1994-09-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Meeting Minutes September 27, 1994 Page 4 Council Business. continued After reviewing the appeal process of other cities, staff felt the first appeal would be made to the Public Works Director. If the owner does not agree with the Director's decision, it could then be appealed to Council. Any delinquent amount greater than $100 by more than 90 days could be certified to Ramsey County. Staff polled cities with stormwater utilities and found the majority did not charge parcels whose land extends into a lake or pond. Most of the City lakefront property was found in the R-l District. Since single family residential fees are not based on parcel size, there will not be an adjustment for those lots. Because there are not many parcels charged on an area basis which also have property extending into a City-owned lake or pond, staff felt it would not be difficult to calculate that parcel's amount of usable land. Staff feels that in order to evaluate these parcels, updated aerial photos will be needed. A stormwater utility fund would alleviate the confusion of the assessment procedure. The system would be completely maintained and operated with the use of this fund and it would be much easier to track storm drainage costs yearly. Olson noted the importance of resident acceptance of the plan, and listed the two public informational meetings to be held in October. Samuelson asked what are the consequences if the plan was not installed. Olson said there would be no consequences, but noted the Oakwood Drive situation. Fulton said the Five Year Plan budget includes the assumption that the City would proceed with the stormwater utility fund. The utility district approach is a method to equitably assess those costs for maintaining the stormwater utility. The Five Year Plan contains a five year cost of $861,200 for the utility fund. Benke noted that if Congress does not take action to enact the Clean Water bill or provide other action, the City could become subject to Federal requirements of a stormwater plan. City Engineer Les Proper explained that cities over 100,000 have enacted these requirements which involve the filing of lengthy permits and costs. According to the formula, Benke noted that area churches will be charged quarterly fees ranging from $5.35 to $150 per quarter. Single family and two family residential would pay $3.09 per lot per quarter. Olson showed the current division of property taxes between the classifications. About 35% is bore by residential properties; 46% by commercial/industrial; 13.5% by apartments; churches, schools and other tax exempts are under 3 % . Williams asked for clarification of the lakefront properties exemption. Olson said that because many lakefront properties extend into a pond or lake, it would not appear fair to charge these properties on a per area basis when the land is not producing runoff. Williams confirmed that other land uses may receive exemptions. Benke noted the exemption criteria used to demonstrate an increase in water quality or decrease in runoff, and asked if a containment system installed by a business is acceptable. Olson said a containment system would fit the criteria, but noted that single family homes are not eligible for credits. Gunderman confirmed that townhouse developments or apartments would be eligible. Council Business I Stormwater Utility Plan Report 94-221 I I