CC_Minutes_2014_0505 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,May 5,2014 Page 18 Mr. Culver expressed his understanding of that concern and specific lots. How- ever, Mr. Culver noted that the storm water fee was for everyone's share in the trunk system,just as the water base rate served to pay to get water to your home, and similar to the benefits realized in using other roadways to get to your homes. Mr. Culver opined that the storm water utility needed to be treated the same as other facilities of benefit to all residents of Roseville. Mr. Culver noted that the storm water fee also provides the City with the ability to address some localized issues with existing storm water today to make improvements for the future. As a resident on a street where everyone had unsuccessfully fought hard not to have curb and gutter installed, Councilmember McGehee opined that it had creat- ed additional problems for her parcel by eliminating the natural swales once in place. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Culver addressed regulations for sump pumps, their location and restrictions. Councilmember Etten questioned if the implementation of this program would have significant financial impacts in aggregate for residents across the City, such as storm water fee base rates increasing to cover the credit program. Mr. Culver advised that there were options available as to how this was imple- mented and how to maintain the initial levy to base rates upon, with the credit eventually built back into the rates. However, with so few users, Mr. Culver opined that it may not be necessary; and in his initial discussions with Finance Di- rector Miller, they agreed that there would be so few users to begin with it didn't make sense to increase those rates, but to let the revenue amount be decreased by the credit amount. If the program came to a point that it significantly impacted revenue, Mr. Culver advised that a determination could then be made as to how to build it back into the starting fee, or essentially credits getting applied proportion- ately. Councilmember Etten questioned the rationale in different base rates (page 1 of the RCA) for cemeteries, parks and golf courses and how it was determined. He also questioned if County parks with significant parking lots were charged appro- priately; and whether the City was charging itself for City parks, some with smaller or no parking lots, and how those rates were determined. Mr. Culver noted that those 1984 multipliers had been established for different land uses, basically by looking at the average of impervious surfaces, with an as- sumption made that parks had parking lots, trails, tennis courts, or shelters or oth- er packed down surfaces, creating less pervious and more impervious surfaces. Regarding whether or not the City charged itself and/or Ramsey County accord- ingly, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he was not sure and further research