilling@corn cast. net
J
Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District
2346 Helen Street
North St. Paul, Minnesota 55109
651.704.2089
http://www.wmwd.org
June 2005
Executive Summary
The Street Sweeping Project is organized into the following three reports:
1. Street Sweeping — Report No. 1, State of the Practice
2. Street Sweeping— Report No. 2, Survey Questionnaire, Results and Conclusions; and
3. Street Sweeping— Report No. 3, Policy Development and Future Implementation Options for Water
Quality Improvement
The reports are the information base for the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District to advance
efforts to improve water quality within its jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, the reports serve as an
education tool for members of the Ramsey — Washington Public Works Forum and other public works
staff within Minnesota and across.the United States and Canada. The Ramsey -Washington Public Works
Forum is a monthly discussion group focused on increasing communications and collaboration related to
stormwater quality improvement concerns of the city and county governments within the Ramsey -
Washington Metro Watershed District.
Street Sweeping — Report No. 2, Survey Questionnaire, Results and Conclusions summarizes and
analyzes the 120 responses to a WEB -based survey of 16 questions soliciting public works practitioners
in local governments across Minnesota, other states and Canadian provinces. Report No. 2 was
developed to augment the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) report: Street
Sweeping - Report No. 1, State of the Practice. It also provided additional information for establishing
future policy recommendations within Report No. 3. The survey response file of 120 local governments
was divided into two groups: 57 Minnesota respondents (47.5%) and 63 Greater U.S./Canada respondents
52.5%) in 32 states and four Canadian local governments. The 57 respondents from Minnesota
governments included 53 cities or 6.2% of cities statewide.
Survey results from Question #7 indicate a wide disparity by Minnesota respondents in street sweeping
equipment type (mechanical brush vs. regenerative -air or vacuum) usage with respect to the local
governments in other states and Canadian provinces. When looking at all sweepers in use by local
governments, the mechanical brush sweeper is much more common in Minnesota (70%) versus Greater
U.S./Canada (41 %). In addition, Minnesota respondents are twice as likely (61.8% versus 30.2%) to use
mechanical brush sweepers only, rather than vacuum or regenerative -air sweepers. However, the reverse
is true, within the Greater U.S./Canada group where vacuum or regenerative -air are nearly twice as likely
to be used (69.8% versus 38.2%) than mechanical sweepers only.
Results of street sweeping frequencies from Question #9 contrasted significantly between the two groups.
Minnesota respondents swept streets at a twice (2x) per year fi•equency (response range of 58, 62 and 72%
of the respondents for arterial streets, commercial/industrial areas and residential areas). Adding the three
six times per year fi•equency percentages reflects a combined response of 84, 81, and 95% for these
areas. With response percentages of 76, 66 and 76%, the Greater U.S./Canada respondents swept arterial
streets, commercial/industrial areas and residential areas: three - six times, more frequently than three —
six times per year or biweekly. For Central Business Districts, sweeping frequency differences continued
with 75% of Minnesota respondents sweeping twice, three —six times or more frequently per year. In
contrast, the Greater U.S./Canada respondents reflected 86% either swept more frequently than three — six
times per year, biweekly or weekly.
Within both groups, handling leaves is distinctly different. More than 75% of the respondents
in both groups conduct normal sweeping operations. However, with respect to a specific leave
collection and pick-up program, Minnesota respondents were much more likely (36% versus
16%) to request or require residents to bag and take leaves to a city or county compost facility.
In contrast, the Greater U.S./Canada respondents request or require residents (43% versus
16%) to bag leaves for a collection program. Thus, having a separate bag and collection
program for leaves may cause the Greater U.S./Canada group to use specialized pick-up
equipment (41% versus 1.4%) than Minnesota local governments.
Both the Minnesota. and Greater U.S./Canada groups rate keeping materials out of the storm sewer system
as important to very important (96 — 98%). However, both groups indicate street sweeping when part of a
Phase I or II permit requirement (87 — 83%) is least important as a reason for the program.
A majority in both groups (62% versus 57%) would increase street sweeping frequency with adequate
funding if it resulted in improved water quality. Response results are similar to Question #2 with both
groups showing slight skew to their distributions. For the Minnesota respondents, fifty percent (50%) of
the local governments have street -sweeping expenses between $50,001. — $250,000 per year with forty
percent (40%) falling within an expense range of <$I0,000 to $50,000. For the Greater U.S./Canada
respondents, fifty percent (50%) of the local governments had expenses within the range of $100,001 to
1,000,000 with twenty-three percent (23%) of the respondents falling within the $250,000 - $500,000
expense range. Similar to the Minnesota group, thirty-four percent (34%) of the respondents had annual
street and roadway expenses from <$10,000 - $50,000.
Conclusions
Overall Survey
1. A WEB -based survey was completed, during a month-long period [January to February 2005] asking
16 questions of public works staff on the street sweeping state of the practice.
2. A filtering effort for errors and duplications produced a usable file of 120 respondents of local
governments in 32 states and 4 Canadian provinces. Most respondents were represented from
Minnesota [53 (44.2%)] resulting from the solicitation method, followed by six each from California
5%) and Illinois (5%) and smaller numbers from other locations.
3. More than half (54.1%) the respondents were represented by directors of public works, street
superintendents, and public works superintendents.
4. Nearly half (47.5%) the respondents represented local governments of 25,000 to 100,000 population
with the majority (56.7%) maintaining 100 — 500 miles of streets or roadways.
5. Three-quarters (77.5%) of the respondents use city or county equipment or labor to conduct street
sweeping operations with a similar percentage (71.7%) using brush mechanical sweepers.
6. Sweeping of sediment accumulation areas three to six times per year was identified by 44% of the
respondents with the next highest level being residential areas at a twice per year frequency by 41%.
7. Most respondents (82.5%) performed a fall sweeping, usually as a normal operation (73.3%). None of
the specific leaf pick-up programs were identified by a majority of respondents.
8. While keeping materials out of the storm water system was the most important reason for three-
quarters of the respondents. Nearly all felt (89.7%) observed street or roadway cleanliness was the
best method to determine if the sweeping program was meeting objectives.
9. Street sweeping expenditures nearly followed a normal distribution with the highest response level for
24.8% being $50,000 to $100,000 per year.
Minnesota and Greater U.S./Canada Groups
1. The survey respondent population was divided geographically in two nearly equal groups as follows:
Minnesota, 57 respondents (47.5%) and Greater U.S./Canada, 63 respondents (52.5%).
2. Minnesota respondents were somewhat more likely from smaller governments (10,000 — 25,000) and
conversely within the Greater U.S./Canada distribution, somewhat more likely from larger local
governments (50,000 — 100,000).
3. The majority of local governments in both groups (70% versus 85.7%) use their own equipment and
labor. However, Minnesota respondents use private (equipment and labor) contractors (26.5%) at a
higher percentage to conduct street sweeping operations than the Greater U.S./Canada respondents
3.2%).
4. With respect to all sweepers used by local governments, the mechanical brush sweeper is more
common in Minnesota (70%) versus Greater U.S./Canada (41%). Minnesota respondents are twice as
likely (61.8% versus 30.2%) to use mechanical brush sweepers only rather than vacuum or
regenerative -air sweepers. However, the reverse is true, within the Greater U.S./Canada group who
are nearly twice as likely (69.8% versus 38.2%) to use vacuum or regenerative -air sweepers than only
mechanical brush sweepers.
5. The majority of Minnesota respondents swept arterial streets (58%), commercial & industrial areas
62%) and residential areas (72%) at a frequency of twice per year. Central Business Districts were
swept by a majority of Minnesota respondents (64%) at rates of either twice per year (39%) to three —
six times per year (25%).
6. With respect to arterial streets, more than half the respondents (52%) either swept more frequently
than three - six times per year or biweekly. Commercial/industrial areas reflected a range of
sweeping frequencies by a majority of respondents: three — six times per year by 28%, weekly by
23% or more frequently by 21%. Higher sweeping frequencies were seem in residential streets with
56% of the respondents indicating either three - six times per year or more frequently. Central
Business Districts were swept by the Greater U.S./Canada respondents at higher frequencies with
86% of the respondents sweeping weekly (37%), "more frequent" than three — six times (31 %) or
biweekly (18%).
7. With respect to leaf pick-up programs, three quarters of the respondents in both groups conduct
normal sweeping operations. Minnesota respondents (36% versus 16%) are more likely to request or
require residents to take their leaves to a city or county compost facility. In contrast, the Greater
U.S./Canada respondents are more likely (43%) to request or require their residents to bag leaves for
a collection program than the Minnesota group (16%). The Greater U.S./Canada group is more likely
41% versus 14%) to have special equipment for leaf pick-up.
8. Both the Minnesota and Greater U.S./Canada groups rate keeping materials out of the storm sewer
system as important to very important (96 — 98%). However, both groups indicate street sweeping as
part of a Phase I or 1I permit requirement (87 — 83%) was the least important reason for the program.
9. Overwhelmingly, both groups (95% versus 81%) identify "observed street or roadway cleanliness" as
the method the city or county determines its street sweeping program was meeting objectives.
10. A majority in both groups (62% versus 57%) would increase street sweeping frequency with adequate
funding if it resulted in improved water quality.
11. The Minnesota distribution reflects 49% of the local government respondents have street -sweeping
expenses between $50,001 — $250,000 per year. Forty percent (40%) fell within an expense range of
10,000 to $50,000. Fifty percent (50%) of the Greater U.S./Canada local government respondents.
had expenses within the range of $100,001 to >$1,000,000. Twenty-three percent (23%) of the
respondents fell within a higher expense range of $250,000 - $500,000.
Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed I Schilling Consultant Services I
Phone: (651) 773-3598
District -ne 2005
46 Bertha Court rax:
Ju Mahtomedi, MN 55115 E-mail: jgschilling@comcast.net
Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District
2346 Helen Street
North St. Paul, Minnesota 55109
651.704.2089
http://www.rwmwd.org
June 2005
Executive Summary
The Street Sweeping Project is organized into the following three reports:
1. Street Sweeping — Report No. 1, State of the Practice
2. Street Sweeping— Report No. 2, Survey Questionnaire, Results and Conclusions; and
3. Street Sweeping— Report No. 3, Policy Development and Future Implementation Options for Water
Quality Improvement
The reports are the information base for the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District to advance
efforts to improve water quality within its jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, the reports serve as
information sharing tools for members of the Ramsey — Washington Public Works Forum and other
public works staff within Minnesota and across the United States and Canada. The Ramsey -Washington.
Public Works Forum is a monthly discussion group focused on increasing communications and
collaboration related to stormwater quality improvement concerns of the city and county governments
within the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District.
Report No. 3: Street Sweeping - Policy Development and Future Implementation Options for Water
Quality Improvement discusses and incorporates. pertinent conclusions from Reports No. 1 and 2.. It
further examines the street sweeping practice as policy issues are formulated and makes recommendations
for the local government units of Rains ey- Washington Metro Watershed District. Conclusions and
Recommendations from Report No. 3 are incorporated into the Executive Summary.
Conclusions
1. Survey results in Report No. 2 indicate a wide disparity by Minnesota respondents in street sweeping
equipment types (mechanical brush versus vacuum or regenerative -air) used compared to Greater
U.S./Canada respondents. Minnesota respondents are twice as likely (61.8% versus 30.2%) to use
mechanical brush sweepers only, rather than vacuum or regenerative -air sweepers. Within the Greater
U.S./Canada group where vacuum or regenerative -air are nearly twice as likely to be used (69.8%'
versus 38.2%) than mechanical sweepers only.
2. Results from Report No. 1 reveal mechanical brush sweepers are effective at removing coarse
materials and gross pollutants, but less effective removing fine materials often associated with various
pollutants and may expose such materials to wash -off. High -efficiency street sweepers and
associated operations may increase the percent of total solids removal from 30 — 70+%.
3. Street sweeping frequencies in Report No. 1 were approximately monthly to biweekly and varied
depending upon land use and transportation features have been shown as being .most effective for
pollutant removal.
4. Report No. 2 indicates street sweeping at low frequencies of twice or three to six times per year for
allland-uses and special areas is practiced by a large majority of Minnesota respondents (80%). In
contrast, a small minority (33%) of the Greater U.S./Canada group swept the same areas and low
frequencies.
5. A subgroup of eight cities from the Greater U.S./Canada group representative of severe winter
climate conditions swept streets at similar frequencies as the larger group. To the degree that these
eight cities are representative, results suggest climate or reduced operational season is not a valid
basis for the observed lower street sweeping frequency in Minnesota.
6. It appears seasonal or climate conditions do not prevent Minnesota local governments from
conducting more than two or three -six street sweepings per season.
7. Results of street sweeping frequencies from Report No. 2, Question #9 contrasted significantly
between the two groups. Minnesota respondents swept streets at a twice (2x) or three - six times per
year for arterial streets, commercial/industrial areas and residential areas. Greater U.S./Canada
respondents swept arterial streets, commercial/industrial areas and residential areas: three - six times,
more frequently than three — six times per year or biweekly. For Central Business Districts, 75% of
Minnesota respondents swept twice, three — six times or more frequently per year. In contrast, the
Greater U.S./Canada respondents reflected 86% either sweeping more frequently than three — six
times per year, biweekly or weekly.
