2013-01-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10 General Fund money. It is important to examine credits. She asked what the total impervious surface that will not be charged the fee would be. Mr. Norris thanked Ms. Riddervold for her hard work on this proposal. He said this is an involuntary fee, because you cannot stop rain from falling on your house, which makes it a tax. He is concerned that other alternatives were not considered for covering costs, to include finding other sources for this within our budget. Improving our stormwater infrastructure is a priority, but we are pulling money from taxpayers for a priority that does not outweigh our community's many needs. He cannot support this proposal. Mr. Huja said we have been talking about stormwater for at least twenty years, and he is pleased to have a proposal that is fair and effective. Infrastructure improvement is an important need in our community. He is concerned about financing issues and is also concerned about the impact on low income families. He supports a larger credit, over 50%, for property owners who take care of their own drainage on site. He supports an oversight committee. He said he is interested in exploring Ms. Smith's proposal for the fee being applied based on the exact area. A mix of General Fund money and a fee is a more equitable approach. He said we should cut property owner tax rates to help offset the new fee. Ms. Szakos said she does not support lowering property tax rates because we are still contributing money from the General Fund, and there are many priorities we still need to fund. Ms. Galvin said Council still needs to discuss a strategic approach to tying our budget to our priorities. We need to examine our priorities comprehensively. This particular fee addresses a fundamental responsibility, and she cannot tie it to a conversation about cutting taxes. Ms. Smith asked Ms. Riddervold if the calculation for impervious surface would be fine-tuned before implementing the fee. Ms. Riddervold said this went through an extensive process in 2009, and there will be another fly-over in 2013 to digitize the most current snapshot. Bills generated will come from the most accurate data we can establish. Appropriate corrections will be built into the process going forward. Waivers will likely be generously granted in the first round of billing. Ms. Haggerty explained the logistics behind the appeals process. Ms. Szakos asked if we calculated fees by tenths of a unit, if we would actually pay more because of staff time. Ms. Haggerty said we did examine doing it based on a smaller unit, and costs increase as the measured unit size decreases. Mr. Huja asked Ms. Haggerty to discuss what size other localities use to measure units. She reviewed some other localities. Our approach is average. Mr. Huja said he would like to see an adjustment to 500 because of the number of small houses in Charlottesville. Ms. Smith asked if this can be passed on a first reading with the number of proposed changes. Mr. Brown said Council can amend the first reading or defer a first reading in order to allow staff to make the necessary changes. Ms. Galvin said she would like to see a revised ordinance before Council votes.