Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />February 9, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 15 of 26 <br /> <br />(9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW continued) <br /> <br />4. Provisions should be established and documented in the City Code with regard to past and future <br /> payments of the SW&DT fees. The Council should establish standards defining how past fees <br /> paid are credited for future development of a site. <br /> <br />5. Examine how the fee takes into consideration on-site stormwater improvements and consider <br /> adopting standards for fee credit for off-site improvements. <br /> <br />6. The need to analyze whether the triggers for charging the SW&DT fee for both new development <br /> and redevelopment are clear and appropriate. <br /> <br />Staff is working on a number of options for the Council to consider in the future. In early January of <br />2014, Staff, in conjunction with the Planning Commission, looked at a number of questions that need to <br />be answered. However, the Planning Commission did not spend much time on this. The analysis being <br />prepared by Staff should be available in late February or early March for Council review. At this time the <br />Council should provide input and direction on the materials included in their packets this evening. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if Staff is looking for Council input on the direction the City should pursue. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron requested the Council review the Planning Commission memo <br />and documents. Gaffron stated Staff hopes to have a potential solution or option to each of the elements <br />to make it easier for developers to accept as it relates to new homes and remodels. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted the City would have ended up under the current City Code with X number of dollars <br />towards these CIP projects in the future as the development happens. Gaffron stated if the Council’s goal <br />is to collect fewer dollars that will need to be a conscious decision. Another option that can be looked at <br />is collecting the same number of dollars but devising a different system of collection. Gaffron stated the <br />biggest question is how much revenue the City would like to collect from this source. <br /> <br />McMillan stated it appears the City Council is looking at land that is being subdivided; vacant lots, which <br />is land that is not subdivided; a redeveloped lot, such as a tear down and rebuild; and an addition to the <br />structure. McMillan noted currently the City does not charge a stormwater fee on a redeveloped lot or a <br />remodel. <br /> <br />Gaffron asked if the City Council has a priority or whether she would like to look at them together. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she realizes the City is experiencing some pressure on this issue with regard to <br />subdivisions but that she would like to look at the other ones as well. McMillan indicated she would like <br />to add the 50 percent reduction credit to subdivided land and that she would place the vacant land and <br />redeveloped lots in the same category. McMillan indicated she is not interested in charging a stormwater <br />fee on additions unless they are doubling the size of the house. <br /> <br />Levang stated she likes those four categories, but as it relates to an addition, if it adds more bedrooms, <br />that could result in an increase of usage and have an impact on the stormwater system. Levang stated in <br />her view there should be a threshold established and that the City should look at what the stormwater <br />impact is likely to be from that piece of land.