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