|
Case #2: Continuation of Discussion of the Storm Drain.age Utility
<br />
<br /> City Engineer Olson stated that the Council adopted Ordinance #00-01 creating a
<br /> utility on January I 1, 2000. Pursuant to Ordinance #00-01, the Council
<br />06-165 establishing the storm drainage utility rates and charges. On July 2
<br />adopted Ordinance #00-10 wkich Ordinance amended 'Ordinance #00~,
<br />Council direction on September 26, 2000, staff reviewed the runoff c:
<br />located at 14047 Azurite Street NW as it relates to a single family
<br />square feet of impervious area. Ve-Ve, Inc. is located on the
<br />According the aerial photograph it has an impervious
<br />parking areas, equal to 65,044 square feet. This amounts
<br />than a residential property with 2,500 square feet of
<br />drainage utility fee of$185.98 per quarter and a resi&
<br />of $6.30 per quarter. Ve-Ve, Inc. pays
<br />
<br /> City can't collect
<br /> Utility is that the property
<br /> the st~ sewer. Mr.
<br /> property
<br /> 'and industrial
<br /> 27% of the
<br />Under the storm
<br />57% and residential
<br />system. If the money
<br />tax levy and as a function of
<br />pick up an additional' $98,000. Since there
<br />the .City of Ramsey, this equates to an
<br />expenditure projection along with
<br />sewer projects throughout the City, City
<br />
<br /> Another issue that arose during the public hearing was the
<br /> this on the property tax levy. The premise behind the storm
<br /> that produces more of the problem pays more of the costs assoc~
<br /> Olson reviewed some graphs that illustrated the impacts to single
<br /> owners of collecting this taxes. Although
<br /> property pay a higher tax than only pay for
<br /> property tax levy and resi~
<br /> drainage utility, commercial and in
<br /> property produces 43% of the costs
<br /> collected through the storm drainage
<br /> the property value,~:tfi~:'residential
<br /> · . ~,~.,, :07 ~,~,::. ii,.
<br /> is appro xlmatet~ 5~,600 i'eStdential
<br /> additional $z.[~:50 per reslde~ on average.
<br /> the need., f6~:!:~;' dedicated so~e of revenue
<br /> staff rec6~ended
<br />
<br /> John VeVe, he' came to the last meeting to try to show how
<br /> unfair the dollar amours the Council were asking the businesses to pay on the square foot of
<br />?>;~:,~.~n'npervmus ground mi~:relattonshlp to what a home own
<br /> ,, ~ er was a in er s u
<br /> . ..... '-::~,~: ,~;,. . . .i'i;:.~.~. ~, . _ P Y g p q are foot of
<br /> lmpervmus; grounu, ne '~ge-a.r~¢i~Xample not based on fact, but based on s ua .
<br />.... ~...,:..,~ ',:..~::.:~,:.~.?~* q re footage amounts
<br /> thought, was fair. He:. sa~ a homeowner on average might have 2,500 s uare feet of
<br /> · q
<br /> impervious are~ and V~ie;, Inc. 25,000 square feet (knowim, the have 16.00
<br /> ~...:~-:;~_:.~,~' o Y . 0 square feet of
<br /> building and ~'be 9,00~ square feet of black top). With this example he said if the 'had 10
<br /> t~mes the area,(~ey should only be paying 10 times more, but they are payin 36 times more
<br /> W' ' ~' ? :; · g ·
<br />lth this exa~b~:e he caught some of the Counmlmembers attention, some of them even saying
<br />~ii"ii',they would l~'k~:;'to see the actual numbers of his example. So City Engineer Ols°n tells the
<br />· :.~Cbuncil anc~itl~e paper "According to Olson, Ve-Ve Inc., is 65,000 square feet for the building
<br />and dr/',;-e.Way surface and is charged 29 times more than an average home of 2,500 square feet.
<br />They hage more than 26 times more impervious area, he said." Mr. Ve-Ve commented how
<br />convenient it was that Mr. Olson corrects only ¼ of his example. He indicated that Ve-Ve, Inc.
<br />
<br />City Council/October 10, 2000
<br /> Page 5 of 17
<br />
<br /> has 2.
<br /> is ~0'~ acres in size·
<br />:~ compacted gravel
<br />26 times more impervious area
<br />area. -Ve, Inc. has a storm
<br />has utility fee
<br /> property.
<br />
<br />-109-
<br />
<br />
<br />
|