Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />just work with the County on necessary ditch projects in rural areas plus <br />petition (and pay) for a Ditch 10 project in our urban area. We have already <br />paid some funds for Ditch 10 with the 169/10 MnDOT project. Accordingly, a <br />large area (mainly the vacant area) of the City could be removed from the <br />proposed user fee that goes on the utility bill and have the rural surface <br />water managed by the County with ditches. This would certainly make the <br />crowd that attended the 7/25 meeting happy. Fees for mainly urban, <br />developed areas still could generate approximately $150,000 annually for <br />SWM projects. The City could then supplement this user fee amount with an <br />increase in its tax levy ($100,OOO?). <br /> <br />Regarding developer impact fees and assessments, the City needs to get more <br />revenues from these sources. If preferable to the Council, we could eliminate <br />large residential projects, commercial projects, and industrial projects, from <br />the "impact fee" program and assess these areas actual amounts for storm <br />drainage projects. Then the only areas that would be paying the impact fee <br />will be the ailministrative subdivisions and maybe some other smaller <br />projects where assessment would be more difficult. Impact fees are not a <br />major source of revenue for the SWM Program. For example, $600 per acre <br />for a 25 acre commercial plat would only generate $15,000. Also, an 80 acre <br />plat for 150 homes only generates $15,000 at $lOO/lot. You can't buy much <br />by way of a SWM project for this amount of money when considering the <br />costs (about $200,000 each) for MainlEvans and Deerfield 3rd this spring. <br /> <br />Overall, I think everybody heard the message presented by the citizens at the <br />7/25 SWM meeting. The above SWM comments are just some initial <br />thoughts on the program and are not recommendations. A review of this <br />topic and its implications on the 1995 budget plus a review of the previously <br />listed budget topics would seem to necessitate some type of Council <br />worksession in the near future. The worksession doesn't need to be too long, <br />but staff needs direction from the Council on how to proceed in preparing <br />material for your consideration later in August. <br /> <br />As outlined in the July Info Memo, Council budget meetings are scheduled <br />for 8/26 and 9/6. <br /> <br />council:bdgtw:rks <br />