Laserfiche WebLink
3) Storm Water Policy <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson stated that since the inception and implementation of the storn~ <br />drainage utility in 2000, there has been some confusion between the use of the storm drainage <br />utility fund and the stormwater management fund. <br /> <br />Uses of the storm drainage utility fund are as follows: · Correction of drainage problems in existing development <br /> Cleaning of soil deposition in pipes, ponds, regional ditches and roadside ditches <br /> Overall operation of storm drainage system <br /> · Enhancement of the drainage system (increasing pipe size sue to drainage problems) <br /> · Cleaning of soil from streets (street sweeping) <br /> <br />Uses of Storm Water Management Fund <br /> · Providing positive drainage outlets for future development <br /> · Enhancement of drainage system (increasing pipe sizes <br /> development) <br /> <br />to accommodate future <br /> <br />On September 17, 2002, the City Council met at a work session and discussed the use of the <br />respective fimds and directed staff to continue to develop a plan that would clarify the use of <br />these funds. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman inquired if they should include studies as an item that is funded by <br />storm water management funds. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson explained that any studies done on the operation of the system are <br />paid for out of the storm water utility fund, but any studies for developments would be paid for <br />by the developer. The Comprehensive storm sewer plan would be paid for from the storm water <br />management fund. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman recommended that they add that City wide studies are paid for out <br />of the storm drainage utility fund, and any 10cal studies be paid for out of the storm water <br />management fnnd. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson explained that the City has only used storm water management <br />funds once. In the case of the Highlands at River Park development there was a need to increase <br />the size of the pipe outside of the project and the City required the developer to increase the size <br />of the pipe and an overflow to the south, which was up-flow by using storm water management <br />fimds they would have paid to the City. No funds were taken from the storm water management <br />fund because the development contributed more than what was needed to spend on the upstream <br />facility. In the past there has been some concern amongst members of the Council that if they <br />allow developers to use storm water management funds they will run out of money, which staff <br />does not believe is the case. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/March 18, 2003 <br /> Page 7 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />