HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Storm Water UtilityCITY OF RO EM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Storm Water Utility
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Ron Wasmund
AGENDI On M
7
Public Works Director/Building Official
( Gt:j
ATTACHMENTS: Outline of Hearing Presentation
APP Y:`
The attached outline describes the approach the presentation of this
Public Hearing will take.
The rates I will be using for discussion will include the suggested
changes I provided to you at the January 7, 1992 meeting. The last
suggestion I have for the rates is to round each fee to the nearest
even dime (ie: 4,88=4.90). For billing purposes it is easier to have
even money.
The results of the public hearing that I would like to see is unified
consensus of the Council. The actual adoption must be done in the
form of an ordinance. I would propose to incorporate all of the
changes we've made in the past months to the report document, then
submit a final draft and ordinance language to Council for adoption in
February.
For me to prepare a final draft it is absolutely necessary for Council
to define which items would prevent adoption. If a straw vote
indicates a negative passage then I would desire to schedule a
workshop session prior to any further discussion or action at a
Council meeting.
I am looking forward to our discussion on Tuesday night.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion instructing Staff to proceed with final
draft of report document and ordinance language for formal adoption at
February 4, 1992 regular Council meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION:
3
. - i
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
KAYOR
-
Open Public Hearing
Explain Process of Public Hearing
RON
-
Use of Overheads for Presentation
I.
Explain theory of utility approach
A.
What is it
B.
Run-off contribution
C.
O & M Budget
1. Enterprise versus General Levy
II.
Identify Benefit to Community
A.
Reduced costs
1. Fees versus Taxes
B.
Drainage System Maintenance
C.
Surface Water Quality
D.
Wetland Protection
E.
Erosion and Sediment Control
III.
Development versus Replacement
A.
Connection Charges
B.
Assessments
C.
Service Fees
IV.
Revenue versus Expenditures Budget
A.
Comparison of Fee Projects to Fee Income
B.
Comparison of Connection Charge Projects to
Connection Charges
C.
Stability of Rates
V.
Rate
Comparison — Other Cities
VI.
Summary
0=
es�r