New Search
• <br /> Stormwater Policy Team Meeting <br /> Meeting Date: February 22, 2002 <br /> Present: Kurt Corey, Valerie Dixon, Jeff Lankston, Johnny Medlin, Peter Ruffier, Fred McVey, <br /> Therese Walch, Jack Long, Scott Duckett, Linda Harris, and Margaret Boutell. <br /> Headwaters Flow Controls - Consensus approval by the Policy Team to allow the <br /> requirements go forward for Stormwater DAC, public, and Planning Commission review. <br /> q <br /> A map was presented to the Policy Team of the properties in the Headwaters area that <br /> may be affected by the ordinance. Concern was again expressed that we not put property <br /> owners in a catch-22—that we have alternatives. <br /> H. Exemption for Maintenance or Repair of Streets—Consensus approval of the draft <br /> language for the Public Improvement Design Standards Manual. <br /> There was a question about whether we needed to say both"construction" and "creation" <br /> of impervious surface. Another question was about"installation or reconstruction of the <br /> stormwater drainage system," to make sure installation of one pipe or catch basin did not <br /> mean something other than the 50%that is described as"reconstruction." <br /> III. Maintenance—Consensus to go forward with the following policy for public vegetated <br /> BMPs: <br /> "The City would maintain the vegetation important to the functioning of the system or <br /> access to the system, and property owners would maintain landscaping vegetation for the <br /> purpose of aesthetics." <br /> Jack presented new estimates of the assumed mix of BMPs with a revised annual cost and <br /> FTE estimate. While the dollars were not dissimilar to URS' estimate, the FTE were <br /> more than double. The difference between maintaining vegetation or not approximated <br /> 3.4 FTE. <br /> Additional discussion included"treatment facilities to be privately maintained" and the <br /> issue of whether the City would allow placement of BMPs in the right-of-way. It was <br /> decided that it should not be the developer's choice, and if the City would be accepting <br /> the BMP for City maintenance, the BMP was to be located in either a dedicated public <br /> easement or within the public right-of-way. Language for the BMP Manual: "If no room <br /> in the right-of-way, developers may be required to place BMPs in an easement or to <br /> dedicate additional right-of-way." <br /> At Issue: Trying to fit all of the current possibilities in the right-of-way: street trees, <br /> utilities, street lights, etc. If we are going to allow another asset in the right-of-way <br />