E4_Joint City-County Memo City and County Stormwater

DURHAM
�DG
CITY OF DURHAM I DURHAM COUNTY \Yap
NORTH CAROLINA
1869
CITY OF MEDICINE
Memorandum
To: Theodore L. Voorhees, Deputy City Manager
Drew Cummings, Assistant County Manager
From: Paul Wiebke, PE, Assistant Stormwater Manager
Chris Roberts, PE, Stormwater and Erosion Cont Division Manager CSR
Date: December 29, 2010
Subject: Follow-up on City and County Stormwater Programs
Executive Summary
This is to provide supplemental information requested by the Joint City -County
Committee on Charlotte -Mecklenburg Stormwater and on local program budgets. This
information was requested in follow-up to previous memoranda and discussion on
combining city and county stormwater programs. City and County staff have jointly
reviewed the additional information.
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Stormwater Programs operates as two separate programs that
coordinate in an effort to eliminate overlap. Both Mecklenburg County and the City of
Charlotte are subject to NPDES permits. For efficient operation, there is a single billing
unit that collects both county stormwater utility fees and city stormwater utility fees.
Additional information is provided in attachment C.
Detailed City of Durham and Durham County financial information has been provided in
attachment E. The City is subject to an NPDES permit while the County is not.
City and County cooperation is similar to that in the Charlotte and Mecklenburg
Stormwater programs. The current level of cooperation is as such that there is no
significant overlap. City and County staff do not recommend combining programs beyond
the current system of cooperation. Additionally, operating programs at different levels of
service would not result in greater efficiencies. City staff is currently fully tasked with
existing program implementation. This recommendation is consistent with the
memoranda previously presented.

Background
This issue was first discussed in January 2010 in the Joint City -County Committee
(JCCC), with a request for staff to bring back more information to the committee. Reports
were generated by both City and County staff and presented at the September JCCC
meeting (See attachments A and B). Several committee members expressed the desire
for more information and a comparison to the Charlotte -Mecklenburg stormwater program.
Staff has responded by combining forces to present this report with the requested
information.
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Stormwater Services
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County are both subject to NPDES Stormwater permits (a key
difference from Durham). Charlotte -Mecklenburg Stormwater operates as two separate
but coordinated programs. The Charlotte and Mecklenburg programs have divided up
responsibilities between them to eliminate overlap. Each program has its own manager
and its own stormwater utility rate. The County utility applies everywhere including within
the City of Charlotte and pays for major system management, including flood mitigation.
Residents in the City pay an additional utility fee to fund maintenance of pipes and other
components of the `minor' system and to fund permit obligations. In some cases one
program provides services to the other under an annual agreement and budget.
Attachment C provides an organizational chart and additional details.
Current Citv/County Oraanization
The City of Durham has a Phase I NPDES Stormwater Permit and Durham County does
not have an NPDES Stormwater Permit (a key difference from the Char-Meck situation). A
brief summary of the City's Phase I permit can be found in Attachment D.
The City's Stormwater Services Department is currently comprised of 92.5 FTE's with an
approved budget of $10,771,598. The funding source is the City's stormwater utility fund.
The County's Stormwater and Erosion Control is currently comprised of 3 FTE's (+1
administrative assistant) and an approved budget of $319,497. The funding source is the
County's General Fund which is mostly offset by developer's fees. Over the past two
years, the County's Stormwater and Erosion Control Division has lost two positions to meet
budget reduction requests. Summary information about the two programs can be found in
Attachment E, Table E-1. Program budgets are provided in Tables E-2 and E-3.
City staff is currently fully tasked with existing permit implementation. Implementation of the
existing permit has resulted in a utility rate increase and it is anticipated that additional rate
increases will be needed to meet current permit requirements. There is no excess capacity
within the current city stormwater program.
The two programs have and continue to coordinate on several issues such as:
• Development review taskplan to clearly delineate the review process of
developments to be annexed. The taskplan is attached (Attachment F).
• Since 1984, the City and County have had a single erosion control program
administered by the County. All private, non-exempt land disturbance activities
2

within the City and County are regulated. This program meets the City's permit
requirements to regulate construction site runoff.
• City and County stormwater, soil and water, public works, and legal
departments/divisions have and will continue to cooperate on a variety of issues
including the new Falls and Jordan Lake legislation.
• The City and County also cooperate on floodplain regulations. The Director of the
City/County Building Inspections Department serves as the City/County
Floodplain Administrator and the City's stormwater staff provides technical
assistance on floodplain development related issues in both City and County
jurisdictions.
• City -County Planning jointly applies all UDO requirements, including those related
to riparian buffers, water supply watershed density limits and stormwater
treatment, and floodplain regulation throughout the County.
• Both the City and County participate in and financially contribute to the Upper
Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA).
• Both the City and County participate in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin
Association (UCFRBA).
• Both the City and County participate in and help fund the Clean Water Education
Partnership.
Future Considerations
Stormwater levels of service are different as a result of the City's permit requirements
Compliance with Jordan Lake Rules, Falls Lake Rules and possible pending federal
regulations may result in the County's regulatory obligations expanding.
Additional funding will be required by both City and County to meet future requirements under
Jordan Lake and Falls Lake Nutrient Sensitive Waters rules. A summary of these mandates
are found in Attachment G. Federal rule -making currently being planned by the
Environmental Protection Agency will bring additional jurisdictions under stormwater rules.
These changes may impose additional requirements on the County.
For comparison, the City and County adopted budgets are provided in Attachment E Tables
E-2 and E-3. The City's budget and expenditures are based on current obligations. This
budget does not provide funding to meet all requirements scheduled in the City's permit.
City and County management should continue to coordinate and to explore options. An
immediate need is to begin a monitoring program designed to measure concentration and
stream flow from County watersheds, as well as load originating from upstream areas, to
track nutrient load contributions to Jordan Lake and Falls Lake. Attachment H discusses
possible enhancements to complement a program being implemented by the City.
Recommendation
City and County staff do not recommend combining programs.
City staff is currently fully tasked with implementation of existing programs within the City.
There is no excess capacity.

Allowing for the differences in permit status, City of Durham and Durham County
cooperation is similar to that in the Charlotte and Mecklenburg Stormwater programs. A
key difference is that the City is subject to much more demanding and costly NPDES
permit requirements. Both Charlotte and Mecklenburg are subject to NPDES permits
whereas Durham County is not and would probably not choose to be. Allowing for
differences in permit status, Durham City and County operate strongly coordinated water
quality and stormwater-related functions with a level of coordination that compares with
that in the Charlotte and Mecklenburg Stormwater program. The current level of
cooperation is as such that there is no significant overlap.
This recommendation is consistent with the memoranda previously presented.
E

List of Attachments
Attachment A — City Staff Memorandum
Attachment B — County Staff Memorandum
Attachment C — Charlotte —Mecklenburg Stormwater programs
Attachment D — City Stormwater NPDES Permit
Attachment E — Summary Financial Information for City and County Stormwater
Programs
Attachment F — Stormwater Review Taskplan for Developments to be Annexed
Attachment G — Summary of Current and Anticipated Regulations Imposing
Unfunded Federal and State Mandates on City of Durham and
Durham County
Attachment H — Monitoring Programs for Falls Lake Watershed and Jordan Lake
Watershed
5

Attachment A
❑URHAM
1869
CITY OF MEDICINE
Memorandum
CITY OF DURHAM
To: Theodore L. Voorhees, Deputy City Manager
Through: Kathryn Kalb, PE, Public Works Director
Ed Venable, PE, Engineering and Stormwater Manager
From: Paul Wiebke, PE, Assistant Stormwater Manager
John Cox, PE, Water Quality Manager
Date: March 9, 2010
Subject: Joining the Services of the City and County Stormwater Programs
On January 12, 2010, the Joint City -County Committee (JCCC) requested staff investigate the
advantages of joining stormwater-related services that the City and County both perform. In
response to this request, on February 9, 2010 staff members from the City Stormwater Division
and the County Engineering Department met to evaluate options, issues and potential benefits
developing a joint stormwater program, and have subsequently corresponded further on these
issues.
Currently, the scale and scope of the programs operated by the City and County are very different,
with little overlap. The City owns and operates a stormwater system and has implemented a
stormwater utility to fund system operation, maintenance and repair, and to fund programs to meet
conditions of an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) municipal stormwater
permit. The permit imposes mandates on the City that currently are not imposed on the County.
The County Stormwater and Erosion Control Division has three erosion control inspectors and a
division manager (PE). The entire division is funded from land disturbance or other fees imposed
on developers. Last year a separate, dedicated stormwater position was eliminated and the duties
were added to those of the division manager, who also serves as the Erosion Control Officer.
City and County staff began meeting periodically to coordinate on Jordan Lake and other issues.
More recently staff members have been meeting on a regular basis to coordinate on Falls Lake and
other issues.
The City and County have already eliminated most of the overlap on new development issues.
Requirements to control nitrogen loading from new development under the Neuse Nutrient
Sensitive Waters Stormwater rule are imposed under separate ordinances adopted by the city and
county. The City and County have agreed that projects located in unincorporated areas that seek
City water and sewer services and that would ultimately be annexed by the City will be reviewed
only for conformance with City requirements. This has eliminated confusion for developers,
resulted in a more streamlined process, and eliminated duplicate reviews by city and county staff.
2

Attachment A
Short-term benefits - During a meeting on February 9, 2010, with City and County staff, no
immediate cost -savings beyond those realized by continued coordination and collaboration were
identified
City staff expects that under forthcoming requirements for Jordan Lake and Falls Lake, new
requirements imposed on the City and County will result in new programs. Over time, the County
will have to devote more resources to stormwater management and its program will necessarily
evolve to be more like that of the City. As that occurs, consolidation can result in cost saving for
both the City and County.
The City has significant staff resources (engineers, hydrologists, modelers, biologists,
environmental scientists, technicians, etc), equipment, (boats, vehicles, USGS gauging stations),
technology (instruments, monitoring equipment, GPS equipment, databases, GIS map resources,
satellite imagery, automated impervious extraction, utility billing data services, etc.) The County
has unique resources and capabilities as well. If a consolidated program could leverage existing
resources of both jurisdictions, future requirements could be managed more cost-effectively.
Funding is perhaps the most significant impediment to consolidation. The County programs are
funded entirely by development fees. Land disturbance fees are typically collected at the beginning
of a project and are used to pay for monthly inspection through the life of the project as well as
initial review of plans and permit applications. Revenues from fees from new projects have
declined severely. Furthermore, the legislature has extended the life of permits for such projects.
Until they are completed, these projects will require periodic inspection. The result is a continuing
workload combined with declining revenues. This funding mechanism is not self-sustaining in the
current economic climate.
City staff acknowledge the benefits of having a local erosion control program and are willing to
begin discussion on transferring responsibilities to the City for the following fiscal year, provided
those discussions begin relatively soon. City staff would need more time than remains in the
current fiscal year to evaluate funding mechanisms, develop ordinances and an implementation
plan for this function.
Given the severity and cost of future requirements faced by both the City and County, and the
future benefits of consolidation, it is not too soon to plan for consolidation of stormwater
management functions, including discussion of funding options.
From the City's perspective the simplest arrangement would be for the County to adopt the City's
stormwater ordinances and stormwater utility fees and through an interlocal agreement the City's
existing programs would be implemented throughout the County. This would leverage the City's
investment in staff training, instruments and equipment, databases, procedures, ordinances,
impervious surface mapping, utility billing staff, etc. Including annual residential stormwater
utility bills with tax bills would save on mailing costs. County utility fee rates might be adjusted
for street sweeping, but all other program elements would be performed throughout both
jurisdictions.
Another option would be to co -locate county staff with city staff. City of Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County have separate utilities, programs and staff that are co -located and share
information and resources. The recent renovation of City Hall did not provide space to
accommodate this level of expansion, so this option would depend on the next phase of expansion.
7

Attachment A
Yet another option would be a fee -for -service arrangement. The City of Charlotte contracts with
Mecklenburg County Stormwater to perform stream monitoring and other field work in part to take
advantage of the County's prior expertise and experience. Durham County could contract with the
City to perform certain elements or tasks on an annual basis. Fixed services such as monitoring
lend themselves to this type of arrangement because the time and services are well-defined. For
other work elements, a level of service and specific work tasks would need to be negotiated
annually. Durham County would need to establish the scope and level of service needed for the
County stormwater program. The City can then develop a program structure and elements, staffing,
and costs.
Conclusion — Coordination by City and County has eliminated duplication of services, and there
are no immediate savings that can be identified from a consolidated City and County stormwater
program. Pending requirements will create new opportunities for savings. There are options of
continued cooperation and coordination short of consolidation. City staff expects state regulations
and possible pending federal regulations to result in Durham County's regulatory obligations being
very similar to those of the City within five years. City and County management should continue
to coordinate and to explore options. For example, a joint site visit to investigate the various
avenues of coordination between the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County would provide
staff with real world experiences in merging Durham's stormwater programs.
N.

Attachment B
Feasibility and Possible Cost Saving of Joining the Services of the City and County
Stormwater Programs
Prepared by: Chris Roberts, PE, CPESC
Division Manager
Durham County Engineering Department
Prepared on: March 12, 2010
On January 12, 2010, the Joint City -County Committee (JCCC) requested staff to investigate
the potential to combine services performed by both the City and County. This study
specifically addresses the possibility of joining the City and County stormwater programs.
This issue was most recently considered in early 2008. The attached memo and research
paper provides additional details (Attachment 1). There are many ordinance related,
technical, and organizational issues that come with combining the City and County
stormwater programs. The most significant issue is that the City has requirements under an
NPDES stormwater permit that are currently not required of Durham County. As a result, the
scale and scope of the programs are very different. A meeting between the City and County
Stormwater Divisions was held on February 9, 2010 to discuss a joint stormwater program.
Existing Cooperation between the City and County Stormwater Programs
The City and County have a history of cooperation on stormwater issues.
1) Several years ago, an issue was raised by the development community that the review
of developments to be annexed by the City was confusing and noted duplication of
reviews by both the City and County stormwater staff. In 2006, staff from both the
City and County worked together to create a procedure to clearly delineate the review
process of developments to be annexed. This procedure was implemented on January
7, 2007. Since that time, no more issues have been raised by the development
community. The taskplan is attached (Attachment 2).
2) Since 1984, the City and County have had a single erosion control program
administered by Durham County. All private, non-exempt land disturbance activities
within the City and County are regulated. This program meets the City's NPDES
Phase 2 Stormwater permit requirements to regulate construction site runoff.
3) City and County stormwater, soil and water, public works, and legal
departments/divisions have met and continue to meet on a regular basis to talk about a
variety of issues including the new Falls and Jordan Lake legislation
4) The City and County also cooperate on floodplain regulations. The Director of the
City/County Building Inspections Department serves as the City/County Floodplain
Administrator and the City's stormwater staff provides technical assistance on
floodplain development related issues in both City and County jurisdictions.
5) Both the City and County participate in and financially contribute to the Upper Neuse
River Basin Association (UNRBA). UNRBA is a non-profit association that benefits
local governments and educates the public about water quality. The Clean Water
9

