Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Special Meeting of the Ames City Council 11/20/2018MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 20, 2018 The Special Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen at 6:00 p.m. on the 20th day of November, 2018, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Council Members Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, David Martin, and Chris Nelson were present. Mayor John Haila and Ex officio Member Allie Hoskins were absent. STORMWATER ORDINANCE MODIFICATION: Public Works Director John Joiner and Municipal Engineer Tracy Warner were joined by Stormwater Resource Analyst Liz Calhoun. Ms. Warner said on April 17, 2018 the Council had a workshop to discuss various components of the existing post-construction stormwater management ordinance and on June 26, 2018 City staff presented a report providing additional information and alternatives. Ms. Warner said public input was received through an online survey, open houses, and the 2018 Resident Satisfaction Survey. She said there are five issues that are still open for discussion and direction by Council. From the Staff Report dated November 20, 2018 Ms. Warner reviewed Issue 1: Maintenance of Parking Lots. The five options were discussed. Ms. Warner also told the Council that on the east coast it is common for fire lanes and overflow parking to be constructed of permeable pavement or reinforced turf since they are rarely used. Mr. Martin asked about the characteristics of the online survey respondents. Ms. Warner said respondents were residential property owners, rental property owners, business owners, engineers, developers, and residents. She said it was a very small group that responded. Mr. Gartin said it isn’t being suggested that this is statistically significant data, but helpful information. Ms. Beatty-Hansen asked what percentage of the requirement would be required under option 2. Ms. Calhoun said partial compliance would be about 1/3 to 1/2 of the volume. Ms. Betcher asked if there are means to determine the impact of a project on surrounding properties or properties downstream. Ms. Warner said a couple customers have had flooding in neighborhoods adjacent to new development and were very concerned initially, and then found once the developments were completed they fared much better during rain events because of the drainage improvements added as part of the development. Mr. Martin asked if, during smaller rain events, it is possible to determine if certain properties have more leverage in causing stormwater damage than others. Ms. Warner said there may be more insight on capacity issues after the stormwater system analysis is completed but currently the maintenance crews know what areas will have problems during certain rain events. Mr. Martin asked if there is a way to determine what impacts a certain site would have on the rest of town. Ms. Warner said it would depend on many factors including size of the site and impervious area. Mr. Nelson asked about the developments Ms. Warner spoke of earlier next to residential areas. Ms. Warner said they were commercial sites adjacent to residential areas and were 1.5 acres or larger. Ms. Beatty-Hansen opened public input. Justin Dodge, 105 S. 16th Street, Ames, thanked the Council for reviewing the Ordinance. He said after having this Ordinance for four years he has found that it has unintended consequences. Regarding Issue 1: Maintenance of Parking Lots, Mr. Dodge said that pavement has an expected life of about 30 years. He asked why repaving a parking lot should cause someone to do other maintenance when they are just replacing the existing lot and will not cause any more stormwater runoff than before. He said either option 1 or option 2 helps the building community while protecting the City. Regarding Issue 2: Financial Security, Mr. Dodge said that the City holds all the power through the Certificate of Occupancy to ensure that stormwater improvements are completed correctly, and anything still outstanding at that time should be guaranteed by security. He said either option 1 or option 2 helps the building community while protecting the City. Regarding Issue 3: Runoff Curve Number, Mr. Dodge said a current and scientifically proven model should be used. He said the USDA Soils Survey of Story County should be used, and the standard should be what was on the site before development. He said the soil survey from 1903 is being used, which uses arbitrary values, is not a scientific study, and does not seem relevant today. He said option 1 would be best. Regarding Issue 4: Stormwater Management Threshold Criteria, Mr. Dodge said one acre is the threshold set by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). He said this really only affects redevelopment sites. He said the First National Bank site that was previously Wendy’s reduced paving, added landscaping, and increased pervious surface. He said stormwater runoff would have improved just by redeveloping the site, but they had to comply with the 10,000 sq ft trigger, which increased project cost by over $100,000. He said changing this criteria will allow smaller, local developers to do projects as well. Mr. Dodge said he favors option 1A. Regarding Issue 5: Inspections, Mr. Dodge said option 1 is supported by the building community. Mr. Gartin said he wasn’t aware of that investment required for First National Bank. He asked what was required for the site. Mr. Dodge said the site was under 1 acre but 10,000 sq ft of pavement triggered the requirement to detain all stormwater on site with chambers under the parking lot. Scott Renaud, 414 S. 17th Street, Ames, said he represents FOX Engineering. He said he could support option 1 for Issue 1. He said option 2 is a state requirement and has some ancillary benefit for stormwater control and option 3 is a good example of an option that must be site specific. Mr. Renaud said if someone has a flooding issue and is required to fix it when the site is redeveloped that is fine, but he believes the City should participate in that through tax increment financing. He said option 4 is in the Code and should be unchanged and he is not in favor of option 5. Mr. Martin asked about the state requirement in option 2. Mr. Renaud said the State only requires water quality. He said retention and other goals above water quality were added by the City. Chuck Winkleblack, 105 S. 16th Street, Ames, said he represents many clients, and he is seeing many defer parking lot maintenance because of the cost. He said the Lincoln Way mixed use project he had involved $250,000 for underground piping for the stormwater requirements. Mr. Winkleblack said people are putting off projects or skirting the requirements by only maintaining part of the parking lot because of the requirements. He encouraged the Council to select option 1. He said if 2 this isn’t addressed the City will be heading in the wrong direction for maintenance. Mr. Gartin asked if property owners are doing partial improvements and if so, what is being done to circumvent the requirements. Ms. Warner said staff tracks cumulative numbers. Mr. Gartin asked for clarification. Ms. Warner said the improvements are tracked by property, not by owner. Mr. Gartin said a new property owner would have to take those improvements under consideration. Mr. Nelson said he doesn’t see how the Council could approve option 1 without option 2. Ms. Warner said the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit requires the City to comply with water quality and water quantity. Mr. Renaud said the City has submitted requirements beyond State requirements. He said as he understands it the 10,000 sq ft threshold would go away with options 1, 2, or 3. Mr. Nelson said if Option 1 is passed it may not be good enough. Mr. Renaud concurred. Ms. Beatty-Hansen closed public input. Moved by Nelson, seconded by Corrieri, to approve option 1 to modify Chapter 5B to define parking lot reconstruction with no net increase in impervious area as maintenance, thus making it exempt from 5B requirements entirely. Mr. Martin asked Ms. Calhoun to clarify partial compliance under option 2. Ms. Calhoun said it would be about 1/3 to 1/2 of the volume. Ms. Beatty-Hansen said she is in favor of a compromise that makes redevelopment more approachable but over time still makes improvements to stormwater issues. Ms. Betcher said someone is going to end up paying whether it’s the project developer or the neighbor. She said it seems that as much as possible needs to be done to regain some flood control. Mr. Gartin said it is being said that “we” need to do more, but the one owning the parking lot feels like “me”. He said he supports option 1 because it’s more fair concerning the burdens carried. He said if Council wants to see properties redeveloped and nice parking lots, Council needs to remove some impediments. Mr. Nelson said these requirements cause business owners to forego doing all improvements. He said he could support option 3 where there is a problem, but not for every instance. Ms. Beatty- Hansen said options 2 and 4 could save on cost but still gain some stormwater control. Ms. Warner said staff did calculations on the City Hall parking lot improvement with permeable pavers. She said the cost difference would have been $128,000 less to do all pavement. Mr. Martin asked if there is an overall footprint of parking lots in the City to see how much difference it will really make for flooding in the community. Ms. Warner said impervious surfaces are part of the GIS system, so staff could get information on that. Discussion ensued. Mr. Joiner said a 10,000 sq ft parking lot would include about 30-35 spaces and a one acre parking lot could be up to 140 spaces. Discussion ensued regarding maintenance of parking lots of any size. Mr. Schainker said under option 1 reconstruction of a parking lot as maintenance would be exempt from Chapter 5B regardless of size if there is no expansion of impervious area. 3 Vote on Motion: 3-3. Voting Aye: Corrieri, Gartin, Nelson. Voting Nay: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Martin. Motion failed. Ms. Beatty-Hansen asked staff if options 2, 3, and 4 could be used together. Mr. Joiner said option 2 could be the standard and if something is provided to show that cannot be met then option 3 could be used. He said option 4 could also be used. Ms. Betcher asked about the additional option of permeable surfaces in overflow parking and fire lanes. Ms. Warner said there are often large stores that have parking spaces that well exceed the requirements, and in some of those situations, some of those spaces could be permeable surfaces. Ms. Beatty-Hansen asked about the expense to developers. Ms. Calhoun said it would be one way to lessen the amount of stormwater facilities required. Ms. Warner said one option is called grass pave and includes reinforcements that can hold heavy weight infrequently. Ms. Betcher asked if that would be an additional option. Ms. Warner said it could be a version of an option or a compliance tool. Moved Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to pursue option 2, 3, and 4 with the 20% reduction possible and for any size parking lot, as well as an option for overflow and fire lane parking to include permeable surfaces. Mr. Nelson said he’s not a fan of this. Mr. Gartin said he’s worried about the law of unintended consequences because these options may not have been intended to be combined. Ms. Beatty-Hansen opened public input. Mr. Winkleblack said most sites are existing and most would not want to give up any parking. He said his fear is Council will pass a bunch of things that will never get used. Ms. Beatty-Hansen said it could involve large lots. Mr. Gartin asked about option 3 and asked how it would work practically to determine a Fee-In-Lieu. Ms. Warner said areas would need to be established where the City could buy some land and incorporate a regional facility. She said different criteria could be established including a monetary trigger, which is the biggest reason for requested exemptions. She said a combination of on-site and off-site stormwater management practices is an option. Mr. Gartin said he’s worried about implementation from staff to staff and objective criteria. Ms. Beatty-Hansen closed public input. Mr. Schainker said with Fee-In-Lieu there’s a lag time for people concerned about runoff and the effect it has on flooding. Mr. Gartin said he would be voting to approve something that doesn’t have a good example. Mr. Schainker reminded the Council that an Ordinance change will require four votes to pass. Mr. Martin said the facility behind the Fee-In-Lieu will not be in the neighborhood where flooding occurs. Ms. Warner said the facility could be in the watershed. Mr. Martin said he wonders how the cost can be socialized so it doesn’t come down on a few. He asked if tax abatement would be an 4 option. Mr. Schainker said for state law cities have to abate on incremental value, and there wouldn’t be a new building. Mr. Gartin said he will not support this because it’s not an improvement and is not solving anything. He said compromise is good if it accomplishes something. Ms. Betcher asked if there is potential for some neighborhoods to use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. Mr. Schainker said if they are qualifying neighborhoods. Mr. Nelson said most of these areas will be commercial areas and he is unsure how CDBG funds could help. Ms. Corrieri said everyone is acknowledging bringing down the cost but not doing anything about it. Ms. Betcher said she would rather not change the Ordinance. Mr. Gartin asked why Council shouldn’t be concerned. Ms. Betcher said she must weigh the concern of these costs with concern of properties during flooding. She said she sees it as a community issue. Mr. Gartin said it’s not a community project when it’s one property owner that has to carry the cost. Vote on Motion: 2-4. Voting Aye: Betcher, Martin. Voting Nay: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Gartin, Nelson. Motion failed. Ms. Warner reviewed Issue 2: Financial Security. She said currently financial security must be provided with final site plan approval and is released as “as built” plans are received. Mr. Nelson said his concern is for the person that builds few buildings, and wondered if there was another way to do this. He said if Council does make final occupancy the trigger, how often do “as builts” get through the review process before final occupancy. Ms. Warner said it takes a long period of time. She said many apartment complexes receive temporary occupancy and then take quite awhile finishing the outstanding items. She said staff keeps asking for “as builts” so the financial security can be released. Mr. Nelson asked if there has ever been a need to call on the financial security or if it is just being held. Ms. Warner said it is just being held, but there may be situations where Council would need to be alerted and give staff direction because developers are not cooperating. Ms. Beatty-Hansen opened public input. Mr. Winkleblack said currently developers must bond for the entire amount of all improvements before starting the project and the Letter of Credit (LOC) must be for the entire amount of the project. He said it would be much better and more appropriate to provide financial security for what is not done to make sure the City is not at risk. Mr. Gartin asked which option he favors. Mr. Winkleblack said option 1 or 2, but preferably option 2. He said he would like this to be treated like other things, where the City verifies what is done and financial security is provided for what is not done. Mr. Renaud said he agrees with that. He said it doesn’t make sense to ask an owner to be tied by bond to someone that doesn’t have ownership in the product. He said LOCs have their own issues and the bond form never works. Mr. Renaud said the Courtyard by Marriott project was delayed six weeks because of this requirement. He said this is the most frustrating piece of the Code because this amounts to huge delays and added cost. Mr. Gartin asked what option he prefers. Mr. Renaud said he doesn’t like “total estimated construction cost” in the options and would like that changed. Mr. 5 Nelson asked if “remaining estimated construction cost” would be better. Mr. Renaud concurred. Mr. Dodge said he believes the definition should include the “outstanding estimated construction cost” or “remaining estimated construction cost.” Ms. Beatty-Hansen closed public input. Moved by Nelson, seconded by Corrieri, to approve Option 2, and change it to read: Amend Chapter 5B to require financial security in an amount for the remaining estimated construction cost to be on file with the City prior to a final Certificate of Occupancy being granted. Ms. Betcher asked why Mr. Nelson went with the final Certificate of Occupancy option over the temporary. Mr. Nelson said because when a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted the outstanding issues can sometimes drag out. Mr. Gartin asked if there are any additional risks. Ms. Warner said if a developer chooses not to go into the build out phase for whatever reason, then the City has a partially constructed site. Ms. Beatty-Hansen asked how often that happens. Ms. Warner said they have not seen that happen. Mr. Martin asked if there are concerns by staff on the language change. Ms. Warner said no, staff would still have to verify the “as built” plans. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. Ms. Warner reviewed Issue 3: Runoff Curve Number. She said the intent was to improve landscape to further hold and detain capacity and be reflective of the historic landscape. She said the 1903 Soil Survey of Story County references that 82% of soils in Story County were reflective of a meadow in good condition, or Runoff Curve Number 58. Ms. Beatty-Hansen asked about option 1. Ms. Warner said with option 1 the current soil condition would be taken into account instead of taking it back to the historic landscape. Mr. Nelson asked how often the USDA soil survey is completed. Ms. Warner said it’s not a regular frequency. Mr. Gartin asked if staff has a sense of best practices. Ms. Warner said it is common nationwide to go back to a historic landscape. She said soil health is very important and in some situations soils are being downgraded for an even greater impact. Ms. Beatty-Hansen asked what an average number for current Story County soil would be. Ms. Calhoun said it depends on the size of lot and the condition and said a .25 acre lot with type B soil is 75, one acre lot is 68, and an urban district commercial lot is 92. Mr. Nelson asked for a map of Ames and Story County and wonders how Ames fits into the larger county number. Discussion ensued on types of soil found in Story County. Ms. Beatty-Hansen opened public input. Mr. Dodge said Story County is primarily agriculture and has a tremendous amount of row crops. He said according to the June 26, 2018, staff report, row crops in good condition have a runoff curve number of 78. 6 Mr. Renaud said 58 is very conservative and the other requirements are also conservative. He asked for some relief up front because of the other requirements. Mr. Renaud said he would recommend a curve number between 72-78. Ms. Beatty-Hansen closed public input. Moved by Betcher, seconded by Martin, to approve option 2 to maintain the current meadow in good condition (58) runoff curve number. Mr. Gartin asked how this would be administered including the work by staff and developer if option 1 was chosen, to determine a runoff curve number for each site. Ms. Warner said each site would need looked at specifically. She said between 72-78 there would be higher release rates and less volume detained. Mr. Martin said smaller facilities would need to be constructed. Ms. Warner concurred. Mr. Gartin asked about the cost difference between numbers 58 and 78. Ms. Warner said a facility would still be required, but the increment would be different. Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Gartin, Martin. Voting Nay: Nelson. Motion approved. Ms. Warner reviewed Issue 4: Stormwater Management Threshold Criteria. Ms. Warner discussed the options. She said if the impervious threshold changes from 10,000 sq ft to one acre it may result in additional localized flooding and increased cost through G.O. Bonds and/or stormwater utility fees for future CIP projects. Mr. Gartin asked about the increased possibility of localized flooding and said that seems speculative. Ms. Warner said runoff from a one acre site was used to determine if the existing storm sewer system can manage the runoff. Ms. Beatty-Hansen opened public input. Mr. Renaud said Issue 1 and 4 are related. He said he wishes Council would have taken action on Issue 1 and chosen option 2. He said this is almost a fifth option to Issue 1. Mr. Renaud said the McFarland Clinic parking lot in west Ames is going to gravel because it needs redone. He said storm sewer is designed for a developed