Laserfiche WebLink
4/97 <br /> <br />CIP FINANCES <br /> <br />SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT (SWM) <br /> <br />In late 1994, the City Council approved its tax levy for calendar year 1995. <br />Included in this tax levy were funds for surface water management activities. <br />This tax levy was continued in 1996 and 1997 and will have to continue for <br />the long term in order to finance the SWM projects that have been approved <br />and which are anticipated to be approved in the next few years. <br /> <br />In 1994, the City authorized over $1 million in bonds for surface water <br />management activities. These activities included work for the Deerfield III, <br />County Roads 12/13, and Highways 10/169 projects. Additional surface <br />water management projects approved by the City Council in 1995 include the <br />Main/Evans project and Western Area Phase II trunk storm drainage pipes. <br />These projects plus some pre-1994 activities were financed from the City <br />development fund and are scheduled to be repaid from the annual tax levy. <br /> <br />Anticipated SWM projects for 1997 include the north Joplin frontage road <br />and minor work on the south end of Ditch 28. Future activities call for <br />additional County ditch work, Western Area Phase III, and the east Highway <br />10 area. <br /> <br />The 1997 tax levy is sufficient to pay the 1997 principle and interest on the <br />SWM bond and to eliminate the $60,000 fund deficit, but leaves very few <br />funds available for additional 1997 projects. After making the 1998 bond <br />payment, approximately $50,000 should be available for 1998 projects. This <br />projection excludes all impact fee collections. The City will have to carefully <br />analyze the available finances before authorizing work on future SWM <br />projects. <br /> <br />To generate additional SWM funds, the Council should consider increasing <br />the required SWM fees on developments. The fee in Elk River is <br />substantially lower than other suburban developing communities and the <br />benefited property owners (the developers) are only paying a fraction of the <br />actual SWM costs that are related to the development project. <br /> <br />Page 12 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />