2012-04-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ms. Bloom noted that most of those items shown as deleted in this version were actually moved elsewhere in the document. Page 2, Section 2.f At the request of Chair Vanderwall related to property thresholds, Ms. Bloom reviewed the stipulations of Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 429 regarding assessments, that all properties be treated alike and no assessments beyond a provable benefit to a parcel, thus the application of a threshold and appraisal to determine that benefit threshold. As the next draft comes forward, Chair Vanderwall requested that staff clarify language in this section for better understanding by a layperson to specify that the property benefit threshold was arising from a project with that benefit provable by the City. Page 2, Section 3 Ms. Bloom explained the intent for this section in addressing routine versus required drainage, with storm drainage no longer an option, but a standard part of any new construction project. However, Ms. Bloom clarified that the routine versus required addressed the "but for" test with the storm drainage work not done if not for a road improvement project. Page 2, Section 4 At the request of Chair Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom clarified the intent of this section, using the Skillman project as an example, when using the Storm Water Utility Fund as a funding source for a stand-alone project to fix an ongoing problem. An example of a storm water improvement not intended "but for" the roadway being rebuilt (e.g. County Road C-2), Ms. Bloom clarified that such an example was part of the price of doing businesses, and for cost and infrastructure efficiencies, it was good practice to make those improvements at the same time. Discussion ensued regarding the demonstrable benefit to homes in the Skillman area and initiation of the storm water project due to the underlying condition of the area. Ms. Bloom noted the intent of the Storm Water Utility Fund, into which everyone city-wide pays and including street sweeping and catch basin maintenance, of benefit to all taxpayers. Ms. Bloom noted that an argument could be made as to whether the entire City — through using the Storm Water Utility Fund — should pay for the Skillman flooding issue or for installation of catch basins not immediately adjacent to their property as an overall benefit. Ms. Bloom advised that the City Council's rationale was that Capital Improvement Plan projects (CIP) addressed flooding issues city-side and were of benefit to the entire community. Page 6 of 14