Loading...
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. �