8. Recommending street sweeping frequencies based upon land -use and special area type is a reasonable
and defendable approach based upon Reports No. 1 and 2 as well as the WEB survey results in
Appendix A. Table 2 below depicts proposed street sweeping frequencies by area.
Table 2 Proposed Street Sweeping Frequencies
Area
Frequency dependent upon business community and local government expectations.
AHypothetically, such implementation frequencies may reduce sweeping in other land -uses.
9. Leaf disposal by pick-up is an inefficient operation, whether private or public from a volume versus
weight perspective, thus, specialized equipment may be a more efficient long-term solution to this
effort. However, further survey analysis and discussion of leaf pick-up and disposal methods appears
to be warranted and recommended by the results.
10. Keeping materials out of a local government's storm sewer system is the basis for conducting a street
sweeping program and is recommended this continue as the primary reason for a street sweeping
program.
11. Establishing a Water Quality Incentive Grant Program will facilitate local governments within the
Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District to move ahead in amending their street sweeping
programs through the purchase of high -efficiency street sweepers.
Mi imum'FregL;
ei
ncy Maxi murn`Fxequ'ency
Arterials 9 times per year 16 times per year
Commercial 9 times per year 16 times per year
Light Industrial 6 times per year 9 times per year
Heavy Industrial 9 times per year 16 times per year
Residential 6 times per year 9 times per year
Central Business District Biweekly 2x/week
Hot Spot Areas" 6 times per year 9 times per year
Frequency dependent upon business community and local government expectations.
AHypothetically, such implementation frequencies may reduce sweeping in other land -uses.
9. Leaf disposal by pick-up is an inefficient operation, whether private or public from a volume versus
weight perspective, thus, specialized equipment may be a more efficient long-term solution to this
effort. However, further survey analysis and discussion of leaf pick-up and disposal methods appears
to be warranted and recommended by the results.
10. Keeping materials out of a local government's storm sewer system is the basis for conducting a street
sweeping program and is recommended this continue as the primary reason for a street sweeping
program.
11. Establishing a Water Quality Incentive Grant Program will facilitate local governments within the
Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District to move ahead in amending their street sweeping
programs through the purchase of high -efficiency street sweepers.
Recommendations
In completing the 3'd generation Watershed Management Plan, the following policies are recommended as
options for the Board of Managers of the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District:
1. Encourage and support the acquisition and use of technologically advanced, high -efficiency street
sweepers (vacuum or newer technology) by local governments within its boundaries.
2. Recommend local governments within the District revise existing street sweeping operational
programs and adopt the proposed street sweeping frequencies enumerated within Table 2.
3. Work with local governments within the District's boundaries by further examining leaf collection
and disposal operations.
4. Recommend local governments within the District's boundaries revise existing local water
management plans to identify existing street sweeping operational programs as a high priority for
keeping materials out of the municipal separate storm sewer systems and improving water quality.
5. Establish a Water Quality Incentive Grant Program for $750,000 to $1,000,000 allowing local
governments within its.boundaries to facilitate the purchase of high -efficiency street sweepers.
4
oz 3 3 p3 o
o3zoo zip
z - s - - F --- H5 - _ - <
3;ggsgfss w =moo $g2g saxs- -
asi5s o5 5 <S = Sr - _wto w;fs»"owo's x==o°'oNm.,s>':i"o°o`zs SY=c=u. AT - x> - - xi> - f zr
2Rh o8S8 So 8e oS ossa
r_____ - -__ -_-_____g maim
60TH RVE.
1
GOTH RVE.
EOTHAVE.
35T AVE
30TH AVE
ISTH AVE.
IOTHAVE
GTHAVE.
HIOGEMOVNTAVE.
2007 Street Projects
Contract Street Sweeping
55TH
1
50TX AVE.
45TH PV E.
T
tt}(((1
HAVE.
I +
Tr 7e I.ii Iy i=:. II ..1
SOTHAVE.
STH AVE
45TH AV E.
37
40TH RVE I
EOTHAVE.
35T AVE
30TH AVE
ISTH AVE.
IOTHAVE
GTHAVE.
HIOGEMOVNTAVE.
2007 Street Projects
Contract Street Sweeping
55TH
1
50TX AVE.
45TH PV E.
T 2007 Reconstruction Projects
HAVE. 2007 Seal Coat
2007 Mill & Overlay
STH AVE
a
y GOTH AVE.
