07-02-2012 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes Tut - lr?j Page 3 • Councilrnember Gumphrex- asked if the neighboring residents had their questions ansv,-ered. '1r. Barnhart stated their questions had been alsxx-ered as they were mainly- concerned -x-ith what would be built on the vacant land portion of the propert, . MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ZERWAS TO APPROVE REQUEST BY ROBERT STUTTGEN FOR A LOT SPLIT, CASE NO. LS 12 -03, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. THE SUBDIVISION DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT (.DWG FILE) AS REQUIRED BY CITY ORDINANCE AND LAND USE APPLICATION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 8.1 Visioning Update �Ir. Barnhart presented the staff report. Councilmember Gumphrey asked if the visioning tasks are staring current and completed in a timely matter. Mr. Barnhart stated he felt the visioning is staying on task but explained some of the goals are ongoing, require a culture shift, or have a direct impact to the budget. • Councilmember Motin asked if perhaps some of the goals should be considered as subtasks to bigger goals. Mr. Barnhart agreed that at some point, the Council and staff could identify subtasks. Mr. Barnhart stated that the Council will discuss 2012/2014 goals and tasks at the August worksession. 8.2 Storm Water Utility Fee Mr. Femrite introduced Stan Hanson, P.E. a consultant from Stantec, who presented the feasibility report via a PowerPoint presentation to the Council. The study outlined the city's existing Storm Water Management program, and outlined the current and future funding of the city's storm water program. Mr. Hanson explained that storm water regulations have significantly increased in the past 10 years due to increased permitting regulations from the United States Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency WC-,k). Mr. Hanson recommended to the city that in order to cover the increase in future storm water cleanup costs and upkeep, that it create a Storm Water Utility Fee. This fee would be charged to both residents and businesses. Mr. Hanson suggested charging this fee based upon the amount of runoff generated from a property, thus the area of impervious surface coincides to the volume of storm water generated from the property. The larger the property's buildings and parking lots, the greater the volume of storm water, resulting in increased cost to provide water quality treatment. By charging a monthly fee, there would be • dedicated fund to assist in maintenance of these ponds. He then showed figures of other Minnesota cities that charge a fee and what their fees were.