Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Kurak inquired as to how they could get the information out to other people in <br />the City. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that the pre-application was sent out in the Rarnsey Resident, which <br />gave everyone an opportunity to apply for the credit. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired if on the residential/commercial properties if the amount of run- <br />off is calculated by the impervious area on the entire property or is the business portion of the <br />property calculated differently. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that staff did not view every parcel in the City. Staff made some <br />assumptions as it related to single family residential and the factor is based on a land use and the <br />higher intensity usage tends to have to pay more. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired as to why a property would be charged more if they have no <br />more impervious surface. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that when making assumptions on single family residential <br />properties they assumed that they would not be adding more impervious surface to the property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that in the case of a truly agricultural operation it did not <br />make sense to charge them for run-off they are trying to keep on their property. He stated that it <br />was impossible to charge each home individually so they determined a ¼ acre lot would be the <br />worst case scenario for producing run-off from a property and so that was the benchmark that <br />was used. That same ratio was then used for industrial as well as including option for business <br />owners to receive credits if they have done things to their property to minimize the run-off on <br />their property. <br /> <br />Councihnember Kurak stated that the City is looking at runoff and trying to find a way to collect <br />money to handle run-offproblems in the City, but did not think the charges were fair. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired as to what she thought was unfair. <br /> <br />Councihnember Kurak stated that the way the fund is set up is not equitable for the City. At this <br />point she was not proposing to do anything, but wants to discuss the issue further. She explained <br />that she reviewed the finances of the storm water utility and reviewed the projects and expenses <br />the fitnd is being used for. Currently there is $625,000 in total expenses leaving the cash balance <br />negative $312,000. The City had to take money out of other funds to cover the expenses already <br />incurred. She stated that she had inquired of the City Engineer if he anticipated that the fee <br />would be on-going and he indicated that once the major work was done the fee may be reduced <br /> <br />some. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that if the operating expenses go down then the fee would go down. <br />Anything that is to be funded from the count is a decision the Council would have to make. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/July 16, 2001 <br /> Page 3 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />