Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 13, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />__________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 31 of 40 <br /> <br />(11. #15-3722 STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW continued) <br /> <br />Edwards stated based on Mike Gaffron’s analysis, he provided information on what they are currently <br />looking at for stormwater in the CIP and what the City’s annual expenditures are projected to be for the <br />stormwater versus what is received in stormwater utility fees. Edwards stated in his view there is still a <br />need to have some kind of stormwater fee associated with development that helps continue to fund the <br />City’s stormwater fund but that there is probably some room to tweak how those fees are collected. <br /> <br />McMillan stated there is also the issue of fairness in regards to what other people have paid in the past. <br />McMillan noted the developer is doing a substantial amount of restoration on the site which should <br />benefit the stormwater. McMillan stated the City should not be penalizing people who want to build <br />bigger lots. <br /> <br />Levang stated she is very interested in some sort of credit program. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the developer would like to put stormwater features in prior to the homes being <br />constructed since they are a lot easier to install. <br /> <br />Levang asked if the remaining undeveloped parcels in the City have the ability to conserve like what is <br />being done at Lakeview. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the Eisenger property is approximately 30 acres, with approximately one-half being <br />wetlands, one-third being landfill and approximately five to seven acres being available for development. <br />Gaffron stated the current fee structure would charge them on either two-acre zoning, including the <br />wetlands, or on higher density, which is a higher fee. <br /> <br />The developer in this case has indicated they do not feel the fee is reasonable since they have <br />opportunities on the property to do stormwater improvements. Gaffron stated the question then becomes <br />why the City has the fee if each developer is required to perform stormwater improvements. Gaffron <br />stated typically the fee is to handle all the stuff that is downstream from the development. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated perhaps philosophically things have changed a little bit over the past 15 years and that <br />developers might be held to a higher standard than what they were originally. Gaffron stated it was <br />always intended that these stormwater trunk fees are to help pay for improvements outside the property. <br /> <br />Walsh stated there is a need for the fee since you are constructing a house on a property that will then <br />generate more runoff. Walsh stated in his view the fee should be simple to explain and there should not <br />be a bunch of exemptions. Walsh stated it should be based on the amount of hardcover being proposed <br />for the lot. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the whole reason for the discussion is because people put hard surface on their property <br />and that the question is how to make it equitable. <br /> <br />Walsh stated he does not want to penalize somebody for what they already have, and that if they tear the <br />existing structure down and build a smaller home, they should not have to pay anything. Walsh stated the <br />fee could be based on a percentage. <br />City Council Meeting April 27, 2015 Page 33 of 257