CC tackles controversial stormwater management

A controversial mandate from the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) that has plagued New Kent is now making its way into Charles City.

Charles City supervisors got their first look at the local stormwater management program at its quarterly work session last night (Wednesday). Needless to say, the hour-long presentation did not appeal to board members. The plan focuses on development of land and how much it would cost for land disturbance in accordance to the proposed mandated regulations.

Jenny Johnson and Lee Hill of Joyce Engineering Inc. created a draft ordinance for implementation into county code and regulations. Similar to the situation in New Kent, the duo explained reasons for the ordinance, which include helping identify who is enforcing management, submission and approving plans, providing provisions to ensure plans meet requirements, who controls inspections and monitoring of construction activities, long-term inspections, and enforcement procedures and penalties.

And with the explanation, supervisors got a glimpse of what neighboring New Kent has been dealing with over the last four months.

“This ordinance wasn’t created for a rural area,” said District 2 supervisor Bill Coada. “Charles City is going to take a hit from this. I can see why our friends in New Kent are frustrated by this.”

District 3 supervisor and chairman Floyd Miles Sr. echoed Coada’s sentiments with questions to the Joyce Engineering representatives.

“What if we decide not to move forward on this by the Dec. 19 deadline [to submit preliminary ordinance plans]?” questioned Miles. “What if new leadership at the state level takes office in January and says that they don’t want this to happen?”

Planning director Matt Rowe said he understood how the board felt about the proposal.

“The state couldn’t do its job and are downsizing, so they gave it to us,” he said.

According to Hill, if Charles City foregoes adopting a stormwater ordinance, the state could refuse to allow the county to use its general permit and would charge the county $15,000 to obtain one.

While Johnson and Hill urged supervisors to indicate direction to proceed, the board continued contemplating a number of scenarios.

“This is just another unfunded mandate,” Miles said. “If administration changes [at the state level], then things can change.”

“I like New Kent’s idea,” added Coada. “Band a bunch of small counties together and say ‘no.’”

District 1 supervisor Gilbert Smith looked even further ahead, dreading the possibilities if the ordinance is adopted as presented during Joyce’s slideshow.

“I hate to say this but we may have to pass the fees to the citizens if we implement this,” said Smith.

According to the presentation, if supervisors elect to adopt the statewide fee schedule, the cost would be at least $2,700 for acreage of one to five acres. Of that amount, $756 is paid to DEQ while $1,944 would go to the locality. The latter figure may be adjusted either lower or higher, but according to Hill, that amount causes a deficit of nearly $9,000 if it is applied to 2014 projections. As acreage increases, the cost escalates, topping off at an average of $9,800 fee for lands exceeding 100 acres.

“I know the citizens don’t like it but I don’t want to keep dipping into general funds,” concluded Smith.

Projections for 2014 show that most land disturbances in the county will be less than an acre. While the fee is substantially low ($290 statewide fee with $81 going to DEQ), three projected parcels exceed the one acre plateau.

“This is something we are going to have to mull over,” added Miles. “I don’t want to do anything that will hurt our citizens.”

Supervisors elected not to accept the first version of the program, but plan to address the matter at future meetings before the Dec. 19 deadline.