2016-06-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

With the observation by Chair Cihacek that the numbers would only work on large-level sequencing, Mr. Johnson agreed, noting that the intent was to look at larger mitigation efforts that were not currently cost-effective for the city to pursue under realistic budget constraints. However, Mr. Johnson noted the advantages for the broader community as those larger projects are implemented, in addition to reducing maintenance costs for the city, such as re-inspection of smaller best management practice (BMP) efforts (e.g. raingardens) and their recertification. Mr. Culver further clarified that a likely scenario for sequencing would be triggered by the city as its stormwater mitigation requirements for a specific project were addressed. At that point, Mr. Culver noted funding could be allocated from the Impact Fund to allow a mitigation feature to be larger and therefore treat more water, and provide a better cost benefit for a broader area. Understanding that it may be years before the city was able to get to smaller projects based on sequencing and limited time spans, Chair Cihacek questioned if this fund was a good deal if raingardens or other mitigation efforts providing immediate stormwater management were easier to implement and more cost- effective. Mr. Culver noted that was a good point, but also addressed some of those smaller mitigation efforts that were permitted when triggered by a structure expansion and may work in year one or shortly thereafter, but after that without continual monitoring by city staff and upkeep by residents once their final permit and Certificate of Occupancy were approved, there was no guarantee they remained effective. Mr. Culver noted that while the city was attempting to implement a five-year recertification program it was still pending, and was proving to be a massive effort. Mr. Culver listed several situations beyond rain garden maintenance, such as removal of rain barrels by those residents or new purchasers of a home, allowing drainage on adjacent properties, ineffective or inoperable rain gutter installations. Mr. Culver noted these all impacted mitigation efforts in an area, and concerned not only that property owner but those adjacent as well, and ultimately the broader drainage area. While those smaller devices can help in the bigger picture, Mr. Culver noted if individuals were not committed to those devices and their maintenance, they didn't provide any long-term benefit. Mr. Culver recognized that some residents were passionate about maintaining the devices, but for those not as committed or selling their home, it was necessary for staff to monitor the devices before the five-year recertification time, and re- educate those new owners on the operation of the system. To address those less- effective and smaller devices, Mr. Culver advised that other options were being pursued. Chair Cihacek stated his agreement with the principle, but questioned if the cost issue was simply being moved elsewhere, and whether or not it needed to be addressed from a zoning perspective or other conceptualization, such as a balance Page 5 of 19