2017-02-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

to move in concert with the watershed districts as well as any other authorities to make it easier to manage things from a regulatory perspective rather than having four different sets of rules. Therefore, Mr. Freihammer suggested the first step may be for a listening session of those parties to inform a process moving forward. Member Wozniak noted that several individual members of the PWETC were open to a more aggressive policy; but also noted the need to defer to watershed districts as the experts in the field, questioning why the city would choose to take a leadership role outside of their expertise. Therefore, Member Wozniak suggested that the city work with them to seek a more aggressive stance in controlling stormwater, which should help achieve the goal or at least move in that direction. Public Comment An unidentified speaker (off microphone) in the audience suggested incentives in addressing residential driveways by installation of rain gardens whenever possible to help mitigate drainage on their property. The speaker stated that his property was over the 35% impervious coverage permit area. The speaker advised that he had considered putting in a rain garden to capture more, but at this time didn't do so as their was no incentive to encourage him to do anything. However, if there was an incentive for residents, the speaker opined that would be helpful, whether or not it was feasible for the city. In response to the unidentified speaker, Public Works Director Culver advised that the city had implemented a stormwater credit program several years ago; but clarified that it wasn't necessarily intended for residential properties since their annual stormwater management fees were minimal to begin with (approximately $44/year). However, for commercial properties, Mr. Culver reported that stormwater management mitigation could result in hundreds of dollars in fee credits, thus creating more of an incentive; thus the city's implementation of the credit program for commercial properties installing a BMP to make the project larger than needed to obtain credit for the portion not required and as an incentive. While the city had attempted to incent BMP's in the past, Mr. Culver agreed with the speaker that there wasn't much incentive for residential properties. Mr. Culver noted that one concern he had with rain gardens as a mitigation for residential properties currently over their maximum 30% impervious coverage was that at some point in the future, property owners may change and the new owner may not have the same interests in maintaining the BMP. Even though the city has a five- year inspection process for BMP's to ensure their maintenance, Mr. Culver noted that a lot could happen during that timeframe that impacted the overall city stormwater drainage system. With commercial properties, Mr. Culver noted that they had more resources to maintain stormwater management systems. 7. Items for Next Meeting — March 28, 2017 Discussion ensued regarding upcoming agendas beyond those listed in the staff report; including future tax increment financing (TIF) update and education for the PWETC (March agenda) and as part of the broader Capital Improvement Program Page 9 of 11