Attachment B
Education Partnership focuses on mass media campaigns to educate the public about
stormwater pollution and protecting waterways in the Neuse River Basin.
6) Both the City and County participate in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
(UCFRBA). The UCFRBA contains local government members and permitted
wastewater dischargers within the upper Cape Fear River Basin. The Association
provides an ongoing forum for interested parties to work together on water resources
planning, management and protection issues of mutual concern in the Haw
River/Jordan Lake Sub -Basin and the Deep River Sub -Basin in the uppermost part of
the Cape Fear River Basin
City and County Existing Structure and Funding Systems
Currently, the City's Stormwater Division has approx 70 staff members with 9 professional
engineers. According to the City's Stormwater staff, all are fully tasked. The program's
activities are funded through a stormwater utility fee and development review fees.
The County's S&E Division (Stormwater and Erosion Control) has 4 staff members including
one professional engineer. The County does not have a stormwater utility. Developer's plan
review fees and permit fees partially offset the S&E program activities.
Currently the primary area of overlap between the two programs is in the area of development
review. Existing and on -going cooperation between the City and County on development
review has eliminated duplication of effort as noted previously.
The County currently does not undertake many of the stormwater management activities that
the City is required to implement. As the County is required to implement new program and
tasks under forthcoming Jordan and Falls Lake rules, additional cost -savings might be
anticipated by having those tasks implemented by City staff.
Conclusion
Duplication of City and County stormwater services has already been minimized. At the February
9, 2010, the City's staff indicated that consolidation of the stormwater programs would require
additional staff to meet the obligations of the County's stormwater program requirements. This
would result in no immediate cost benefit to the City. Also with the fundamental differences in
program goals and requirements, level of service would not improve through the consolidation of
the programs.
With the adopted Jordan Lake and proposed Falls Lake mandated nutrient management rules,
increased requirements will be placed on both programs. As a result, Durham County's stormwater
program will have some features similar to a NPDES, Phase 2 permit. This will present additional
opportunities to explore joint services. City and County representatives should continue to meet
on a regular basis to identify new and ongoing issues, coordinate cooperative efforts, reduce
confusion for developers and prevent duplication, as new requirements are placed on the
organizations in the future.
Attachments
10

Attachment B
Attachment 1, Potential Issues with Incorporation of City and County Stormwater
Ordinances into the Unified Development Ordinance, dated: February 27, 2008.
Attachment 2, Stormwater Review Taskplan for Developments to be Annexed, dated
August 2006
11

Attachment C
Charlotte —Mecklenburg Stormwater programs
In discussions of the possible merger of stormwater-related
STORM services at the September 14, 2010 meeting of the Joint City -
WATER County Committee (JCCC), several committee members
Svvkss requested that staff explore how the Charlotte and Mecklenburg
programs operate in a coordinated manner, and provide additional facts and figures on
those programs. Information has been obtained from the Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Stormwater program, a draft of this summary was reviewed with staff from Charlotte -
Mecklenburg Stormwater, and face-to-face discussions took place with Darryl Hammock
and Steve Jadlocki on December 9, 2010 in conjunction with another meeting that
Charlotte was hosting.
Charlotte Stormwater and Mecklenburg Stormwater operate as two separate programs
that operate in a coordinate manner that has eliminated duplication of services and
overlapping functions through formal MOUs and joint funding of programs.
Mecklenburg County developed environmental protection programs in the 1970s, and
began programs to monitor water quality decades before there were federal stormwater
requirements. In the late 1980's following an EPA mandate, local leaders of Charlotte —
Mecklenburg County created a 25-member citizen's advisory task force to develop
recommendations for a framework and policies for a stormwater utility and stand alone
fee -supported stormwater program. In 1993 and 1994, both Charlotte and Mecklenburg
County stormwater services began. Charlotte was the first City to obtain an NPDES
Phase I permit in the state. When the state began issuing Phase II stormwater permits,
Mecklenburg County applied for permit coverage.
The Charlotte and Mecklenburg County programs have been coordinated from the
beginning. There is a single panel, the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Stormwater Advisory
Committee, to provide citizen input and advice to both programs. Certain functions are
carried out county wide including maintenance of the `major' drainage system (serving
more than one square mile), floodplain management, flood mitigation, and public
education. Flood plain management and some other basic services are funded out of a
base utility fee applicable everywhere in Mecklenburg County. Within the City of
Charlotte an additional utility fee is imposed to fund the additional programs that the City
of Charlotte requires, including maintenance/repair/replacement of `minor' drainage
serving less than one square mile.
County -wide stormwater utility rates are established by the Mecklenburg Board of
Supervisors.
Charlotte City Council establishes an additional stormwater utility fee used to repair and
maintain the minor system and to comply with the additional components of Charlotte's
program, including illicit discharge detection and elimination, enhanced public education,
municipal pollution prevention and good housekeeping, and retrofitting of existing
development.
12

