Laserfiche WebLink
Environmental Policy Board (EPB) 5. 1. <br />Meeting Date: 12/02/2013 <br />By: Chris Anderson, Community <br />Development <br />Title: <br />Topsoil Requirement Update <br />Information <br />Purpose /Background: <br />As of December 2, 2013, MnDOT's Standard Specifications for Construction (Spec Book) will be converting to the <br />2014 edition. While there is still a Topsoil Specification (3877), the 2014 edition no longer includes the Premium <br />Topsoil Borrow spec that is identified in Ramsey's City Code. As a result of this change in MnDOT's specifications, <br />the City will need to consider revisions to City Code prior to the next construction season, as it will reference a <br />specification that will no longer exist. <br />Observations /Alternatives: <br />The purpose of the topsoil ordinance was to promote water conservation by requiring a soil medium that had an <br />improved water holding capacity. The ordinance was initially adopted in April of 2009. It was then revised early in <br />2010 to a more standardized specification (the MnDOT Premium Topsoil Borrow) but with a greater depth <br />(increased from four [4] inches to six [6] inches), and then revised again in 2011 to reduce the required depth back <br />to four [4] inches. The theory behind a topsoil requirement is that a material with a greater water holding capacity, <br />such as organic matter, would help reduce the frequency and duration of irrigation needed during the summer <br />months to maintain a green lawn. <br />Since the initial adoption of the topsoil ordinance in 2009, the City has heard from a number of builders and <br />developers that the requirement is cost prohibitive and that added to the perception that Ramsey was not <br />'development friendly'. Thus, in 2012, Parks Staff developed four (4) test plots in North Commons to test and <br />measure the effectiveness of various topsoil compositions and depths to determine whether the City's current <br />requirement was supported by scientific data. Parks Staff is currently compiling all the data obtained from that <br />experiment and will be developing a cost/benefit analysis to assist with any potential revisions to the topsoil <br />specification. <br />In working with the ordinance, Staff has also observed several things that should also be taken into consideration. <br />First, as the material is installed, it often times becomes very compacted as the equipment is driven back and forth <br />over it. Secondly, if an in- ground irrigation system is not adjusted to account for the greater water holding capacity <br />of the soil, the topsoil requirement is not really accomplishing its intended goal (and as a result, homeowners have <br />found themselves with very 'spongy' yards). <br />Due to the change in MnDOT's specifications, this topic will be discussed with the Public Works Committee in <br />December. That discussion will likely focus on the change in the specification and to seek direction as to how to <br />address it, such as by amending City Code to the closest new specification. However, as this topic is revisited <br />again, Staff may be recommending that the City look at incorporating a menu of options that could be implemented <br />or made available, rather than just requiring the installation of topsoil. Staff wanted to bring the EPB up to speed on <br />this matter prior to the formal review of the topsoil requirement and to see if there was any initial input that the <br />Board may have. <br />Action: <br />This is for information purposes only, no action is needed. <br />