12-10-2001 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

could be generated by these fees is rather limited as there is only a small amount of land still available for development in Orono. Therefore, the major source of funding for storm water maintenance and improvement projects will have to be storm water utility fees. This limited funding, from storm water utility fees, versus the substantial financial needs for stomi water systems is another valid reason to not reduce this revenue source by providing fee credits. Incentive Programs for Storm Water System Improvements The City of Plymouth has a storm water utility in place. They ore in the initial stages of developing an incentive program to encourage non*residential property owners to construct storm w'ater facilities. This intent of this incentive program is to encourage the construction of new or upgraded facilities on existing properties. However, it is not intended to credit propert)' owTiers for facilities that were previously insuillcd as a condition of development. The effectiveness of this program Is unknown and is somewhat uncertain based on the monetary value of the incentives in relation to the cost of constiucting new storm water control facilities. The incentive program being considered by Plymouth will require additional stafif resources to administer. Any incentive program will require review and approval of the proposed storm water controls, and a certification component to verify continued adequate operation of the facilities. In developing their incentive orogram the City of Plymouth has checked with other area cities and there were only a veiy small cit*cs in the process of developing incentive programs. The implementation of on incentise piogram to encourage improved siomi water facilities could possibly have some merit. However, the elTectiveness and the practicality of administration of the program are legitimate concerns. In summary, a program to credit property owners for previously constructed storm water improvements, especially in the case of the Otten property when these improvements do not meet current standanls and requirements does not enhance the fairness of the system; and does nothing to further the goal of reducing the adverse impacts of storm water runoff. Also, fee credits will actually reduce the funding available from the storm water utility to maintain and improve the storm water control systems in the city. The Otten site was developed about 15 years ago and the ponds provide some rate control b**ncfiis but would not meet current NURP Wa'xr Quality standards. If the site was developed today, a NURP pond would be required. This would rewilt in additional costs of about $25,000 plus the use of additional land for ponding purposes. The Council tabled adoption of the utility and directed suff to research this issue further. The staff recommendation is against providing a storm water utility fee credit to property owners for previously constructed storm water facilities. Council Action Requesteti Approval of the ordinance establishing a Storm Water Utility effective Jimuary 1,2002. Approval of a $9.00 per quarter per residential unit Storm Water Utility Fee to be included in the year 2002 City Fee Schedule. Page 3