Minutes - Public Works Committee - 11/21/2000

Home

Consensus of the Committee was to direct staff to schedule a public hearing at a future City Council meeting, notifying the businesses in the Rivers Bend Plaza as well as the residents of Rivers Bend. COMMITTEE INPUT 1) Update on Storm Water Utility City Engineer Olson stated that on November 23, 1999, the City council introduced an ordinance creating a storm drainage utility. The utility was adopted on January 11, 2000. On June 27, 2000, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing the storm drainage utility fees by amending the 2000 schedule of rates, fees and charges. On November 14, 2000, the City reaffirmed the storm drainage utility fees. To successfully implement a storm drainage utility, the utility must be considered fair an d equitable. To be considered fair and equitable, the storm drainage utility should be set up in a way to bill the person responsible for the utility a reasonable amount based on the runoff that is produced from their site. The City Council has taken a large step in making this utility equitable by choosing a method that is based on the amount of improved surface on each site rather than basing the utility charge on land use. Many utilities throughout the Twin Cities that have been successful in implementing storm drainage utilities have established a credit system to reward local businesses and development for being responsible for their storm drainage. The resolution before the Committee offers up to a 25% credit for the rate of runoff for their site and up to an additional 25% credit for those properties that provide a water quality benefit to the runoff fi.om their site. In order to qualify for these credits, the property owner must apply for each credit and provide the City with the justification for each credit. Issues that were raised at the last City Council meeting that related to the credit system included: Changing the criteria for the modified method, retroactively of approved credits, allowing credits higher than 50%, City calculation of credits for those parcels that have a completed drainage plan, and stormwater management impact fee vs. Storm drainage utility fee. In researching the modified method, by decreasing the lost size from 20 acres to 10 acres and increasing the impervious percentage from 15% to 20%, there would be two parcels affected and this would amount to a decrease in revenue by $1,772. (Parcels - New Song Church, and Diamond's Sports Bar). Decreasing the lot size criteria to five acres and increasing the impervious percentage criteria to 25% (which is close to residential), there would only be two more parcels that would be affected and this would amount to a decrease in revenue by $2,760/year. (Additional parcels - Northern Counties Secretarial Services, and Craftsman Concrete). Staff recommending changing the resolution establishing the credits available for the storm drainage utility credits to five acres and 25% impervious criteria. The issue of retroactively must be looked at from two different aspects. The timing of the credit application is critical in making a determination on whether or not it should be retroactive. If someone makes an application for a credit two years from now, should that credit be retroactive to the implementation of the charge? Staff personally does not believe that should be the case and that is how the existing ordinance and resolutions are written. Staff does believe, however, that in this initial implementation phase of the storm drainage utility, they should be retroactive since the property owners did not have the ability to apply for a credit prior to the charge being introduced onto their bill. City staff rec6mmended that any correspondence written prior to Public Works Committee/November 21, 2000 Page 5 of 10