Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Kurak stated that in the ease of subdrainage district I there was a development <br />north of the railroad track and then a request came in for a new development south of the tracks <br />so the subdrainage district was implemented to correct a drainage problem. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson explained that the Business Park created a drainage pond that needed an <br />outlet and it was originally planned to go through Anoka, but did not happen. The City <br />contributed $110,000 towards the subdrainage district to provide an overflow to Sunfish Lake <br />Boulevard to drain to the river. He explained that several alternatives were analyzed, but the <br />connection to Sunfish Lake Boulevard was the selected option. <br /> <br />Councihnember Kurak stated that the pipe being placed south of the railroad tracks was initiated <br />because of the construction of the Zitzloff property. She inquired as to when section 28 develops <br />and the assessments for storm water management comes in the form of development will the <br />existing businesses only on Highway #10 become subdrainage district 2. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that that is not what staff would recommend. He explained that if <br />there is not an overflow pipe to the river then there has to be twice as much ponding on the site. <br />He noted that when section 28 develops the drainage issues will be addressed in the development <br />agreement. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen explained that prior to the Zitzloff building being constructed the <br />property was being used as a holding pond. The property owner could have built a retaining wall <br />to eliminate the runoff, but it was up to the City to resolve the issue. Because the City <br />contributed $110,000 towards the resolution for the property to the north of the railroad tracks <br />they were able to reduce the cost by the $110,000 for the property owners. Because of that there <br />are people saying that they are being assessed for the Business Park, which is not the case. He <br />stated that there is an analogy to be made along the south side of the tracks all the way to the <br />border of the City. That whole issue is different than the Section 28 issue, which is why they <br />need a written policy in place. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that she thought there was some confusion over the two funds. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson explained that the storm water utility fee is used for maintenance and <br />correction of drainage problems or the equipment that is needed for those maintenance issues. <br />The storm water management fee has only been used once, to provide an outlet to Business Park <br />95. The use has always been intended to encourage future development and positive overflows <br />to the river. The storm water management fee is a one-time fee paid by developers. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak noted that whoever builds on Section 28 will be charged around $2,500 <br />per acre for storm water management. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson stated that it is going to come to a point where it gets too expensive for a <br />developer to get the runoff from the property to the river. <br /> <br />City Council/April 16, 2002 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />