Pittsboro staff outlines full stormwater program and proposes a stormwater fund and fee

Miss Armstrong, the town’s development services/stormwater lead, spent the meeting’s largest block of time explaining a proposed, comprehensive stormwater program she said the town needs as it grows.

She told the board the program would cover permit compliance (a phase 2 MS4 approach as the town grows), updated land‑use code (UDO Chapter 4), floodplain protection and freeboard standards, maintenance requirements for stormwater control measures (SCMs), and a monitoring and data backbone that could include lidar analysis, watershed dashboards and stream gauges. "For me, specifically, my role in that includes the flood plan administrator, the stormwater administrator, and making sure that we coordinate with all of the different divisions," she said.

Staff proposed creating a dedicated stormwater enterprise fund to support inspections, maintenance and capital repairs. Miss Armstrong said the initial design study and framework work would cost in the low thousands to hire a consultant; she estimated a stormwater fund structure and study budget roughly in the order of $150,000 to seed the program and pay for initial analyses. She described likely consultant and implementation numbers: watershed studies could cost $250,000 or more (Turkey Creek was named the highest priority), lidar and dashboard integration might run from about $9,000 up to the mid five figures depending on scope, and river/stream monitoring stations could be $25,000–$50,000 each. "The stormwater fund itself is roughly gonna be about 150,000," she said.

Miss Armstrong laid out how a fee would work: a tiered utility charged by impervious area, possibly phased in over years. She said fees could range by tier from low-dollar monthly amounts for small residential parcels to higher tiers for commercial properties; the consultant framework would set the rate structure. She described possible residential/commercial monthly ranges in the $1.22–$5 range depending on impervious area and tier assignment and emphasized options to phase implementation so ratepayers adjust gradually.

She also emphasized maintenance and access as long‑term constraints: SCMs must be sized, located and built so staff (or contractors) can maintain them, and the town must guard against allowing developers to transfer maintenance responsibilities back to the town without clear acceptance or funding. For older or incomplete subdivisions, bonding and performance requirements were described as possible mechanisms to avoid uncompleted conversions from sediment basins to functioning SCMs.

Commissioners asked about the town’s water source (not Jordan Lake), the potential for changing storm frequency standards at the state level, and whether previously approved development plans would be subject to the new fee. Miss Armstrong said some higher standards could be requested in permits where appropriate, that regulatory changes were under study at several states, and that the fee would apply to impervious area across properties once the utility is established. She listed program next steps as rewriting the UDO, drafting the stormwater manual, pursuing watershed studies, installing monitoring stations and pursuing grant matches.

Next procedural steps Miss Armstrong outlined were internal legal review, planning board consideration, and then a return to the board for ordinance adoption if the board directs staff to proceed. She repeatedly urged grant-seeking to match local funds and recommended starting with targeted watershed studies (Turkey Creek) while pursuing smaller immediate repairs and maintenance where possible.

The town’s proposed approach tries to balance regulatory compliance, long-term maintenance and a funding mechanism to provide recurring resources for inspections, repair and restoration. Staff flagged that implementation will require consultant assistance, new staff and a clear public outreach plan before any fee becomes operative.

Ending: Board members thanked the presenter and asked staff for follow-up materials with cost examples, grant prospects and a recommended phasing and outreach plan ahead of budget workshops.