HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-12 Penjajawoc Marsh / Bangor Mall Management Commission Minutes Penjajawoc Watershed Citizen Review Panel
• Tuesday, July 12, 2011 @ 12:OOpm
Rangeley Hall, EMCC
Minutes
The Penjajawoc Watershed Citizen Review Panel met at Rangeley Hall at 12:OOpm. In
attendance were panel members Tom Davis, Valerie Carter,James Gerety,George
Elliott, Benita Deschaine,Jim Tyler, and John Cashwell, staff inembers Wendy Warren,
Art Morgan, Brad Moore, and Paul Nicklas,and Tim Woodcock,Steve Kahl,and Greg
Cunningham.
1. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the June 13, 2011 meeting were approved with changes.
2. Report on Citywide CRP
It was reported that the CRP will indeed be expanded to cover the entire city, and, as
the Panel recommended, be composed of nine rather than twelve members. Current
� CRP members will need to reapply.The reformation of the CRP will take place sometime
after July 21.
3. Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study- Draft Report
Staff took the Panel through the draft report, noting highlights,strengths, and
weaknesses.
Several improvements were suggested, including replacing"upset" with "concerned"
and doing more to list out which nonprofits organizations staff approached.The report
could be more positive in tone.
The report should highlight the description of the three available options as found in the
presentation.
Credits have to reflect merit, not be based on the budget.There is a problem with the
incentive for the City to do work to give itself credits. One possible solution would be
not to give credits to the City.Also,the projects are based on the watershed
management plans, a list that is already set. Finally,the City already has an incentive to
do stormwater work, in that it needs to meet the conditions of its MS4 permit. An intent
statement would also be useful for the credits section.
The potential for a regional approach was brought up. A state excise tax for stormwater
� was suggested.This may be a question for another day,though;for now, Bangor should
lead by example. Some mention of a regional approach would be good, however. A
� stormwater utility makes the social and environmental costs of stormwater more
visible. We should try to keep the regional question in mind as the utility is
implemented, and make sure that increased services are shown.
Moving on to the Summary of Governance and Policy Statements, organizations did not
like the idea of another level of bureaucracy. No organizational chart is included in the
draft report, although positions are accounted for in the budget. A City department, as
opposed to a separate entity, is currently being contemplated.Transparency is needed
regarding allocations of time to stormwater funding, sewer funding, and so on.
The increased level of services should be outlined,with mention in the report of those
new services that would be added. Funds for monitoring should be specifically noted in
the budget.
Getting back to the summary,the question of who deals with state-owned, City-
maintained streets was raised. In South Portland,the state is paying for at least some of
these.There is no need for an organizational chart at the moment,as it is likely to
change anyway.There should be at least some stormwater-only personnel,though.
The rate ordinance should include a mention of the CRP as an advisory group, should
define "mitigate" or use other words, should use a different definition for BMP, and
should split out natural and manmade BMPs in the definition.
� ERU is a bad term,without an easy definition. Using square footage may be better--
area is area, ultimately. From a technical standpoint, it may be simplest to measure by
100 or 1000 square feet.The general sentiment was not to use the ERU.
Again, mention of the CRP should be made in the ordinance as part of the system of
checks and balances. Any complaints would go first to staff,then to the Infrastructure
Committee of the City Council on appeal.
According to the draft report, a single-family residence is still charged a flat rate.There
is no flat rate for duplexes,accessory apartments,or the like. Another possibility would
be to have no flat rates at all, and have everyone pay the same rate.
Regarding the budget, monitoring costs should be separated from the general urban
impaired stream portion of the level of services budget. Also,the current level of service
for urban impaired streams is$14,000, not$5,000.
More needs to be done to explain the levels of service.They are intended as a range of
options for the budget.A footnote is recommended for grants received,to reflect that
money is being spent. Grants should be used for items over and above what is in the
budget, and this should be noted.The City will continue to receive Compensation Fee
Utilization Plan money as well.A reserve fund should be added to the budget.
The draft report needs a better definition for"mitigate", or for a better word to be used,
� such as reduce or remove. If"pervious" is used in the ordinance, it should be defined.
The "reduce, reuse, recycle" concept can apply to stormwater as well as garbage.
� Penjajawoc Watershed Citizen Review Panel
Monday, June 13, 2011 @ 12:OOpm
Rangeley Hall, EMCC
Minutes
The Penjajawoc Watershed Citizen Review Panel met at Rangeley Hall at 12:OOpm. In
attendance were panel members John Cashwell, Benita Deschaine,Tom Davis, George
Elliott,James Gerety, Bob Quirk, Lovern Stockwell, Chuck Rohn, and Jim Tyler, staff
members Cathy Conlow, Brad Moore,Art Morgan,Jeff Allen, and Paul Nicklas,and Lucy
Quimby and Andy Hamilton.
1. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the May 20, 2011 meeting were approved with changes.
2. Governance
In introducing the issue of governance,the question of whether the role that other
communities might play in a utility district could be an issue was raised. It was noted
that we are a long way from a regional effort, and that we can still coordinate with
• others even if they are not a part of the utility. We need to deal with Bangor right now.
If the utility is a City entity, it will be a customer of itself. How might we ensure that the
City doesn't favor itself?The City is already a customer of itself for sewer and,through
the board the City appoints,water.The holistic approach allowed by a City-run utility is
an advantage.Also,there is a tendency to forget about entities that are put out to run
on their own, as they are less integrated with the rest of the City.
Turning briefly to another topic, a question about how maintenance should be
addressed,through the utility or otherwise,was brought up.
Returning to governance,there could be a more regional approach.The Bangor Water
District is ultimately governed by the Bangor City Council and its Board is composed of
all Bangor residents. A special-purpose district could be created, but there would be no
real difference between such a district and the City Council.
A question was asked about what would happen if the City Council, looking at
everything, underfunds the utility(in the view of CLF or the DEP). It was noted that the
Bangor City Council is probably going to want control of this. Also,there will be little in
the way of a check on rate setting if this is a separate utility;the PUC serves that
function for the Bangor Water District, but there is no such entity for stormwater.
•
� The City has not, in the past, diverted funds at the expense of other sectors.The City
should be transparent, so people can tell how the City is spending money. It was also
noted that City taxpayers would pay anyway down the road.
Priorities for work to be done are already established,through our watershed
management plans.We have goals to meet set by these plans.
Taxpayers are already paying for some maintenance of roads and so on; a stormwater
utility might do some additional maintenance that needs to be done as well.
The point was raised that good data collection is important.
A concern was raised over whether the utility run by the City passes the straight-face
test. It will be seen as a tax,whereas the Bangor Water District is seen as different.This
will be seen as the City making sure that it is taken care of first. In conversations with
others,they have not understood the need,the big picture.There is a large task in front
of us to explain the utility.
A brief explanation of the City's sewer rate structure was given. Consumption is
estimated, and rates figured from there.The same consumption figures are used as for
the Water District. It would be possible to have stormwater as another line in the sewer
and water bill.
� Budget amounts for the current amount of work being done by the City for stormwater
are roughly equal to the City's stormwater fee for City property given the assumptions
the utility feasibility study is currently working under.This means there would be little if
any change in the tax rate.
The PUC regulates the Water District in order to avoid the setting of very high rates.
Sewer is not regulated, however; sewer is not a commodity as water is.Stormwater is
also more like a service than a commodity. Municipalities are generally trusted with
services.
The importance of transparency was highlighted.The Sewer Department is an
enterprise fund,with separate projects from the rest of the City.Stormwater would be
the same as a City entity. No matter how the utility is set up, it would still probably have
to be the City enforcing it.
Any time a utility is set up,there are costs and billing to determine. Some rate per unit is
determined.The budget of the Water District has to be justified to the PUC. If neither
the City Council nor the PUC is reviewing the budget,we have a problem.
There is some incentive for the City to control costs,as the City is paying part of the fees
assessed.
Enforcement options for the Water District including shutting off a property's water
• supply. It is not possible to shut off sewer or stormwater. We could eventually try for
the authority to lien, but this would take a state statute to implement.
� The current draft utility budget includes two or more staff positions. Someone will be
needed to champion stormwater, a "tsar."The position would probably be under the
Director oflnfrastructure.
In general,the City utility is favored by the CRP,with one objection and one abstention.
The utility recommendation presented to DEP will include an executive summary and a
collection of recommendations.
3. Other Business
The CRP recommended that Jim Tyler be the Panel's Vice-Chair.
The CRP recommended that the CRP should be city-wide.
The City has done a lot of work to get CSOs separated. It has been tough getting the
sewer bill to where it is, but people have adjusted.We need to have money for
stormwater; it will be painful.
A question was raised about the number of people who ought to be in the CRP, as the
15 recommended in the revised charter is a large group.There may be representation
issues if there are fewer,though.A terminology change was suggested for the charter,
� and then, returning to the question of numbers,a 22113 proposal was made as an
alternative to the revised charter's 33225. It was noted that any proportional change
would be very minimal. A smaller group would be better and easier to manage,and was
the recommendation of the CRP.
Staff was asked to produce a calendar showing when the feasibility study is due and
when the City Council, Infrastructure Committee, and CRP meetings in advance of the
due date would be.
The Impervious Cover TMDL was mentioned.
A suggestion was made to shift the CRP meetings to Council Chambers so they could be
televised.
The notion of an ERU was raised as a possible issue.The term ERU does not have to be
used; Equivalent Service Unit could be used instead.Alternatively, per a certain number
of square feet could be used.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 1:30.
