2007-09-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9 comprehensive and sustainable Water Resources Protection Program through user-based fees. Mr. Norris thanked the team who worked on the report. He asked what the estimate is of the percentage increase the proposed fee would be on the average water bill. Ms. Riddervold said she does not know, but can get the information. Mr. Norris said that there is a compelling argument about conservation, but said he has not heard if that will offset the need to expand the water supply. Mr. Norris said he is favorably inclined to support the recommendation, but feels that it is too light on the incentive side for encouraging positive action on the personal property side. He said it also seems a little staff heavy. Ms. Hamilton asked what the projected payoff time is for the 50 drainage projects. Ms. Riddervold said that the only cost estimates are old and she hesitates to give an estimate. Mr. Taliaferro thanked Ms. Riddervold for a great report. Mr. Taliaferro asked if the time frame for addressing the drainage projects is dictated by the amount of money available, and Ms. Riddervold said yes. Mr. Taliaferro said he supports taking a more aggressive stance. Mr. Lynch said he agrees we need to increase our level of funding, but he said he has some concerns. He said we put more money in last year and we need to know what we are getting for that. He said he is concerned about the proposed manpower and administration. He said a fee comes down to a tax increase. He said we should spend as little as possible managing the program. He said we might want to increase drainage funding by $300,000, and use one fifth for administration. He said we have good partnerships with community groups and we need to build on those. He said there are opportunities to do some mediation without new money. He said he does not think we will see as much greenfield development. He said we should expand our stream buffer ordinance. He said his inclination is to do more incrementally and look at the results of that. He said he would like to see what we got for the extra money put in last year. Ms. Hamilton said this is the third time this issue has been before Council and she found the information useful. She said there is a fundamental issue over how to pay for the program. She said she pushed last budget to do more on sewers, but she did not prevail. She said she is deeply uneasy about a fee structure and how it is proposed to be calculated. She asked if there would be a differential rate for new construction. She said she wants to move forward but is torn. Ms. Riddervold said those are issues we need to slog through. Responding to a question from Mr. O’Connell, Ms. Riddervold said that 30% to 35% of the funding would come from single family residences and the remainder from multi-family and commercial properties. Mr. Taliaferro said he would like to get the names of other municipalities that have a fee. Dr. Brown said he thinks that the proposal is a great idea. He said the criticism is legitimate that we have ignored our infrastructure and need to do more. He said he likes doing it comprehensively. He disagrees that it be treated like a tax, and said that creating a utility fee indicates our commitment. He said the only way it will work is to create a revenue stream. He said the City has a problem with aging infrastructure. He said the County will pay more of the water supply costs because they are growing. He said he likes that it creates incentives, but agreed that he would like to see more incentives proposed for residential property owners. He said he thinks we have to move forward.