1994-10-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Meeting Minutes October 25, 1994 Page 6 Council Business. continued I Olson said most residents agreed with the proposal when shown a chart illustrating the proposed decreases in the residential percentage of responsibility for storm water projects. It will provide a decrease from 51 % to 35% for single family homes. but there will be an increase for commercial/industrial properties mainly because they generate more runoff than single family homes. Other concerns stated include: loss of income tax deduction to residential properties; assurance of reduction to the City's general tax levy associated with storm sewer maintenance costs; and assurance the budget follows the same proceedings as the general tax levy budget. Olson showed a chart which illustrated that the impact to single family homes would provide for a slight increase in homes valued at $70,000, but homes valued at $87,000 or more would see a cost savings. Staff has not received feedback from businesses. At the informational meeting, Harold Kurtz from Mounds View School District expressed concern that one jurisdictional agency could charge another agency a user fee. Staff contacted the cities of Mounds View, Arden Hills and Shoreview which are located within the Mounds View School District and found all have stormwater utilities and collect fees from the School District. The feedback from churches stated that non-profits should not be charged this fee. Olson said that if churches were excluded from the utility, there would be a $.06 increase in quarterly fees. The stormwater utility is akin to service charges for water, sanitary sewer, gas, etc. which churches now pay. I Samuelson asked when the business notices were sent and if they were received after October 13. Olson said business notices were mailed with the residential notices, and. If notices were received after October 13, persons could still attend the October 18 meeting. Fulton confrrmed there has been no negative feedback from businesses. Samuelson verified that other communities include churches in the rate schedule. Olson said some communities have different land classifications; but staff felt schools should be classified differently than churches because school property includes soccer or ball fields that do not contribute runoff. Gunderman asked if the New Brighton proposal varies from other communities. Olson said Roseville's credit system involves a curve structure. but New Brighton's proposal would credit at a flat fee. Gunderman asked about the procedures required for appealing a fee decision. Olson clarified that if a property owner believes that a particular fee is incorrect; and does not agree with the decision of the Public Works Director, the owner may appeal that decision to Council. Gunderman asked if a church which has a retaining pond could receive a credit. Olson noted three reasons for credits: significantly less development, increasing water quality, and decreasing runoff. All of reasons have set criteria. Fulton explained that the basis for the utility involved the investigation of stormwater utility demands anticipated in the next five years. The utility is structured so to accommodate those construction needs. I Gunderman noted concern that the cost factors could involve an element of error. Fulton confrrmed that criteria used to develop the land uses were based on engineering calculations. Obviously, every piece of land differs, but residential land will have a consistent drainage amount; and commercial/industrial would be charged based on acreage. The appeal process would be initiated when a variation appears.