Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Connolly, Zimmerman, and Hendr/ksen. Voting <br />No: Mayor Gamec and Councilmember Anderson. <br /> <br />Case #4: <br /> <br />Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving the Credits Available for the <br />Storm Drainage Utility <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson stated that on November 23, 1999, the City Council introduced an <br />ordinance creating a storm drainage utility. The utility was adopted on January 11, 2000. On <br />June 27, 2000, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing the storm drainage utility fees. <br />by amending the 2000 schedule of rates, fees and charges. To successfully implement a storm <br />drainage utility, the utility must be considered fair and equitable. To be considered fair and <br />equitable, the storm drainage utility should be set up in a way to bill the person responsible for <br />the utility a reasonable amount based on the runoff that is produced from their site. The City <br />Council has taken a large step in making this utility equitable by choosing a method that is based <br />on the amount of improved surface on each site rather than basing the utility charge on land use. <br />Many utilities through, out the Twin Cities that have been successful in implementing storm <br />drainage utilities have established a credit system to reward local businesses and developments <br />for being responsible for their storm drainage. The resolution before the Council would offer up <br />to a 25% credit for the rate of runoff from their site and up to an additional 25% credit for those <br />parties that provide a water quality benefit to the runoff from their site. In order to qualify for <br />these credits, the property owner must apply for each credit and provide the City with <br />justification for each credit. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson inquired if the resolution should read "improved" or "impervious". <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that the resolution should read "improved", so that areas such as a <br />parking lot that is not paved, but produces run-off, is included in the calculations. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if staff was recommending using "improved" throughout the resolution <br />rather than "impervious". <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied yes. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich noted that the word "improved" from a legal standpoint is adequate. <br /> <br />Gary Hanson, Bake Star, Inc., inquired if the term "improved" was defined anywhere. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that there is no true definition of"improved". <br /> <br />Mr. Hanson inquired if "improved" becomes subjective on an individual basis. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodr/ch stated that as long as parcels are treated fairly it would be appropr/ate <br />terminology. <br /> <br />City Council/July 11, 2000 <br />Page 8 of 15 <br /> <br />-83- <br /> <br /> <br />