Admin Order 58-96-26-F - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

choices as to how the outcomes are met and, therefore, the cost of implementation. Some of these choices include timing of construction activities (dry versus wet season), management measures to be used, maintenance of facilities, and response to violations. MEP, and therefore cost, will only become an issue if the measures undertaken by the property owner are not successful in meeting the outcomes and the City's efforts to have these measures improved are challenged by the property owner (on the basis of MEP). By definition, Maximum Extent Practicable means a higher than average effort. On an extremely sensitive site, in poor weather conditions, cost to protect the water quality will be higher than for the same use on a nonsensitive site during dryer conditions. A developer/owner could implement low cost practices and stay well below the MEP, or they could elect not to consider these factors and potentially spend up to the MEP. The proposed MEP cost factor contained in the Administrative Rule was based on estimated costs for implementing erosion control efforts for a 6,000 square foot single-family residence. The estimates ranged between $960 to $2700, or 16 to 45 cents per square foot of the lot assuming the entire lot area is disturbed. The estimates were calculated by city staff and members of the Home Builders Association. For a larger subdivision (14 acres), cost estimates were $6,500 or one cent per square foot. Costs are expected to be on the higher side for parcels located in sensitive areas and for construction activities occurring during the wet-weather season. Given these estimates are based on typical conditions, the $0.50 per square foot factor of disturbed lot area appears reasonable given it represents a maximum level of effort. Since the program will be reviewed at the end of the first year of implementation, the MEP cost amount will stay at $0.50 per square foot of disturbed area. As the program is implemented and more cost data is obtained it may be appropriate to consider adjustments of the MEP definition at that time. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule at this time. Comment 2: The cost for preparing the construction site management plan should be included as a cost for determining Maximum Extent Practicable. Finding: Cost to prepare construction site management plans are allowed under 6.645-D2.2. Therefore, there is no need to adjust the rule. Comment 3: Delays in getting a building permit should be included as a cost for determining Maximum Extent Practicable. Finding: The erosion program will be adequately staffed to meet the administrative needs of the program. Currently, delays in building permit issuance occur for a variety of reasons of which none are related to the erosion program. The MEP provision is directly related to the effort in preventing and/or minimizing negative water quality impacts from construction activities to the stormwater system. However, there is no direct relationship in Erosion Prevention Administrative Rule R-6.645 - 2