Attachment C
Several towns in Mecklenburg County also impose an additional utility fee to fund
maintenance, illicit discharge, and other components of their programs.
A single stormwater billing unit prepares utility bills for city, town and county properties
based on impervious surface, applying the appropriate combination of utility rates. The
billing unit is operated by Mecklenburg County, which has executed agreements with the
City of Charlotte and the towns for which billing services are provided.
Coordination between the two programs is enhanced by the fact that both City and
County have NPDES municipal stormwater permits.
Because Mecklenburg County already had had an extensive stream monitoring program
when both stormwater programs were started, the City of Charlotte has leverage existing
expertise and selectively contracted for services from Mecklenburg County to assist in
fulfilling the City's permit needs. Mecklenburg County has more staff than the City and
pays higher salaries to its engineers. A separate MOU covers work performed by
Mecklenburg County to implement components of the city's program. The City and
County develop a work
plan and budget that are
approved annually, and
the City monitors the work
performed under this
agreement. Over the
years, the annual work
plans have become quite
detailed, currently running
48 pages. Under the
latest such annual
agreement, the City of
Charlotte paid
Mecklenburg County 1.9
million dollars.
Stream monitoring fulfills
objectives for both the city
and county, and there is a
single monitoring program
with the City of Charlotte
paying 77% and
Mecklenburg County
paying 23% based on
monitoring site coverage.
The programs operate a
single stormwater
education program, share
data, and jointly fund
development of GIS data.
Charlotte
Mecklenburg Co.
Mecklenburg Board of
Charlotte City CoundI
County Commissioners
and Mayor (elected}
(elected)
Charlo
Mecklenburg
City Manager
r
Ma
ty pager
nano use &
Che�luutL City EngineerEnvimn
mental Services
Heckler biiy
(LUESA) Diirector
r ULii isle: iYfe[er r
City Enylneviny 0;
-
Water 9 Land ReSa�rces,'
vrepevtyK—ge enu
a eel Pix t
r Lena oerdnpmenteMr��
9
C5noun
rr �lay
ern]
Ster
F=--------------------sCharlotte
EngineeringMecklenburg
County
♦kPropertyWater
& Land
Management�CityResaurces�County
Storm
StormWater Services:Water
Services
Comprised of Four teams that service:
Comprised of Four programs that service:
1) Incorporated areas of Charlotte
1) FEMA-regulated or'majo system
2) Drainage improvements on'minor"
cmeks (draining more than me
system (draining less than one
square mile in all jurisdictions)
square mile inside City limits)
2) Unincorporated amats
3) Surface water management inside
3) Contracted City)'F—rts for'minor'
City limits
system improvements and water
quality
Engineering
Engineering
(Water ed Inv o—ents Int inq
[Steam reY.aretlnn,> Pml
^' qukttl wl iT ana IfmE
rnaJar s4�ms a quelllylnq P "I e
eanWl Pn)etis)
M4erH1
Maintenance
Flood Mitigation
(Polo!,.pairs en PAIk tiro qua➢I,inq
(Reeaplaln m�pYy, 1[ Fmin
Pie Pnp�y)
reyfeel r lboaptafn buyouts)
Water.rality
ZL
operations
(MPDES PMfe i, Methrge-rent,
i. —W a er GeeYspe
Pem%Clnq)Mllgrbnn Bank)
ofj
Administration
Water quality
2.
(Lrven[nry, �Ilfnq, G[5]
(MPDES, meter q mnnlldanp M
label nE Yn ]er'ereeks)
13

Attachment C
Each program annually reviews program needs, funding levels, and any changes needed
utility rates with the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Stormwater Advisory Committee, which
submits requests for utility rate changes to each governing body. Both programs have
steadily expanded to address flooding issues, meet permit requirements, and address
TMDLs through regular, incremental rate increases. The regular increases allow local
programs to demonstrate that they are making progress.
The table below provides the utility rate imposed throughout Mecklenburg County, and
the additional stormwater rate imposed in the City of Charlotte.
Charlotte and Mecklenburg Utility Rates
Residential
Non-residential
Comment
Mecklenburg
cost/month:
$2.75 per ERU
Tier 1 0-1,999 SF
Tier 1 $2.79
Tier II 2,000-2,999 SF
Tier 11 $3.79
Tier III 3,000-4,999 SF
Tier III $5.05
Tier IV 5,000 SF or more
Tier IV $8.69
ERU 2,400 SF
Charlotte
cost/month
$7.23 per ERU
Tier 1 0-1,999 SF
Tier 11 2,000-2,999 SF
Tier 1 $6.12
Tier Ill 3,000-4,999 SF
Tier 11 $8.68
Tier IV 5,000 SF or more
Tier 111 $9.21
ERU 2,400 SF
Tier IV $10.44
14

Attachment D
City Stormwater NPDES Permit
The City of Durham owns and operates a stormwater system. In regulatory terminology
this is a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and in Durham it is largely
associated with city roads and city -owned lands.
Under the federal Clean Water Act and state law, North Carolina has issued the city a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater permit
authorizing discharges from this system. The City's stormwater program is focused on
developing and implementing programs to comply with this permit, which includes the
following major categories of requirements:
1. System inspection, operation, repair and maintenance
2. Program implementation, financing and management
3. Public education and outreach
4. Public involvement and participation
5. Pollution source discharge detection and elimination
6. Construction site runoff control'
7. Post -construction runoff control
8. Pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations (catch-all)
9. Program to monitor and control pollutants to the municipal stormwater system
(includes industrial inspections)
10. Program to Monitor and Assess Water Quality
11. Water Quality Recovery Programs for Watersheds
with Total Maximum Daily Loads (will lead to
retrofitting)
These eleven major categories or `measures' cover the
structural conveyance, management and treatment
systems, and they also include a very diverse collection of
non-structural measures including system inspection, street
sweeping, household hazardous waste collection,
management measures for city mobile fueling operations,
spill prevention and cleanup, industrial and business
inspections, etc. As envisioned in the permit, stormwater
management is a far-reaching set of activities, measures
and practices that impact virtually every department and
division within city government in a similar manner as OSHA
health and safety rules.
Some city programs provide
services to county residents:
• Public education support
for educators.
• Household hazardous
waste collection center.
Other programs are
coordinated between city and
county staff:
• Review of proposed state
and federal regulatory
activities and actions
• Post -construction plan
review.
• Pollution source
identification and
elimination.
The major measures listed above are implemented in accordance with a Stormwater
Management Plan that details what, how, when and by whom various steps will be taken.
The permit and stormwater management plans include implementation schedules that
1 Erosion & sediment plan review and site inspection is performed by Durham County for privately -funded
development and by NC Division of Land Quality or NC Department of Transportation for publicly -funded
projects.
15

