Agenda Packets - 1990/04/23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ate414.- 1/: 7, MEMORANDUM Memo To :Mayor and Council Members From :Ric Minetor, City Engineer/Director of Public Works Date :April 18 , 1990 Subject :Surface Water Management Utility The Council has accepted the Surface Water Management Plan and that plan is currently under review by Rice Creek Watershed. The initial comments have been positive and we expect approval with few, if any, revisions. As we have discussed since the acceptance of the plan, financing of capital projects and maintenance of the system is a concern, especially in the current climate of levy limits and local government aid reductions. The concept of a Storm Water Utility was presented in the report we received from Short-Elliott-Hendrickson on April 2nd of this year. On that night and on April 16th, there were preliminary discussions regarding benefits of this method of financing improvements and maintenance of our surface water systems. The advantages and disadvantages were summarized on pages 7 and 8 of the report. Since the Council indicated a desire to begin the process of implementing a utility, certain policy decisions need to be made prior to beginning the public input process. The • following staff suggestions cover the necessary policy decisions and are made for discussion purposes. The title of the utility should be the Mounds View Surface Water Management Utility. If we call it a storm water utility, it could be possible to misconstrue this to pertain only to storm sewers and detention sites directly affected by storm water run-off. We know that all wetlands play a role in storm water management, even those not directly accepting significant storm water run- off. In adopting the name of a surface water management utility there would be a clear indication of the purpose of the utility. Policy issues include exemptions, credits, basis of charges, rain fall amount on which to base charges, and an appeal process. Exemptions are those parcels of land in the City that are not subject to utility charges. I suggest that the only exemptions be public road rights-of way. Collecting from Mn/DOT, Ramsey County, and ourselves would be difficult and questionable since these same rights-of-way are the location of most storm water run-off conveyance facilities (ditches, curbs, gutters, and sewers) . Credits are sometimes given for features that reduce or mitigate run-off . I suggest that no credits be given . Parcels which provide natural or man-made detention result in lower costs in constructing the system (due to smaller pipe sizes) and therefore • the utility charges are already reduced. They also cause some 1