CC_Minutes_2016_0808 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 8, 2016 Page 12 Mr. Freihammer reviewed best management practice (BMP) options available for residential property owners to mitigate the stormwater on site or pay the fee and have the city apply that funding to a larger regional project, or for a project as close to the site as possible either within that stormwater district or a larger stormwater district. Mr. Freihammer noted this could involve a public system that the city would maintain or expansion of an existing system. Councilmember McGehee stated her difficulty in understanding the financing of this, apparently asking a resident for a one-time fee from a resident in exchange for the city ultimately accepting the expense to create and install a BMP some- where else as well as maintaining it, with only that one-time minimum payment. Councilmember McGehee opined that if the individual had to install a similar pro- ject on their own property it would cost them potentially twice as much. In this case, Councilmember McGehee further opined that the city ended up stuck with their runoff, installation or construction costs, and maintenance of the BMP long- term from that one-time calculation. Councilmember McGehee noted the fre- quent, significant rainfalls of recent years, and questioned how those economies of scale compared to all city residents paying for a stormwater mitigation project versus the individual property creating the issue due to exceeding or not meeting the city's policy for impervious coverage on their lot. Mr. Freihammer clarified that the fee was based on a certain dollar amount yet to be established per cubic foot; and based on the approximate cost to treat or miti- gate the calculated water flow from that individual parcel. From his perspective, Mayor Roe suggested the fee was justified to apply to a larger city project, providing more economies of scale. Councilmember Etten referenced an earlier discussion he had with staff today, expressing his personal concerns. As an example, Councilmember Etten noted the lot split request that came to the City Council several weeks and long-term ar- ea flooding and city responsibility to correct it still pending. With this policy suggesting more latitude for stormwater mitigation in that area or even further away, Councilmember Etten stated it became a policy issue for him. Coun- cilmember Etten suggested this be addressed separately for residential areas and commercial areas. In commercial areas, Councilmember Etten noted there was typically more structure to what they were doing to facilitate a larger project, es- pecially with their additional impervious coverage. Councilmember Etten asked how and where the 30% maximum impervious coverage calculation came in and what efforts were available to encourage not exceeding that percentage. As an- other example, even on the minor subdivision granted tonight for the Chatsworth and Roselawn properties, Councilmember Etten where was the city's acceptable line; and whether or not there was a way available to mitigate additional runoff or if and how the homeowner could or would consider other options. As noted by