1994-11-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes November 7, 1994 Page 5 Council Business. continued Fulton said the Stormwater Management Study was performed to determine and establish projected future needs of the stormwater system. The deficient which Witzke referred to relates to costs incurred or committed to during prior years which are rolled into an utility based system and paid accordingly. This utility will be accountable and paid for on a basis which follows a system as equitable as possible. Fulton asked Ms. Nowlin's knowledge of any community which had implemented a stormwater utility and then turned away from it. Ms. Nowlin had not researched that issue. Fulton feels that more and more communities will begin adopting these plans. Olson is unaware of any stormwater utility plans which have been turned back to the General Fund. Witzke asked where do the funds to pay for budgeted projects come from. Benke said the budget provides for a surplus from other projects or funds, and reserves are drawn upon for major changes when warranted. If funds are not available, some projects are delayed or not performed. Hubert Harmon, 228 Windsor Ln., feels the proposed utility charges are apportioned arbitrarily, stormwater costs should be paid by general property taxes, the impact of this tax would be great on those least able to pay, and approval of the utility may be seen as a model to split out other services to be taxed individually. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere explained that New Brighton can only charge for utilities which are authorized by the Legislature. The Legislature has authorized cities to collect user fees for water, stormwater, and sanitary sewer services. Special assessments are collected from School Districts and are not tax deductible. Gunderman acknowledged that much research has been performed by staff, but questioned if the Citizen Study Commission (CSC) should perform a review. Fulton noted that based on Council direction, it was the conclusion to assume the establishment of the utility system and the approval process was enroute to estimate the budget. If the Council elects not to approve the utility, the budget will need to be recalculated. He noted that the maximum tax levy which was certified to Ramsey County is an increase of 4 % and allowed for sufficient cushion. Benke said the Council may delay the matter for continued dialogue during the budgeting process. If Council chose to use property taxes for projects performed in 1995, Council would have the option to raise property taxes to that 4% amount. If the utility fund were adopted, Council would recommend the proposed 2 % increase. He has not heard a great amount of opposition regarding this plan, however, the issue could be delayed and reviewed in time for the 1995 budgeting process. Samuelson feels that funding which is applied to a taxing district provides for a more effective regulation of those funds; than when the proceeds are buried in the general fund. Larson said the budgetary process is open for public involvement and the budget's format clearly provides for line expense items. He agrees that copies be available at public libraries, but noted the City Hall accommodates requests. He referred to Ms. Nowlin's comments that other cites may have included street light costs and other expenditures into their utility fund. He firmly believes that New Brighton would not hid costs in their budget. Nowlin said she did not imply that the City is doing underhanded budgeting methods. Benke noted the Legislature does allow an option for cities to charge fees for stormwater costs. Council Business Stormwater Utility Plan Report 94-263