Attachment D
allow capacity to be built over time, with new activities added through the five-year life of
the permit.
Needs under the permit also evolve through mandated program review. The city is
required to review the effectiveness of its program annually and to modify the Stormwater
Management Plan and program to improve effectiveness over time. The NPDES
stormwater permit is revised and reissued every five years. Significant new requirements
are anticipated at each permit renewal. As the permits and stormwater management
plans become increasingly specific and outcome oriented, regulators are increasingly
asking for measureable performance and outcome indicators (example: demonstrate that
your public education program has increased public awareness using scientific polling.)
The resources needed to comply with each measure continue to change, altering
requirements under each of the major categories in the permit.
There are three separate state and local programs operating within Durham County that
regulate construction site runoff. Publicly -funded projects are monitored and regulated by
either the NC Division of Land Quality or the NC Department of Transportation. For
construction site runoff from privately funded development, Durham County operates an
effective program to control sediment and erosion. The City relies on all three programs
to comply with item 6 above. However, none of these programs handles pollutants other
than sediment, as required under the state's separate NPDES General Permit 1100000
for construction. The permit imposes additional requirements related to storage and
handling of fuels and lubricants, clean-up of spills, trash, etc. The City is currently
supplementing the state and local programs through investigation of reporting by city
residents.
Currently the City does not have an explicit requirement to retrofit existing development,
although requirements for Water Quality Recovery Programs for lower Third Fork Creek
and Northeast Creek under item 11 will likely necessitate building such stormwater
treatment systems.
The City's NPDES permit includes requirements that are to be added in accordance with
a schedule. Additional positions have been approved for the current fiscal year to
improve capability and begin to address requirements in the areas of stormwater system
repair and maintenance, utility construction inspection, annual inspection of privately -
owned stormwater treatment systems, watershed planning, industrial inspection and
monitoring, municipal pollution prevention programs for city maintenance and repair
activities.
Existing programs and staffing levels are not adequate to meet all of the requirements
scheduled under the current permit.
16

Attachment E
Summary Financial Information on City and County Programs
Table E-1
Summary Program and Financial Information
2011 Budget
General
Department
Number of
Expenditures
Current & Future Requirements
Category
Home
FTEs
[Revenue,
source]
Current requirements: System
operation, maintenance & repair,
$10,771,598
NPDES Phase I and Phase II
City
Public
[$8,650,000
permit requirements, Neuse Rules,
Stormwater
Works +
92.5
utility,
WSWS rules.
Utility
transfers
$250,000
other]
Future requirements: Jordan Lake
Rules, Falls Lake Rules, future
NPDES permit requirements to
retrofit existing development.
Current requirements: Neuse Rules,
County
$136,153
WSWS rules.
Stormwater
Engineering
1
[$8,740, plan
Future requirements: Jordan Lake,
review fees]
Falls Lake Rules, future NPDES
permit.
City/County
$183,344
Current requirements: State
Erosion
Engineering
2
[$180,171
Sediment Control Law; Future
Control
plan & permit
requirements: federal effluent limits
fees]
for construction sites.
City/County
Planning
46 total in
Specific
Current requirements: NPDES
UDO
the
budget
Phase I and Phase II permit
Administration
department
amount for
requirement, Neuse Rules. Future
these items
requirements: Jordan Lake Rules,
not
Falls Lake Rules, future NPDES
available.
permit requirements to retrofit
existing development.
City/County
Inspections
1
Specific
The City/County Director of
NFIP
Note: total
budget
Building Inspection is the
Floodplain
FTE's that
amount for
Floodplain Administrator. Program
Administration
participated
these items
is administered cooperatively by
are shared
not
Planning Department, Inspections
with above.
available.
Department, and City and County
Stormwater Programs.
17

Attachment E
Table E-2
City Stormwater Management Fund FY2011
Actual
FY 2008-09
Adopted
FY 2009-
10
Adopted
FY 2010-
11
Change
Authorized Positions
Public Works, full time
86.0
86.0
92.5
+6.5
Public Works, part time
2.0
2.0
1.0
Revenues
Operating Revenues
Stormwater utility)
$
8,300,619
$
8,446,699
$
9,809,025
16.1 %
Investment & Rental Income
38,998
33,593
39,818
18.5%
Miscellaneous Revenue (Permit
Fees
59,436
150,000
103,727
-30.8%
Transfers from Other Funds
210,000
232,047
232,047
0.0%
Appropriations from Fund
Balance
-
-
586,981
100.0%
Total Revenues
$
8,609,053
8,862,339
10,771,598
21.5%
Appropriations
Personal Services
5,024,867
5,254,676
5,740,502
9.2%
Operating
2,173,579
2,159,409
2,506,091
16.1 %
Capital
48,531
54,900
44,000
-19.9%
Transfers to Other Funds
1,069,190
1,393,354
2,481,005
78.1 %
Transfers to Fund Balance
292,886
-
-
0.0%
Total Appropriations
$
8,609,053
8,862,339
10,771,598
21.5%
Departmental Appropriations
Public Works
6,613,116
6,501,515
7,281,600
12.0%
Solids Waste
227,943
240,000
243,000
1.3%
Nondepartmental Appropriations
1,767,994
2,120,824
3,246,998
53.1 %
Total Appropriations
$
8,609,053
8,862,339
10,771,598
21.5%
Source: City Budget, pp IV-14, V-23
Non -departmental charges include a payment to the General Fund for indirect costs,
a payment to the Water and Sewer Fund for the Stormwater Fund share of utility
billing and payment to the Risk Fund for insurance.
18