condition to discharge the 5 year flood. He said he would rather have option 2 under Issue 1. Ms. Beatty-Hansen asked if the McFarland Clinic lot is larger than 1 acre. Mr. Renaud said it is 1.25 acres. He said some will overlay lots in bad shape instead of tearing them down all the way. He said if Council wants to accomplish stormwater improvements then it should work with developers. Luke Jensen, 2519 Chamberlain, Ames, said he is disappointed in the outcome. He challenged Council to reconsider Issue 1. He said infill sites are particularly important to him, and the cost to redevelop infill sites with existing utilities and infrastructure are massively increased because of the stormwater requirements. He said if the requirement was relaxed from 10,000 sq ft to one acre it would better align with the stormwater requirements applying to any new development or redevelopment disturbing one acre or more of land. Mr. Jensen referenced Issue 1:Maintenance of Parking Lots, and said he hates to see nice buildings in this community dominated by gravel parking 7 lots because of the expense to repair them. Mr. Gartin said not all commercial areas are the same, and he’s interested in East Lincoln Way. He said if Council made the change to one acre, would that change be a difference maker in some of those properties. Mr. Jensen said changing that threshold would make it easier to develop. He said for Issue 4 he supports option 1A which would change the impervious threshold for meeting Chapter 5B requirements to one acre. Mr. Winkleblack asked if there’s an opportunity to put a budgeted amount in the CIP as a pool that could be used for things like this that affect the entire community. He said some areas in town there are lacking storm sewers. This would be for the greater good of the community. He said it would solve a problem, promote better planning, and help prevent finding ways to skirt projects. He said if that doesn’t work, there are other meaningful solutions. Mr. Gartin asked about East Lincoln Way and the relaxation of the standards. Mr. Winkleblack said East Lincoln Way is a natural idea since that is a four-lane road. Ms. Betcher asked what option he is in favor of. Mr. Winkleblack said he was frustrated with Issue 1 having no resolution. He said something is better than nothing, but he hopes the Council doesn’t give up on Issue 1. Roger Kluesner, 1215 Duff Avenue, Ames, said he appreciates the dialog. He said in April he came to speak about the west Ames location of McFarland Clinic. After receiving estimates to redo the parking lot, it was 68% more expensive because of the stormwater requirements. He said the 1215 Duff Avenue lot is double the size and they will be very perplexed as to how to store stormwater on that site. Ms. Beatty-Hansen closed public input. Moved by Nelson, seconded by Gartin, to approve option 1A to direct staff to bring an ordinance amendment that changes the impervious threshold for meeting Chapter 5B Post Construction Stormwater Management Ordinance requirements to one acre. Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Gartin, Nelson. Voting Nay: Betcher, Martin. Motion approved. Ms. Warner reviewed Issue 5: Inspections. Ms. Warner reviewed the alternate inspections besides a licensed plumber. She said this change would not warrant an Ordinance change. Moved by Nelson, seconded by Betcher, to approve option 1, directing stormwater management system components be constructed in accordance with SUDAS and City of Ames Supplemental Specifications, negating the need for a licensed plumber to perform inspections. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. Ms. Betcher said she appreciates the ideas from Mr. Winkleblack about setting aside funds for projects like this. Council Member Corrieri left the meeting. 8 The Council recessed at 7:57 p.m. and reconvened at 8:02 p.m. NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY STUDY: Water and Pollution Control Director John Dunn said he has given periodic updates on the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy and the ramifications on the Water and Pollution Control (WPC) Plant. He said in 2016 a draft permit from the state was received that required a feasibility study for converting the facility to nutrient reduction. The state later pulled that permit and currently there is no mandate that requires the study. Mr. Dunn said because of some infrastructure that needs about $8 million of maintenance, the City decided to move forward with the feasibility study to see how the infrastructure will fit in with nutrient reduction at the Plant. Mr. Dunn said earlier in the year the City entered into a contract with HDR for the feasibility study to find appropriate ways to meet the goals of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy while minimizing the impact on rate payers. Mr. Dunn introduced HDR Project Manager Dave Dechant, Water and Pollution Control Plant Superintendent Jim McElvogue, FOX Engineering Engineer Lance Aldrich, and Water and Pollution Control Assistant Director Christina Murphy. Mr. Dechant said the objective of HDR is to outline a path forward for the WPC Plant. He told the Council the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy outlines a 45% reduction in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) leaving the state. Phosphorus will need reduced by 75% and nitrogen will need reduced by 67% at point sources. Mr. Dechant said a point source is any municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plant treating more than one million gallons of water per day. Mr. Dechant said the trickling filters are approaching the end of their useful life with about 5-10 years left. He said it will cost about $8.8 million to replace or refurbish them. Farm fertilizer and manure were discussed as constituting most of the phosphorus and nitrogen loadings. Potential offsets highlighted by Mr. Dechant included water and sediment control basins, grassed waterways, riparian buffers, constructed wetlands, and woodchip bioreactors. He said it would not be practical to entirely offset the requirement for WPC Plant reductions. The six options for optimizing the potential of the WPC Plant were reviewed by Mr. Dechant. He said facilities incorporating alternative treatment technology will be required to achieve required reductions. Potential sites within Ames and outside of Ames were looked at for watershed alternatives. He said they are recommending the City select and implement options based on priorities. Mr. Dechant reviewed the suggested phasing plan for alternative technologies. He said a plan is needed as a requirement of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Mr. Dechant said the state has approved a similar plan, and setting up phases to replace technology as it fails will demonstrate commitment and progress. Mr. Dechant said HDR is recommending three phases, but the City could be more aggressive. Mr. Dechant reviewed the potential strategy that will be submitted to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. It was noted that a draft plan will be part of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) on 9 December 21, 2018, become part of the budget for Council planning in January, and the final plan will be completed late February. Mr. Dunn said the staff report includes draft pages of the CIP that includes a new project, Watershed-Based Nutrient Reduction. He said this project will set aside $100,000 per year dedicated to projects in the watershed. Ms. Beatty-Hansen asked how much time is available when the trickling filters fail at the WPC Plant. Mr. Dechant said it wouldn’t be a catastrophic failure, it would be failure over time. He said part of the first phase would include capacity for two of the trickling filters to fail. He said the rest of the trickling filters are expected to fail within phase 2. Mr. Gartin said the $100,000 per year for watershed Best Management Practices seems small. He asked how they arrived at that amount. Mr. Dechant said it is an arbitrary figure, but it is thought that other funding will available. Ms. Beatty-Hansen asked for a cost estimate of a Best Management Practice. Mr. Dechant said once the City prioritizes alternatives then cost estimates can be given. Lauris Olson, 900 6th Street, Nevada, Iowa, said the Story County Board of Supervisors expect a staff report on December 11 and then the Supervisors will look at those recommendations compared to the County’s strategic plan and the Cornerstone to Capstone Plan. She said then they will be ready to look at partnership opportunities. She said some alternatives are not that expensive. Mr. Gartin said the focus has been on dealing with phosphorus and nitrogen once in the environment. He asked if there are any best practices that cities are adopting to reduce the contamination on the input side. Mr. Dechant said regional retention facilities or Fee-In-Lieu facilities could be constructed in a manner that would help with nitrogen and phosphorous. He said Parks and Recreation is using phosphorus free fertilizer on the park system, and the smart watersheds and other programs are making a difference. Mr. Dechant said soil quality restoration is very important to filtrating in place. He also said phosphorus free detergents have really helped. Ms. Beatty-Hansen opened public input. Mr. Renaud said he believes $100,000 is pretty small. He said there are opportunities to do some work in the watersheds but it will take more than $100,000. He said the Cornerstone to Capstone Plan will provide obstacles on a project he is working on in Story County. He said Story County needs to be part of this as well as Hamilton and Boone counties. Ms. Beatty-Hansen closed public input. DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: No communications were pending. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Mr. Gartin said the discussion on nutrient reduction has focused on the side of treating, and he 10 would like to spend more time discussing what goes into the system. Ms. Betcher said she’s interested in returning to Mr. Winkleblack’s suggestion on offsets for stormwater management costs. Discussion ensued. Moved by Betcher, seconded by Gartin, to request a memo from staff regarding potential funding sources to offset stormwater management costs. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Betcher to adjourn at 8:58 p.m. _________________________________________________________________________ Erin Thompson, Recording Secretary John A. Haila, Mayor 11