I
f r
7
mmeu.numm wm wu s u w+ 8O m
giuu=
o'
m5"z"
i: ux°2 ooe 88 8b8so,82 hss;
oeoe
m ..... g
AENm 50-
a0
z=`-`-
5`_,5" z ul of K59z Boz zgr<-- DO<r - yNHa v5 0 2508 oF mN ;$oog
m f= xo
WMI
City of Plymouth, Minnesota
N
W+E
13
December 13. 2006
2007 slreetsweepin911 X 17.mxd
S
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Number:
Mayor and City Council
Laurie Ahrens, City Manageri/, ,
Set Future Study Sessions
May 1, 2007, for Council study session of May 8, 2007
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pending study session topics list and set study
sessions or amend the topics list if desired.
2. BACKGROUND: Attached is the list of pending study session topics, as well as calendars
to assist in scheduling.
Pending Study Session Topics
at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list)
Special Assessment Policy (Council; early fall)
Other requests for study session topics:
Possible ordinance on feeding of wildlife (Black)
Discuss sign enforcement (Slavik)
Discuss variances on nonconforming lots, i.e. lake situations
Slavik)
Presentation on post -secondary campus proposal (Black)
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
A/Tiry 2007
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 J 4 5
Apr 2007
S M T W T F S
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION,
Chambers Parkers Lake Room
1 2 3 4 $ 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5:30 PM CIN COUNCIL
STUDYSESSION-
STREET SWEEPING
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL.
QUALITY COMMITTEE
7:00 PM PARK 8 REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION(PRAC),
PROGRAM AND PRELIM. EDC), Medicine Lake Council ChambersBUDGETRoomsA & BDISCUSSION, Medicine
Lake Confersnce Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
6:30 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY COUNCIL,
Council Chambers
3:00 PM ARBOR DAY
PLANTING, Pilgrim
Lane School
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
9:00 AM -3:30 PM
RECYCLING
DROP-OFF EVENT,
Medicine Lake Room A Maintenance Facility,
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
14900 -23rd Avenue
North
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
9:30 PM CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION-
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
ORGANIZEDGARSAGE
COLLECTION AND
UPDATE WITH THE CITY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
MANAGER, Medicine Lake
Conference Room
Medicine Lake Room A
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
27 28 29 30 31
Jun 2007
MEMORIAL DAY S M T W T F S
Observed) - City 1 2
Offices Closed
3 4 $ 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
modified on 5/2/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
June 2007
Sunday Monday I Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Jul 2007
1 2
May 2007
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
6:00 PM CITY
COUNCIL STUDY
SESSION-2006 AUDIT
Medicine Lake
Conference Room
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Medicine Lake,
Rooms A & B
7:00 PM
F(PRAC),
AD
COMMISPRESENTATION, Counci
Flag Day
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Counul Chambers
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HR
Medicine Lake Room A
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6:00 PM CITY
COUNCILSTUDY
SESSION - SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT POLICY,
Medicine Lake
Conference Room
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
1,
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
modified on 5/2/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
T„1,; 2007
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
INDEPENDENCE
DAY, CI Offices
closed
5:75 PM MUSIC IN
PLYMOUTH, Hilde
Performance Center
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
ECC), Medicine Lake
Rooms A & 8
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORRY(HRA),
Medicine Lake Room A
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORYCOMMITTEEON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
29 30 31 Aug 2007Jun2007
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 1 2 3 4
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31
modified on 5/2/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
4„o,,.vt 2007
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1
OM
PLANNING
COMMISSSION, Council
Chambers
2 3 4
Ju12007
S M T W T F S
Sep 2007
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2:30 PM -5:00 PM
NATIONAL NIG HT OUT
KICK OFF EVENT, Fire
Station III
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Medicine Lake
Rooms A & B
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
B:30 PM -9:30 PM
NATIONAL NIGHT OUT
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY(HRA),
Medicine Lake Room A
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
26 27 28 29 30 31
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
modified on 5/2/2007
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGSOFFICIAL7007
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Oct 2007 1Aug2007
S M T W T F S, S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 31
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LABOR DAY - City
Offices Closed
7:00 PM PLANNING
Council
ChambersChambers
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION,
Parkers Lake Room
9 10,11 12 13 14 IS
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EDC), Medicine Lake
Rooms A 8 B
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
10:00 AM -5:00 PM
AUTUMN ART FAIR,
Parkers Lake Room
ROSH HASHANAH
BEGINS AT SUNSET
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
7:OOPMPLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
I 9:00AM-3:30PM
I PLYMOUTH CLEAN-UP
DAY,PublieWorka
Mainbnance Feciliry
YOM KIPPUR
BEGINS AT
SUNSET
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room A
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) ,
Medicine Lake Room A
1:00 PM Plymouth on
Parade Celebration, City
Center Area
30
modified on 5/2/2007