1994-11-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes November 22, 1994 Page 3 Council Business. continued Residential properties would pay less than industrial/commercial properties. Single and two family residential properties would pay $3.10 per lot per quarter as opposed to commercial properties paying $38.70 per acre per quarter. The reason for the inclusion of churches and schools is that these properties do impact stormwater needs and currently pay for water and sewer services. Neighboring communities require churches and schools to contribute to their utility plan, and New Brighton residents currently subsidize stormwater costs in other communities through school district taxes. An analysis was performed on a Windsor Green townhome valued at $100,000. If the utility fund were adopted, a townhome unit would be charged $7.19 annually as opposed to $15.49 through property taxes. A Windsor Green owner would be eligible for an income tax deduction of $4.65 which results in a real cost of $10.84. In comparison, the annual utility fund cost for a Windsor Green unit would be $7.19 and would actually provide a $3.65 advantage over the property tax approach. It appears that the breakeven point for properties valued at $87,000 or higher would see a reduction when the utility method is used. The primary advantages of the utility fund over a general tax levy are: providing equity in allocation of stormwater costs, reviewing the impacts of particular land uses and stormwater drainage requirements, allowing the City to prepare financial requirements for future projects, and would not require the inclusion of stormwater improvements into the general fund requirements. It provides Council and residents the opportunity to improve cost accountability processes for this responsibility. In regards to the disparity between New Brighton's proposed rates and other communities, this disparity relates to the number of parcels which share costs and stormwater related projects/costs financed through the fund. It was staff opinion that the costs installed within the fund pertain only to reconstruction of the stormwater system. Marjorie Meyer, 250 Windsor Lane, noted concern of the City approach to this fund and the equitableness of double taxation which is eventually passed down to the residents. She feels schools and churches should be tax-exempt from this fee and questioned the reason for a large tax burden falling upon lessor expensive homes. She feels a task force should be created to research this proposal. Benke explained that a year ago, Council requested staff to research establishment of a stormwater utility fund. Staff worked to assemble the information, and Council felt the status was far enough along to go forward with further deliberation. At that point, the information was made known to the public, but the issue had been discussed for sometime at Council and staff level. There have been numerous newspaper articles and meetings which provided opportunity for residents to express their opinions. The information regarding other communities was just recently researched by staff. The fund provides the means to raise revenue for reconstruction projects. The question is whether to associate costs to a property's value or its impact on the stormwater system. It appears to be better policy to charge fees according to a property's contribution to stormwater costs. The premise of "Reinventing Government" is to more directly tie the cost of doing business in the public section to the value being derived. Council Business Stormwater Utility Plan Report 94-271 Ordinance 608 I', . .