My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_1128
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_1128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2011 1:12:47 PM
Creation date
12/27/2011 1:12:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/28/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,November 28, 2011 <br /> Page 16 <br /> were funded through storm utility fees, not part of City fees. Mr. Malinen noted <br /> that special state legislation had allowed the Vadnais Lakes Area WMO <br /> (VLAWMO) to establish their own fee on property taxes; while the Rice Creek <br /> WSD (RCWD) was listed as a separate ad valorem tax on property taxes for those <br /> in that watershed district. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Schwartz advised that the <br /> GLWMO's presentation and discussion with the Shoreview City Council had <br /> been deferred to a meeting in early December due to the lateness of their presenta- <br /> tion at the Roseville City Council meeting last week. From staff's perspectives, <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that Shoreview staff held similar viewpoints as those of <br /> Roseville staff, and as addressed by Roseville's City Attorney. <br /> Related to the GLWMO's proposed budget of $300,000 over the next three (3) <br /> years of implementation of the Third Generation Plan, Mr. Schwartz noted that <br /> member cities were being requested to provide $150,000 each; however, that <br /> budget did not include the proposed two (2) FTE staff positions, as well as im- <br /> plementing other significant portions of the Plan. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff <br /> of both member cities were of the opinion that there were remaining issues need- <br /> ing to be further analyzed since it required more of a partnership, in some areas up <br /> to 50%, from cities that were not currently included in the current budget request. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that the DRAFT Water Management Plan also provided areas <br /> of concern for member cities staff,based on their experience with other storm wa- <br /> ter projects, suggesting that implementation projections were significantly under- <br /> stated and serving to drive up costs even further at a future date. <br /> Mr. Schwartz opined that the City Council may want to consider, at a future date, <br /> the equity issue of an annual storm water utility fee and how to fund that compa- <br /> rable to funding of the RCWD and Capitol Region WSD within the confines of <br /> Roseville. If the City approved continuing with the GLWMO as currently struc- <br /> tured, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would recommend resolving the equity is- <br /> sue by creating a surcharge on storm water utility fees for GLWMO properties, <br /> which would be approximately $25-$30 per residential partial for 2012 to meet <br /> the $150,000 budget request. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was seeking more <br /> City Council direction on the future of the GLWMO. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that staff's analysis was <br /> that, in the long-term, the cost for an Improved GLWMO would be similar to the <br /> cost of merging with another WSD and their per parcel annual taxing authority. <br /> Mr. Schwartz opined that other WSD's had staffing in place with significant pro- <br /> fessional areas of expertise; and at this point, he further opined that staff did not <br /> feel prudent in recommending creation of another organization similar to other <br /> WSD's when the GLWMO area is geographically small. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.