My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES (7 SETS) 09-02-2014
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2014
>
09-02-2014
>
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES (7 SETS) 09-02-2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2014 10:59:51 AM
Creation date
8/28/2014 8:39:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
9/2/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 /> August 11,2014 <br /> Councilmember Westgaard questioned why the city would transfer some of its <br /> personal services into this program. <br /> Mr. Simon stated you would want the stormwater utility,if set up to be all-inclusive <br /> of the operating costs for the program, similar to other enterprise funds. Enterprise <br /> funds function like business-type activities and support all associated costs. <br /> Mr. Portner stated there would be a public education campaign similar to the <br /> franchise fee program and the city can show the levy will be reduced. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard preferred the levy increase so it would be transparent. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard suggested adding the additional costs of the surface <br /> water management program to the General Fund. He thought there may be less <br /> kickback because there would be more complaints with another fee being imposed. <br /> He expressed concerns with trying to explain that the General Fund will go down, <br /> but people aren't really saving anything because they are being charged another utility <br /> fee. <br /> Mr. Simon stated there would be more transparency with keeping the funding all in <br /> one fund. <br /> Mr. Portner stated the difference is that people who are contributing to the <br /> stormwater issues are paying for it,whereas in the general fund tax people pay based <br /> upon the value of their property. He stated there would be more equity to the utility <br /> fee. <br /> Councilmember Motin questioned if the fee will be based on impervious surface <br /> square footage. <br /> Mr. Femrite stated this option was in the 2012 study recommendation but the city <br /> could look at other options. <br /> Mayor Dietz stated he understands the rationale and that the program is mandated <br /> by the state,but this utility fee will be a difficult sell to the public, comparing it to the <br /> franchise fee benefit. <br /> Mr. Femrite stated the fee has its pros and cons but it is fairer and the city can collect <br /> from schools, churches, etc. (big users who are not taxpayers). He noted that the <br /> City of Rogers has a utility fee so in essence, Elk River taxpayers are paying for <br /> Rogers' stormwater through school district taxes. <br /> Councilmember Wilson stated there are environmental reasons the program is <br /> mandated and the city wants to keep clean water. <br /> P O w E R E U 9 1 <br /> 1`4 f U <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.