My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.1. SR 03-11-2013
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2013
>
03-11-2013
>
6.1. SR 03-11-2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2013 10:38:55 AM
Creation date
3/8/2013 9:12:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/11/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
i <br /> Lver REQUEST FOR ACTION <br /> To ITEM NUMBER <br /> Nlayor and City- Council 6.1 <br /> AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY <br /> Work Session October 8, 2012 Rebecca Haug,Environmental <br /> Administrator and Tim Simon, <br /> Finance I]irector <br /> ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By <br /> Ditch Agreement Cal Partner,City Administrator <br /> REVIEWED BY <br /> Peter Beck,City :\ttorne y <br /> ACTION REQUESTED <br /> Staff is seeking Council direction on Sherburne County Ditch Agreement. <br /> BAC KG ROUN DID ISCU SSION <br /> The Sherburne County Auditor's office contacted the city questioning why we pay ditch repair costs <br /> when other cities in Sherburne County assess it to the property owners. <br /> Staff researched the question and determined that the City Council completed a study in the early 1990's <br /> regarding charging developers a surface water management fee similar to a park dedication fee. Since <br /> most ditches in Flk River abut and benefit single family residential properties, it appears that the city <br /> chose to utilise funds from surface water management fees instead of a ditch assessment. <br /> As you know,with very little new development,increasing needs for stormwater improvements and <br /> anticipated stormwater management mandates, the Stormwater Management Fund is nearly depleted and <br /> a larger general property tax levy will be needed to pay for the costs of stormwater management. The <br /> Council has discussed a Stormwater UUtihty, but has not taken action. <br /> Sherburne County Auditor Diane Arnold will be present to discuss how other Sherburne County cities <br /> handle ditch work to determine if the city would like to continue covering all of the costs or assess <br /> property owners for work on ditches affecting their property. <br /> For the discussion,the Council will want to consider the following issues: <br /> 1) Should the city continue to prry for ongoing ditch maintenance thaoargh developerfees:andgenerral popei y taxes? <br /> 2) Should the county assess ongoing ditch maintenance costs to abutting, benefiting piope7ties, consistent aith other <br /> Sher bume County cities? <br /> 3) Should ongograg ditch maintenance costs be/not he managed as an activity of the stoinw ater maintenance <br /> piogrrarm? <br /> P 0 W I H 1 0 0 <br /> N: Public Bodies\City Council\Council RCA`Agenda Packet`•,10-0 8-2012\Ditch jgreenent Discussion-tiiial.doci [NAWREJ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.