PCSO Training
November 12, 2015
Daryl Hammock, PE
Assistant Manager
Community of Choice Balancing quality of life issues
 Attract development, control costs
 Incent redevelopment/revitalization
 Mass transit, desired development patterns, walk-
able communities, creating a sense of place
 Protect air, water, trees, open space
 Create attractive and livable places; an urban
community of choice
Clean Water Act Requirements
 Clean Water Act - 1972 -“The objective of this Act is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
 1990’s Municipal storm drainage
 “…Permits must be obtained for all discharges from large and
medium municipal separate storm sewer systems.”
 “…develop and implement programs to control non-point
sources of pollution….”
 New permit every 5 years
Environmental
Report Card
• Most streams are impaired are not “swimmable and
fishable”
• State/Federal permits push us
to progressively reverse this
condition
• Stressors causing these
conditions must be reduced
• $2.6 Billion ~ 500 years
Why Local Streams are Impaired
 Agriculture, homeowners, development, active construction
 The pollutants causing Charlotte’s impairment are:
 Suspended sediments including metals, soil
 Bacteria
 Collectively, these substances cause harm to fish and to humans
 State law and Federally-issued permits require control of these pollutants
 Post-Construction Stormwater Ordinance addresses development impacts
5
Flexibility to Complement City Growth Strategies
Redevelopment
Priorities
Redevelopment
Priorities
in 2007
 2007 Cost Study:
Legend
Transit Radius of Influence
Economic Revitalization
_
^
_
^
Empty Big Boxes
_
^
_
^
^
_
_^
^
_
_
^
^_
_
_
^
^^
_
_ ^
^
_
_^
^
_
_
^
_
^
³
 <$40k/ac development
 < $300k/ac Redevelopment
 Mitigation fee was allowed in
specific areas
 Transit Stations
 Economic Revitalization
Corridors
 Encourages redevelopment
and provides a base level of
flood / environmental
protection
 $60,000/ac $8 M to date
18-161 Mitigation Payment
Development and redevelopment projects ….. are allowed by right
to forego meeting the requirements of this article, except for
required stream buffers and peak control and downstream analysis
requirements on the increased impervious area of the project site,
provided one of the following three measures are implemented on
the site:
 (1) Provide 85 percent TSS removal from first inch of rainfall for
entire project;
 (2) Provide one-year, 24-hour volume control and ten-year, six-hour
peak control for entire project; or
 (3) Pay the city a mitigation fee according to rates set forth in the
administrative manual for the pre-project built upon area and any
additional impervious area not to exceed five acres. New impervious
area in excess of five acres must comply with this article
Revenue funds high impact, offsite,
regional restoration projects
Revolution Park Water Quality Enhancement
Problem: Watershed is impaired due to excess bacteria and metals and
other pollutants
Result: Constructed pond removes pollutants from 201 impervious acres
Construction Cost: $302,998
Before – No Pond
After
Constructed
Pond
8
Industry Concerns - 2011
 Industry initiated discussion about spurring redeveloment
 Proposal to expand the mitigation fee option
 Reluctance due to stakeholder work, clean water concerns
 Redevelopment sites often face substantial challenges
accommodating stormwater controls on-site
 Accelerate watershed recovery through retrofits and by
encouraging redevelopment over green field development
Temporarily Expand
Mitigation Fee Option
• Fall 2011 revision expanded
the mitigation fee option
for all redevelopment sites
• SWAC/Council supported,
although with opposition
• Sunset of April 2014
• Currently in effect:
• $60k (1st acre)
• $90k (each add’l acre)
April 2014
• Mitigation fee is good for restoration, good for
business
• Improves surface water quality, discourages sprawl
• Flexible, predictable, lowers compliance costs, provides options
• Staff proposed extension until December 2019
• With opposition, Council extended to October 2014
• Further public involvement, citizen advisory
committee, Council Environment Committee Greater opposition
• In October 2014 extended until December 2017, call for
stakeholder process
November 12, 2015 Agreement
 Stakeholder process began in January, 20 meetings,
agreement reached 11/12/2015
 Industry well represented
 Environment Committee will take up this topic in
February 2016, expected effective date July 2016
Elements of November 2015
Consensus Agreement
 Applies only in “Temporary District”
 Ensures an option for redevelopment sites to pay a
mitigation fee in-lieu-of onsite compliance
 Sunset date removed, mitigation fee made ‘permanent’
 Allows fee reduction for partial compliance
Using the Mitigation Fee Option
 Perform a “quality stream analysis”
 Staff to evaluate need for a “downstream analysis”
(flooding); designer will perform, if desired
 If no quality stream or flood concerns exist, & if not
increasing BUA, pay the
mitigation fee
This quality stream could trigger further
analysis, onsite compliance
Quality Stream Analysis
 Desktop analysis:
 Look for presence of buffers, stable stream
 Conduct to the 10% point, or 500’
 Based on desktop, field verification using NCSAM
 If a quality stream exists,
 provide 1-yr & 10-yr detention
 Pick and provide two
limited onsite control measures
Limited Onsite Control Measures





Sediment forebay
Parking and vehicle area sweeping (2x/mo)
Reduce BUA by 10%
Reduce parking area by 50%
Partial onsite control
 Must implement 2 of these if dictated by quality stream
analysis, provide detention, pay mitigation fee
 Must implement 1 of these, if dictated by downstream
flood analysis, provide detention, pay mitigation fee
 Otherwise, pay mitigation fee only
Mitigation Fee
BUA Area
Mitigation Fee
1st acre
$75,000/first acre or portion
>1 acre and <2 acres
$90,000/second acre or portion
>2 acre and <3 acres
$105,000/third acre or portion
>3 acres
$120,000/acre or portion
 Examples: 1.25 acre ‘fully waived’ site will pay $97,500
 Current temporary ordinance:
$82,500
 Transit/Economic revitalization:
$75,000
 Fee will be reduced by 25% for sites providing detention
 Detention provided:
$73,125
Path Forward
 Task Force agreement reached




11/12/2015
Environment Committee will
take up this topic in February
Expected effective date July 2016
Expect more details in BMP
design manual and in
Administrative Manual
Review Periods in Spring
Thank You ! Questions?
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
http://stormwater.charmeck.org
Daryl Hammock, PE
Assistant Manager
Storm Water Services, Charlotte, NC
dhammock@charlottenc.gov
Storm Water Services Initiatives
Increasing Infrastructure
Cumulative Miles of
Storm Drainage Pipe
Miles of pipe
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
•
•
Mileage of pipe doubled 1994 - 2014
Development regulations/inspections are a
factor in long term financial success
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1900
1913
1923
1933
1943
1953
1963
1973
1983
1993
2003
2013
Year
21
Increasing Population
900,000
800,000
700,000
Expect growth of
drainage problems,
and at an increasing
rate
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990 2000 2010
Population growth is correlated with growth of infrastructure
2013
Infrastructure Failure Rate
Pipe Replacement Revenue Needed
$600
$550
$500
$450
Million
$400
Slope says $5M
annual increase
needed
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$1300/lf 100yr Offset
Poly. ($1300/lf 100yr Offset)
Maintenance & Repair Backlog
• Stormwater fee has grown but has
not kept pace with the rate of failing
infrastructure
• Long wait times
24
Types of Problems We Find
Bad Joints
- Not age related
- Installed 2002
- $100,000
Cracked Pipe
Utility Intrusion
Broken Pipe
25
Types of Problems We Find
 HDPE - loss of structural
integrity
 Sanitary sewer punched
through the storm drain
Images from subdivision built 2006
26
Common Premature Problems
Haines Mill Road, Built 2006
 System is in backyards and access
is limited
 Precast catch basin leaking
around joints
 Sinkholes formed
 Shoring needed to protect nearby
home foundations
27
 City and County staff are
preparing information
for the development
community
 Concern over better
inspection practices,
including pipe video
inspections as a tool to
identify quality pipe
installation
Fee Credits
 http://charmeck.org/sto
rmwater/FeesandBilling/
Pages/FeeCreditRevision
s.aspx