CC PACKET 08251992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DoRSEY 8c WHITNEY • Mr. Thomas D. Burt June 20, 1990 Page 2 "City of St. Anthony Comprehensive Drainage Report", dated July, 1988. C. Mr. Cavanaugh concludes that the state statutes do not give the City the authority to establish a storm water drainage utility. In my opinion, the statutes clearly give the City the authority to establish the charges referred to in the ordinance. Perhaps it is the word "utility" which Mr. Cavanaugh questions. It is true that the statutes do not use this word, and I have accordingly changed the ordinance throughout to refer to "charges" for storm water facilities and a "fund" for storm water facilities. 2. Findings and Determinations. A. Mr. Cavanaugh states that the City is expanding its taxing authority with this ordinance. -In effect, that is correct, although • technically these are more in the nature of utility charges than taxes. B. The engineer should respond to his questions about standard rainfall. C. Mr. Cavanaugh states that the ordinance is based on "pure government judgment" rather than precise calculations. This is not true. The charges are to be based on area and upon certain assumptions, with certain residential charges being based upon the practicalities of having a uniform residential charge. 3. Rates and Charges. Mr. Cavanaugh challenges the relationship between the different classes of property. As I understand it, these are based upon estimates prepared by the City's engineer. 4. Other Land Use. He suggests that the classification should be referred to the Planning Commission and that there should be public hearings. It would be entirely inappropriate to refer this type of matter to the Planning Commission. It also does not seem necessary to have a public hearing for a matter of this sort, although the Council could choose to have a public hearing if it so desired. •