Attachment E
Table E-3
Durham County
Environmental Protection Approved Budget
2008-2009
2009-2010
2009-2010
2010-2011
2010-2011
Actual
Original
12 Month
Department
Commissioner
Business area
Expenditures
Budget
Estimate
Requested
Approved
General Service (Solid
Waste)
$1,942,866
$1,983,811
$2,005,359
$2,013,684
$1,973,684
Environmental Engineering
(*Erosion Control, Project
Management, Sustainability,
Open Space& Real Estate
Management,
Transportation Demand
$1,454,462
$1,416,843
$1,520,302
$1,431,427
$1,411,427
-Management
Other Environmental
Protection (Forest
Protection)
$41,393
$63,661
$63,661
$61,751
$63,661
Overall Result
$ 3,438,721
$3,464,315
$3,589,322
$3,506,862
$3,448,772
Environmental Engineering- Erosion Control
2008-2009
2009-20010
2009-20010
2010-2011
2010-2011
Actual
Original
12 Month
Department
Commissioner
Business area
Expenditures
Budget
Estimate
Requested
Approved
Expenditures
Personnel
$380,243
$316,549
$309,257
$263,485
$263,185
Operating
$32,865
$48,823
$34,000
$49,135
$49,135
Total Expenditures
$413,108
$365,372
$343,257
$312,620
$312,320
Revenues
Licenses & Permits
$288,146
$293,391
$188,013
$188,270
$188,270
Sewer Connect. Fees
$3,300
$1,000
$500
$641
$641
Other Revenues
$4,214
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Revenues
$295,661
$294,391
$188,513
$188,911
$188,911
Net Expenditures
$117,448
$70,981
$154,744
$123,709
$123,409
FTEs
6
5
5
4
4
19

Attachment F
Stormwater Review Taskplan for Developments to be Annexed
Submittal
Review Task
Review Party
Concurrence
Parties
Re -zoning
All
County
None
Site Plans & Plats
Buffers
County
None
Nitrogen - Neuse
County
None
1,2, 10 yr Pre/Post -
City
County
Neuse and Cape
Fear to stream buffer
or to property
boundary
BMP sizing
city
County'
WSWS
city
County'
Flood lain
Cilz
County'
Construction
All
CitY2
None
Drawings, Operation
and Maintenance
Agreements,
Bonding, and
Permitting
For review tasks with a concurrence party, the City will complete the reviews and e-mail
comments to the concurrence party and a courtesy copy to City Planning. After sign -off,
the concurrence party will forward all comments to Planning. The City will have the
review comments e-mailed at least one day prior to the due date to allow the concurrence
party review time.
2 If the annexation is denied or not acted upon prior to Certification of Occupancy, then all
of these items must be reviewed by County staff. Fees for stormwater plan review will be
required for County reviews.
911

Attachment G
TahIP (--1
Summary of Current and Anticipated Regulations Imposing Unfunded
Federal and State Mandates on City of Durham and Durham County
Activity, statistic, Unincorporated
requirement or program City of Durham Durham County
element (outside city
limits
Neuse
Currently applicable NPDES permit, (implemented
post -construction Neuse, Jordan, jurisdiction -wide
stormwater treatment Falls (partially) to partially meet
Jordan)
Water Quality
Reduction
Recover
requirements in current
Programs for
N/A
NPDES MS4 permit
Third Fork
Creek,
Northeast Creek
8% reduction in
8% reduction in
Mandated reductions,
nitrogen,
nitrogen,
Jordan Lake, Stage 2,
5% reduction in
5% reduction in
begins March 2014
phosphorous
phosphorous
from 2001 load
from 2001 load
Further reductions,
35% reduction
35% reduction
Jordan Lake, begins
in nitrogen
in nitrogen
2023
from 2001 load
from 2001 load
Sewage collection systems,
discharging sand filter systems,
Falls Lake reduction
functioning and malfunctioning
planning inventories
septic systems, utility corridor
and load reduction
restoration, fertilizer plans for local
potential by December,
government land, existing
2012
structural stormwater practices,
and enhancement and restoration
opportunities for wetlands and
riparian buffers.
Draft rule reductions, Reduce Reduce
Falls Lake, Stage 1 nitrogen & nitrogen &
2011 to 2021 phosphorous to phosphorous to
2006load 2006load
21
Comments
Both City and
County have
adopted
requirements in
advance of Jordan
Lake rules; County
needs to reduce
limit for nitrogen and
adopt limit for
Phosphorous.
City and County
each must meet the
same reduction
requirements.
Opportunities for
making reduction
are very different
between city and
unincorporated
county.

Attachment G
TahIP (--1
Summary of Current and Anticipated Regulations Imposing Unfunded
Federal and State Mandates on City of Durham and Durham County
Activity, statistic,
UnincorporatedDurham
requirement or program
City of Durham
County
(outside city
element
limits
Jurisdictions in the Eno River and
Little River subwatersheds shall,
Draft rule reductions,
as a part of their Stage I load
Falls Lake, Stage 1
reduction programs, begin and
2011 to 2021
continuously implement a program
to reduce loading from discharging
sand filters and malfunctioning
septic systems
40% reduction
40% reduction
Draft rule reductions,
in nitrogen,
in nitrogen,
Falls Lake, Stage 2,
77% reduction
77% reduction
Begins 2021
in phosphorous
in phosphorous
from 2006 load
from 2006 load
Comments
USEPAis
developing new
Post-
Post-
nationwide rules for
Future NPDES MS4
construction
construction
stormwater that are
permit anticipated
stormwater
stormwater
likely to meld Phase
under forthcoming
management,
management,
1 and Phase 2
federal rule -making
retrofitting
retrofitting
requirements, and
apply to jurisdictions
that currently are
not covered.
22

Attachment H
Monitoring Needs for Falls Lake and Jordan Lake Watershed
Nutrient management plans are developed with the data you have,
not the data you wish you had.
Local governments are required to make significant reduction in nutrient contributions
under the existing development rules for the Jordan Lake and Falls Lake. A number
of sources were identified in the watershed modeling conducted for these nutrient
management strategies, but many in the scientific and regulated communities have
questioned assumptions that were used.
The watershed model was intended to provide only general guidance in identifying
major categories of sources of nutrients that needed to be regulated. These models
were limited in part by the data that was available at the time.
Limited data locations —The
watershed models were not
calibrated to multiple locations
within the watershed because
monitoring data was not available;
Watershed model too coarse - The
watershed model for each lake
was not set up to allocate load to
the contributing jurisdictions, which
is a necessary first step in order to
set up an accounting system for
tracking progress toward goals;
No verification - While the lake
model was calibrated using data
from one year, and then verified
using data for another year, these
steps were not carried out for the
watershed model.
Monitoring Used to In Falls Lake
And Jordan Lake Rule -Making Process
MODEL,
ATERSHED
Improved monitoring is essential for any o J RQAkNV TrR5 �o
reassessment of goals and requirements.
Regulators were concerned that even if data collection began soon, there would not
be sufficient time to collect data, complete assessment, conduct any modeling, etc. to
complete that reassessment by 2021. While the adopted rules have extended the
timeline, monitoring needs to begin soon.
Reassessment aside, local governments need better information on which to rest
management decisions. Improved monitoring is essential for any distribution or
allocation of loads to specific jurisdictions. Without an agreed upon accounting
system for tracking loads and reductions, monitoring is the best way of assuring that
we are treated in a fair and equitable manner.
23

Attachment H
Monitoring is also essential to be able to track progress. A large pool of nutrients is
stored in bottom sediment in these lakes. These nutrients can cycle between the
sediment and the water column and consequently stay in the system, rather than
being release downstream. Thus, even after local governments have reduced
nutrients from wastewater and existing development, the lake may not show
improvement for a number of years. Monitoring nutrient loads in local streams allows
local governments to demonstrate that they have made adequate progress even if
the lake does not yet reflect improvement.
The total contribution of nutrients — referred to as nutrient load - can be determined
by frequently measuring nutrient concentration at location where stream flow is also
monitored. The monitoring locations shown on the map that were used for Falls Lake
and Jordan Lake monitoring have stream gages operated by the US Geological
Survey with local funding.
The City of Durham has
funded six additional USGS
gaging stations to enable
monitoring of nutrient loads
associated with existing
development in the City of
Durham. Gages appear to
have been added at other
locations. Compared to the
monitoring network that was
used for Falls Lake and
Jordan Lake, the network that
now exists is substantially
more robust. USGS gaging
stations that are currently
operating are shown in green
on the map to the right.
Most of the City's streams
begin in the city rather than
flowing through the city.
A number of streams enter
Durham County from other
jurisdictions. This can make it
more complicated for Durham
Monitoring for Falls Lake
And Jordan Lake Watersheds
Q ROP: p%etmFg.
County to separate its contribution from upstream contributors. The four locations
indicated as yellow circles would need to be monitored to assess impacts from
upstream sources.
One of these four locations, the one on New Hope Creek, is in the Jordan Lake
watershed, which is facing less severe reductions. This location is not a high priority
WE

Attachment H
because there is not much unincorporated county land between this location and the
USGS gaging station further downstream. In Jordan Lake, most existing
development is on RTP and is already monitored by an existing gage in that
watershed.
In the Falls Lake watershed there are three potential monitoring locations that should
be considered. Two of these are along the border with Orange County on tributaries
of Little River. Joint funding by Orange County and Durham County might be
appropriate. A third is needed to monitor Lick Creek. A forth existing USGS gage
currently measures only stage to help provide advance notice for flood warning. This
station should be upgraded to also measure flow. Capital and operating costs are
provided below.
Table H-1
Monitoring Program Elements and Cost
Falls Lake Watershed for Durham County
Program element Capital Cost I Annual Cost I Comments
Monitoring of Stream Flow
This is essential for
monitoring loads.
Guess Rd near
Little River #1 (stage
$14000
$14
Brightwater Lane;
and discharge)
,,000
monitor load from
Orange Count
New Sharon
Little River #2 (stage
$14000
$14
Church Road
and discharge)
,,000
(alternate: South
Lowell Road
Eno River at Cole Mill
Road (convert from
$3,400
$10,000
stage only to stage and
discharge)
Lick Creek (stage and
$14,000
$14,000
discharge)
Monitoring of nutrient concentrations
Monthly monitoring of
Total Kjeldahl
nutrient parameters at
nitrogen, ammonia,
three locations,
$0
$6,000
nitrite+nitrate, total
laboratory cost
phosphorous, ortho-
certified lab)
phosphorous
Labor for sample
$0
collection
Total cost
$45,400
$58,000
25