Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> _..._---_._~_.._"--- ..~-- <br /> 9 <br /> . This would include the time required for making corrections to <br /> charges due to changes in zoning, development of vacant lots, and <br /> credit adjustment requests. <br /> The main basis for a storm drainage fee is the zoning and <br /> the acreage of the parcel. It was determined that development of <br /> single family residential land was similar regardless of parcel <br /> size, so a single rate was used. This made the utility easier to <br /> calculate and followed the viewpoint of a sanitary sewer utility. <br /> It was decided that vacant lots were not to be charged <br /> because they did not produce additional run-off due to <br /> development. This exemption simplified billing as vacant <br /> properties are not sent sewer and water bills. Another exception <br /> to the storm water utility fund was the public road right-of- <br /> ways. This would be counter productive as they are owned and <br /> operated by the city. An increase in the cost of maintenance for <br /> these right-of-ways would increase individual property tax. <br /> Every parcel has its own set of characteristics that sets <br /> itself apart from other parcels in a particular land use zone. <br /> Charges may be reduced if the property, owner can show that the <br /> parcel has sufficiently less development than typical parcels in <br /> that land use zone. It should be noted, however, that charges <br /> are subject to an increase as well as a decrease when further <br /> investigation is required. <br /> Another important element of the storm water utility fund is <br /> tho credit system. Roseville has two grounds for receiving <br /> . credits (see Appendix A). It was decided that up to 50% of the <br /> fee could be reduced by property owners providing benGfits for <br /> water quality. Another 25% of the fee could be reduced by those <br /> parcels who have slowed the flow of the run-off into the sewer <br /> system. The water quality credit (50%) was determined by use of <br /> Brune's trap efficiency curve. The flow rate credit (25%) was <br /> broken into two potential levels. The first 10% was granted if <br /> the peak outflow rate was cut to a 5-year rainfall event for <br /> predevelopment conditions. The second 15% was given to those who <br /> could reduce their flow rate for a 100-year event. The <br /> responsibility of the property owner includes supplying the <br /> information necessary to justify a credit. This credit system <br /> was essential to citizen approval. <br /> Conclusion <br /> Throughout my research, I have met both approval and <br /> disapproval of the storm water utility fund. The majority of the <br /> response supported the concept. There was assurance that this <br /> utility is the simplest and fairest way to handle storm drainage <br /> billing. <br /> According to Mr. Charles v. Honchell, formerly of Roseville, <br /> ,.. there was some public opposition to the utility, but this <br /> declined dramatically within the first three months following its <br /> . implementation. . This was accomplished by mailings, <br /> advertisements, 'and publications that educated the citizens of <br /> the utility's function. Following this initial phase, citizen <br /> complaints' were few and far between. After leaving Roseville, , <br /> he this process at Bloomington. there <br />