title
Minutes for the January 16, 2008, Stormwater Management Board meeting
body
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
Date: January 16, 2008
Location: Huntington Building
Conference Room #105
900 West Monroe
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Opening: Chairman Farmer called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
In Attendance marked in bold
Members:
Dewaine Beisner
Don Culpepper
Michael Daniels
Alec Farmer, Chair
Jerry Farris
Betty Shaw
John Street
Gene Vance, Vice-Chair
Jon Wilbanks
Nathan Young
Dennis Zolper
Officials & Staff:
Doug Formon - Mayor
Tony Thomas - Project Administrator
Erick Woodruff - Public Works Director
Otis Spriggs - Director of Planning & Zoning
Craig Light - Assistant City Engineer
Janice Patton - Secretary
Michael Morris - Civil Engineer
Others:
George Hamman
Bernie Auld
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes for the December 19, 2007, Stormwater Management Board Meeting (Attachment)
Motion to approve the minutes was made by Vance and seconded by Street. The minutes were unanimously approved.
Zolper wanted to discuss the statement in paragraph 2, page 3 of the minutes which stated, “The Board’s goal is to make every attempt to prevent new structures from flooding during a less than 100-year event.” The Board discussed the matter.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
V. PENDING ITEMS
A. Review of the Stormwater Management/Drainage Ordinance
Farmer stated that the revised Ordinance was provided to the Board two weeks prior to the meeting. Zolper suggested getting rid of the slash between Stormwater and Drainage. He had suggestions for defining the word “person.” Zolper also stated that the term “Permittee” is not used consistently throughout the document. It is only used in Section 7. Owner and Developer are used inconsistently. The term “applicant” is also used throughout the document.
Farmer suggested using the document as regulations and adopting it by a simple one page Ordinance. Light said the last Ordinance was adopted this way. Farmer instructed the staff to check with the City Attorney about using the terminology of an ordinance or regulations. The Board suggested using “legal entity” in addition to numerous terms in Section 1.6.
Daniels said the term flooding is listed in the document many times and suggested adding the term to the definitions. It was suggested to consult Webster’s Dictionary for a correct definition.
Daniels brought up the issue of a developer constructing a site that causes flooding to other properties nearby. Light gave a brief description of the remedies that would have to take place.
Zolper went through his questions first. Section 3.2.3 uses the term “endeavor” to review and comment or approve the project submittals within ten business days upon receipt. The Board suggested having specific language on the amount of days the City Engineer has for review. Farmer stated that the Board would be the committee to address any problems or complaints that the public may have regarding delays of reviewing submittals. The Board suggested deleting “endeavor to” and raising the amount of business days the City Engineer has to review the submittal. The Board and staff agreed on fifteen (15) business days.
There was discussion between the Board and Staff regarding how many copies would be required for submittal to the Engineering Department. It was agreed that only one copy needs to be submitted to the Department.
Section 3.4.2 Submission. Zolper addressed the statement regarding a review fee. Light said the fees are listed under Section 9. The Board suggested having a separate fee schedule. Daniels said he understands the numerous complaints that people have to review various documents in order to find the regulations and fees. Some Board members stated that if the Ordinance lists exact fee amounts, it would have to be amended each time a fee changes. Light stated that by separating the fees, this would probably create the need for a Chapter 17 in the Code of Ordinances. Light suggested that the Board give some guidance to the staff regarding the amount of each fee. After questions from guests Mr. Bernie Auld and Mr. George Hamman, Light gave a brief description of when a grading permit applies and when a review fee is necessary.
Hamman had questions regarding the requirements of a single residential lot. Light explained that the drainage plan should be done when a subdivision is submitted. Therefore, a single residential lot is exempt from providing a drainage plan.
Section 4.1 F was addressed by Street regarding in-lieu contribution fees. Farmer said the Board has talked about in-lieu contribution fees many times. He suggested they raise the amounts and discourage the need for this option. He believes in-lieu contributions should be the option of last resort. Farmer asked Auld if it was a City Engineer decision. Auld said it should be done by the City’s best interest. If the amount is raised so high to discourage using it, there is no reason to have an in-lieu fee at all. Right now it is $10,000 per acre for storage, which is too low. Auld said the development either has to detain or they do not based on an engineer’s judgment. Light said the small development sites of approximately one acre are amounting to approximately $500. If they know one size won’t fit all they need to do it on a case-by-case basis. Street suggested having a rule such as no case shall be more than $100,000. Street expressed concern regarding tax dollars that have to be spent to remedy drainage problems if the fee is not high enough. Street also said the City should err on the high side to make up for the amounts spent from the Citizens’ tax dollars.
Light discussed the qualifications regarding in-lieu fees. The proposed Ordinance says that certain sites will not be eligible for in-lieu fees. The minimum fee is $1,000 and there is not currently a maximum listed. Hamman asked Light to clarify what he means by downstream. A map would tell you which sub basin you are in. Farmer asked the Board if they were satisfied with the section regarding in lieu contributions. Vance said ideally, unless it was not beneficial to everyone, all drainage in town is going to be detained on a certain property. If they do not detain it, they are going to give money to the City. If they put in underground drainage they have to maintain it. If they give the City the money, then the City has to maintain it. Light asked if the monies should be put in one account for drainage projects. The Board agreed the money should be put together in one account. The Board and staff agreed that this section is the best remedy for the issue of in lieu contribution fees.
Zolper asked light why the requirements under Section 2.2 and Section 3.3.1 are different. Light explained the requirements for a SWPPP and how it relates to the amount of land. Zolper suggesting either choosing Owner, Developer or Applicant consistently through the document.
Zolper suggested that if staff changes a compliance letter they need to make sure they refer to it as an amended compliance letter. This falls under Section 3.4.5. Light explained that the second letter is usually for approving any changes that were requested in the first compliance letter.
Hamman asked if there should be some terminology that the Engineer of Record is permitted to contact the City if his client does not follow the plans correctly. Vance and Beisner both said that there is no need for that terminology in the Ordinance and the Engineer of Record’s contract should cover those situations.
Zolper said the staff needs to make sure the design manual is referenced in the Ordinance and it adopts the regulations. This Ordinance will most likely be referred to as Regulations, so long as the City Attorney approves this change.
Section 4.2 E. Daniels asked if the City is permitted to make a manhole requirement based on CWL’s requirements. The Board said staff should consult with CWL regarding their requirements. Light agreed to discuss this matter with CWL.
Section 4.2 F. The State Board of Registration for Engineers and Land Surveyors wants a specific floor elevation on the plat of a lot that is required to have floor elevations. Auld said they mentioned identifying the critical lots. Light said these regulations go on to say they have to maintain their flood waters for the conveyance route. Light said they will make sure it is recorded on the plat and it references a document that indicates the drainage plan. It was mentioned again that these could be filed under miscellaneous files with the County Clerk.
Section 5.2 and 5.3. Zolper had terminology and standard verbiage for these sections to cover attorney’s fees, death, etc. He also suggested taking out “and/or” which is listed throughout the document.
Zolper had a few minor suggested changes in Article 6 that all parties agreed to.
Auld had questions regarding the definition of Engineer of Record. He said it is not feasible to have the Engineer of Record, or his designee, on site at all times. After lengthy discussion most Board members agreed that the observations should be done. Beisner explained what the certified architects are required to do. They actually do the inspection themselves. The Board does not want the City employees to continue doing the inspections and fees. If the language is changed to observations then all contractors should probably be bonded. Vance suggested using the term contract administration. If something is missed, the contractor is responsible as well.
City staff is currently inspecting sites. There is currently an ordinance that states the construction site be inspected by the engineer of record, it just needs to be enforced. Contract Administration should make the engineer responsible. Auld suggested using “construction administration and observation” in the definition of Engineer of Record. There was discussion about it possible costing 4% of the contract. The contract could require the 4%.
The Board and staff discussed Finished Floor Elevation. The notice needs to be on the plat for a finished floor elevation that indicates to the buyer/owner there is a requirement. Farmer asked where this requirement should go. Light suggested placing it under Section 4.2F.
The Board decided to have a special meeting on January 30, 2008, at 3:30 to 5:00 to review regulations, compare them to the design manual, discuss Finished Floor elevation, and long-term short term maintenance as recommended by staff. The Board will also review a proposed ordinance for repeal of other ordinances.
It was announced that Don Culpepper is moving to Little Rock and his position will need to be replaced.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Farmer adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m.