My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-02-2012 CCM
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Minutes
>
City Council 1974 - Present
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
07-02-2012 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2012 9:01:29 AM
Creation date
7/19/2012 10:25:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
CCM
date
7/2/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
City Council Minutes Page 4 <br />luIV -) -)nl <br />----------------------------- <br />Currently, the city funds the Storm Water L-tilin- with an annual S50,000 tax levv. However, <br />if a fee is not approved by the Council, the estirmated tax levy contribution needed to fund <br />the utility in 2012 ,�t-ill need to be increased to 5635,514 in order to create enough funds to <br />continue a storm water system that complies with regulations. <br />Councilmember Zer\vas was not in favor of charging a storm water utility- fee. He felt the <br />550,000 budgeted was sufficient for future pond maintenance. He noted his concerns about <br />adding another fee to a commercial unit, sating it ,vasn't realistic to burden commercials <br />businesses. He stated he Rill not support this fee. <br />Mayor Dietz asked when the cities on the survev started charging fees. Mr. Hanson stated <br />the bigger cities, like Minneapolis and St. Paul, had implemented a storm water utility- fee in <br />the 1980's but other cities have charged a fee more recently with the last 5 -10 rears ago. <br />Councilmember Motin stated he realized the need for obtaining additional funding due to <br />increased permitting requirements, but questioned having to raise the budget so much in <br />order to cover these improvements, and wondered if there were a different wav of <br />computing the fee each property owner would be required to par. <br />Councilmember Zerwas asked about inspection of the ponds and are there ponds that <br />currently need to be dredged. <br />Mr. Femrite said the inspections of the ponds were a visual inspection only; the contents of <br />the ponds would have to be tested to determine the quality of the contents. He stated based <br />on a visual inspection, approximately 20 -25% of the city's ponds need immediate action to <br />correct erosion or excavate sediment. • <br />Councilmember Zerwas felt uncomfortable with not knowing the condition of the ponds <br />and guessing at a budget amount based on assumptions without first inspecting and testing a <br />pond. <br />Mayor Dietz asked who would be charged a fee. <br />Mr. Femrite stated that based upon preliminary calculations, every property owner would be <br />required to pay the monthly fee with the exception of those commercial properties with their <br />own industrial storm water permit. <br />Councilmember Zerwas asked what the fee amount would be for the school district. <br />Mr. Femrite stated the school district's cost would be $30,000 a year <br />Councihmember Gumphrey asked what the process would be to start improving the 20 - <br />25% of ponds needing immediate improvements. <br />Mr. Femrite stated the city wouldn't be able to do any soil testing in -house and would have <br />to hire a consultant. He stated the testing will show what the contaminants are in the soil. <br />Mr. Femrite also commented on the fact that this preliminary report is before knowing if the <br />permitting regulations are to be increased. He stated that even if the city doesn't receive <br />further regulations, the surface water budget will be exhausted by 2014. He further stated • <br />that our current expenditures are much higher than the amount being put into the fund. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.