My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 09/26/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2000
>
Minutes - Council - 09/26/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 2:04:47 PM
Creation date
5/22/2003 2:31:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
09/26/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mayor Gamec replied that the utility is something that the Council really looked at and did <br />consider the impact on businesses, but there are some that he, too, has been surprised by. He <br />stated that it has been a tough issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Wright stated that the people want a more up front approach and for the City to call it what it <br />is because it is an assessment to the business. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that it is a fee that is being paid to the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Davis stated that it is a question of fairness. None of the water that he generates goes into <br />any other area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that the Public Works Committee reviewed the layout of Mr. <br />Davis's property and the water is not contained entirely on his property and if he were to <br />construct holding ponds he would receive a significant reduction. <br /> <br />Mr. Davis stated that he was told by the Public Works Committee to construct a pond to handle a <br />100 year rain fall even though there is already a wetland on his property. He felt that he has not <br />seen fairness in this process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman repl!ed that the Clean Water Act requires that there be a holding' <br />pond before any run-off discharges to the wetland. <br /> <br />Todd Cook, 17359 Puma Street NW, Ramsey, stated that he agrees with the charge because they <br />are collecting fimds from the people who produce the most runoff. He explained that runoff has <br />become ahnost a pollutant and it has to be handled like a pollutant. It is no different than if a <br />business were to have a smoke stack. If a business was being told that he would have to pay the <br />same for pollution as being dispersed by NSP that would be unfair. It does not seem fair that if <br />someone has a property valued at $300,000 on a half-acre would have to pay an increased <br />amount because he has a higher market value. If a business can prove that they are not making <br />an impact, then they can reduce the fee by 50 percent. If there is a flat three percent tax increase <br />to all residents and businesses it does not address who is producing the most runoff. He <br />explained that it is costing more and more for the City to meet the standards that are put on by <br />the State. If the businesses don't want to pay the base charge then they need to prove that they <br />are not creating the problem. He thinks it would be something under the table if it was a flat tax. <br /> <br />John Vevea, Ve-Ve Incorporated, stated that the average house has less than 2,500 square feet <br />and his building has 25,000 square feet. The house is paying $6.00 and he is paying 36 times <br />that. All the business are asking is to be treated fairly. <br /> <br />Bernerd Vevea stated that Mr. Hendriksen made the comment that he does not understand why <br />people are upset, but if he were to put himself in their position he would probably be upset to. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that he thought it was an equitable situation. <br /> <br />City Council/September 26, 2000 <br /> Page 28 of 36 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.