2016-05-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

584 585 Mr. Freihammer advised that there were few commercial permits having a larger 586 impact for which this situation could apply, recollecting only one or two others 587 where this proposed fund could have been practically used without doing 588 something extreme. 589 590 Chair Cihacek asked if there was a net gain for staff efficiency with this 591 recommendation versus inspection and recertification of BMP's. 592 593 Mr. Freihammer noted that any project would have to go through some type of 594 permitting project, but with residential projects, once a stormwater impact fee had 595 been collected, it would be allotted to an account for larger projects to construct 596 an oversized pond or rain garden, or by building an additional one in that area; 597 and would not require long-term maintenance or recertification every five years. 598 For residential projects, Mr. Freihammer opined there could be significant staff 599 savings as well as savings for residents with no need for staff sending letters to 600 property owners to prove their site was still working as designed. On the 601 commercial side, Mr. Freihammer opined there may be fewer savings, and may 602 only apply to those unique sites. 603 604 Chair Cihacek suggested for the residential side, the same results may be able to 605 be accomplished through another mechanism, such as buy-in versus policy, 606 stormwater mitigation and assessment as described by staff, but suggested staff 607 review whether or not there may be a different mechanism to do so and a different 608 fiduciary function to accomplish the same goal without impacting current 609 practices or changing a policy that may not actually need changing, with the 610 recognized limited value of the policy from a commercial project perspective. 611 612 Discussion ensued regarding potential buy-in through expansion and assessment 613 with a potential credit for your lot if a project provides value to the surrounding 614 area as well; examples of types of projects (e.g. recent Corpus Christi rain 615 garden); whether or not the project and credit follows the property; how 616 overbuilding area systems could tie in; staff management of 500 rain gardens 617 versus only 50 stormwater projects with the city controlling their maintenance; 618 and if and when the door closed for buy-in based on the project schedule. 619 620 Further discussion included difficulties identified by staff for random locations 621 and rationale for remaining within one of the three specific watershed districts; 622 with the intended operation for the city similar to that of existing watershed 623 districts to build up credits to be used for over-sizing applicable systems to 624 address mitigation efforts and improve the overall capacity. 625 626 At the request of the PWETC for better clarify, staff offered to provide more 627 detailed information on the intent, and differentials between residential and 628 commercial applications; and how the fee would be applied and where it would 629 go. Page 14 of 17