Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Zimmerman felt that if there are remaining funds after drainage problems have <br />been corrected then he thought the Storm Water Utility Fund could be used for this type of thing, <br />but the primary use should be to correct drainage problems. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak suggested that they possibly re-visit the formula on how the Storm Water <br />Utility fund is being charged on the residential side. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson explained that in his experience with storm water utility fees, the <br />City of Ramsey's formula for charging the fees is one of the most accurate. If they were going to <br />restructure the formula they would need to decide what storm event would be used. Currently <br />the City uses a five year rain event so the factors are smaller than if they were to use a lighter <br />rainfall event such as a one or two year. They would also need to categorize the land uses and <br />determine the land conditions, which is extremely difficult to manage. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that he likes Ramsey approach for charging the fee because it is so <br />accurate. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that the real impervious surface in the City of Ramsey is the roads <br />themselves that everyone uses. She inquired if there was a way to handle the issue similar to the <br />road maintenance program. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson noted that staff was not proposing to increase the Storm Water <br />Utility fee because the City is being required to implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention <br />plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak questioned how it was going to be feasible to cover the costs for the <br />Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan without increasing the Stormwater Utility fees. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen noted that some of the funds being used for the Stormwater Pollution <br />Prevention Plan are coming from other funding sources. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that it was her understanding that the first two years of initiating <br />the Storm Water Utility funds, the fund would be operating in the negative. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that that was true, but explained that the City corrected <br />three large problems when the fund was first initiated. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that she does not want the City to be caught without any money in <br />the Storm Water Utility Fund if the City is faced with a drainage problem that needs to be <br />corrected. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson stated that he was confident that the City would not need to <br />increase the Sto~rn Water Utility fees because with all the new developments coming into the <br />City it increases the amount of money that is collected for the fund. <br /> <br />-28- <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/May 6, 2003 <br /> Page 2 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />