HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP April 30, 1996
, '\
'./
'./
)
Special City Council
Workshop - April 30, 1996
CITY of ANDOVER
Call to Order - 7:00 pm
1. Meet with Developers
a. Review Bonding Rates
b. Discuss Transportation Fee
c. Discuss Current Improvement Practices
d. Wetland Ordinance
2. Meeting with Adolfson & Peterson
a. Review City Hall Options
b.Review Public Works Options
3. Adjourn
,
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE ^pRlJQ, 199~
AGENDA
1\0.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
ITEM
1\0.
Discussion:
Wetlands Discussion
Planning
Jeff Johnson m
Dave Carlberg ~
,.J
Attached, please fmd a copy of the Wetlands Protection Ordinance drafted by staff for
your review. Staff has researched similar ordinances from the communities of Maple
Grove, Plymouth and Bumsville.
The intent of the ordinance is to establish and maintain a buffer strip that abuts all
wetlands that is undisturbed, or is of natural condition.
,
, ) As of date, the ordinance has been brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission
(minutes attached), Watershed District and to the developers for discussion.
Staff would like your direction and comments on how to proceed with this proposed
" ordinance.
\
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
BY:
,
)
CITY OF ANDOVER
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING BUFFER STRIPS AND STANDARDS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF WETLANDS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings and Intent.
This ordinance hereby incorporates by reference the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991
[Minn. Stat. 103G.221 et seq. (herein after referred to as the WCA)] and any future
amendments adopted by the legislature. All wetlands and activities shall comply with
those regulations as adopted under the WCA.
/
The City finds it necessary to regulate the use of lands surrounding wetlands. Buffer
strips, are necessary and beneficial to maintaining the health of wetlands. These strips of
land surrounding wetlands protect their shorelines from erosion, while serving to filter
sediment, chemicals and other nutrients before storm water discharges into the wetland.
Buffer strips are also beneficial in providing habitat for wildlife.
It is the intent of this ordinance to establish and maintain a buffer strip that abuts all
wetlands that is undisturbed, or is of natural condition.
Section 2. Pur:pose and Implementation.
Through the adoption and enforcement ofthis ordinance, the City shall promote the
general health, safety, and welfare of its residents by both conserving and protecting
wetland resources of the City. The City seeks to accomplish the following purposes:
(a) To satisfy all ofthe requirements of the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991
as amended and, thereby, achieve no net loss of wetlands within
the City;
/
(b) To balance the needs to preserve and protect natural resources and systems
with both the rights of private property owners and the need to support the
efficient use of developable land within the City;
'\
)
(c) To promote water quality by maintaining the ability of wetlands to recharge
ground water and receive the discharge of ground water, to retain sediment
and toxicants and filter and strip nutrients from surface water runoff before
it discharges into community lakes and streams, thus avoiding the
contamination and eutrophication of these water features; and
(d) To provide wildlife habitat and thereby support the maintenance of diversity
of both plant and animal species within the City.
Section 3. Definitions.
Buffer Strip
A one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters) wide area abutting a wetland that may not be mowed,
cut, or fertilized, and is left undisturbed.
Wetland (s)
\
',. /
Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually
at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For the purposes ofthis
definition, wetlands must have all three ofthe following attributes:
(1) A predominance of hydric soils;
(2) Inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support a prevalence ofhydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions;
(3) Under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such hydrophytic vegetation.
Wetland Buffer Monument
A marker which consists of a post. The post shall be 4" x 4" square and its material shall
be treated non-leaching type wood or other City approved material. Post installation is as
follows:
- Posts shall be mounted to a height of four feet above grade,
- Post shall be set at least 42 inches in the ground,
- Post shall be installed at each lot line where it crosses a wetland buffer, with a
maximum spacing of 150 feet, and
- Post shall follow buffer contour line.
/
2
\
Wetland Area Buffer Sign (Permanent)
;'
Sign(s) that designates the buffer strip. The sign(s) shall be mounted flush with the top of
the wetland buffer monument posts and shall be fastened with non-removable screws or
rivets. Signs shall be purchased from the City. The sign(s) shall replace all temporary
wetland buffer sign(s) when removed. Sgin(s) are required on every wetland buffer
monument.
Wetland Area Buffer Sign (Temporary)
Sign(s) that designates the buffer strip. The sign(s) shall be mounted flush with the top of
the wetland buffer monument posts and shall be fastened with removable screws or rivets.
Signs shall be purchased from the City. The sign(s) shall be installed prior to and
throughout development and/or building construction and should not be removed until
construction and/or development has been completed and all landscaping has been
installed. Signs are required on every wetland buffer monument.
,
,
/
Section 4. Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks. For lots of record created after the
adoption of this ordinance, a buffer strip shall be maintained abutting all wetlands. The
setback and buffer provisions of this ordinance shall not apply for developments that have
paid the preliminary plat fee (As Established in Ordinance No. 10, Section 7.02-
Procedures for Platting and Subdividing Tracts of Land) to the City within 30 days after
the adoption of this ordinance.
Buffer strips shall be established and maintained in accordance with the following
requirements:
(a) Buffer strips shall be identified within each lot by wetland buffer
monumentation approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for
the placement ofthe monuments. A one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters, measured
linear) wide undisturbed buffer strip shall be maintained abutting all wetlands.
A monument is required wherever a buffer strip intersects a lot line with a
maximum spacing of 150 feet of wetland edge.
(b) Wetland buffer strips shall apply to all wetlands.
The minimum required setback of five (5) feet from all wetland buffer strips shall apply
to all structures. This setback requirement shall take precedence over all other setbacks
as required in City ordinances.
3
,
/
Recognizing that there are instances where because of the unique physical characteristics
of a specific parcel of land, narrower buffer strips may be necessary to allow for the
reasonable use of the land and to allow for the natural functioning of the wetland. The
Andover Review Committee may approve alternative standards, based on an assessment
of the following:
(a) Size of the parcel,
(b) Existing roads and utilities,
(c) Percentage of parcel containing wetlands, and
(d) Configuration of wetlands on parcel.
The Andover Review Committee will evaluate the appropriateness of using the
alternative standards as part of its review. An applicant must receive Andover Review
Committee approval through either of these review processes prior to submitting a
preliminary plan or plat application that applies the alternative buffer strip standards.
Section 5. Protective Barriers.
,
I
, /
Active protective fencing shall be installed by the developer/builder along the most
upland edge of all wetland buffer strips prior to any development and/or building
construction. These fences will be a minimum of three (3) feet high. Geotextile fabric
fencing (silt fence) is acceptable as long as it meets MNDOT 3733 Type 3.
All wetland buffer strip protection zones shall be designated as such with temporary
wetland area buffer signs posted visible on all sides of the fenced area. These signs are
intended to inform contractors of the wetland buffer strip protection process. The
developer/builder is responsible for the installation or placement ofthese signs.
All fencing barriers, monuments, and signs must be installed prior to and maintained
throughout development and/or building construction. All fencing barriers and temporary
wetland area buffer signs shall not be removed until construction and/or development has
been completed and all landscaping has been installed.
Upon the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit from the Building Department, it
will be the responsibility of the builder to remove all temporary wetland area buffer signs
and replace the temporary signs with permanent wetland area buffer signs. The
permanent wetland area buffer signs are intended to inform the property owner of the
wetland buffer strip protection process.
,)
4
Section 6. Wetland Buffer Strip Protection Plan.
I
J
A Wetland Buffer Strip Protection Plan shall be submitted either as part of the Grading,
Drainage and Erosion Control Plan or as a separate drawing, to include the following:
(1) Location of all wetlands.
(2) Location of wetland buffer monuments.
(3) Location of buffer strip(s),
(4) All required setbacks from the buffer strip(s).
The following notes shall be indicated on the wetland buffer strip plan in large letters:
(1) Contact the City prior to any land disturbance.
(2) All wetland buffer strip protection measures shall be installed prior to
development and/or building construction.
Section 7. Buffer Strip Vegetation re-establishment Performance Standards. Buffer strip
vegetation shall be re-established and maintained in the buffer strip if the vegetation is
disturbed or destroyed. The following standards apply:
)
(a) Where acceptable native vegetation exists in buffer strip areas, the retention
of such vegetation in an undisturbed state is preferred. A buffer strip has
acceptable natural vegetation if it:
(I) has a continuous, dense layer of perennial grasses that have been
uncultivated or unbroken for at least 10 consecutive years, or
(2) has an overstory of trees and/or shrubs with at least 80 percent canopy
closure that have been uncultivated or unbroken for at least 10
consecutive years, or
(3) contains a mixture of the plant communities as described in (1) and (2)
above, that have been uncultivated or unbroken for at least 10
consecutive years.
(b) Notwithstanding the above performance standards, the City may determine
buffer vegetation to be unacceptable if;
(1) it is composed of undesirable plant species (including, but not limited to
common buckthorn, purple loosestrife, leafy spurge and noxious weeds)
or
,J
5
(2) it is lacking a layer of organic thatch or duff, or
)
(3) has topography that tends to channelize the flow of surface runoff, or
(4) for some other reason it is unlikely to retain nutrients and sediment.
(c) Where buffer strips, or a portion thereof, have been cultivated or otherwise
disturbed, such areas shall be replanted and maintained according to each of
the following standards:
(1) Plant species shall be selected from wetland and upland plants to provide
habitat for various species of wildlife.
(2) Plant species to be replanted shall need to be approved by the City.
(3) No fertilizer shall be used in establishing new buffer strips, except on
highly disturbed sites when deemed necessary to establish acceptable
buffer vegetation and then limited to amounts indicated by an accredited
soil testing laboratory,
(4) Buffer strips (both natural and created), shall be protected by silt fence
and the fence shall remain in place until the area crop is established.
I
/
The developer/builder shall replant any buffer vegetation that does not survive or that is
disturbed or destroyed during development and/or building construction. After the
Certificate of Occupancy is issued, if the condition of the buffer area changes through
natural processes not caused by the property owner, the owner shall not be required to re-
establish the buffer strip to meet the standards established in this ordinance.
Section 8. Encroachment in Buffer Strip Areas
Buffer strip areas must be kept free of all structures, driveways, fences, play equipment
and the exterior storage of all equipment and materials. Roads and trails (intended to
serve an interpretive function) may be exempted from the buffer strip requirement.
Section 9. Variances
(a) Requests for variances shall be made in accordance with the procedures and
requirements set for in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04.
-'
6
)
(b) Variances shall only be granted when the standards and criteria set forth in
Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04 have been met. Variances shall not be granted
which would circumvent the intent and purposes of this ordinance.
Section 10. Inspection and Investigation
The City or duly authorized agents appointed by the City
Administrator shall inspect all premises and places within the City of Andover as often as
practicable to determine whether any condition described in this ordinance exists. The
inspector shall investigate all reported wetland incidents and may enter upon private
premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out any of the duties assigned
to them under this ordinance.
Section 11. Penalty
,
./
Any developer or building contractor that fails to comply with this ordinance, the City
will notify them in writing. The developer or building contractor will have a maximum of
five (5) working days to comply with the request(s) as documented in written
correspondence by the City.
If the developer or contractor fails to comply with the request(s), the City may contract
with a contractor to complete the request(s) and the developer or building contractor shall
be responsible for all costs incurred. Rates and a fee schedule shall be adopted by City
Council resolution to calculate the costs to complete the request(s).
The City shall utilize erosion control escrow funds as identified in the development
contract to pay for these costs. In the case where no escrow funds are available, the
developer or building contractor shall be billed directly.
Any person (firm, or corporation) who violates any section of this ordinance or shall
obstruct staff or their representatives from carrying out their duties, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by State Law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this
day of
,1996.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ANDOVER
Vicki V olk, City Clerk
J. E. McKelvey, Mayor
.'
7
'- )
, ,
, _J
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - March 12, 1996
Page 3
(Discussion - Planned Unit Developments, Continued)
Commissioner Putnam also felt PUDs can be used when the City wants
specific buffers and certain kinds of housing in specific areas. He
agreed with Mr. Carlberg that a differentiation should be made between
mixed use PUDs versus clustered residential housing with increased
densities. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will try to have something back to
the Commission by the next meeting.
DISCUSSION - WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE
Mr. Johnson presented a proposed wetlands protection ordinance which was
tailored from the Burnsville, Maple Grove and Plymouth ordinances. The
Commission went through the ordinance section by section and made the
following comments and recommendations:
Page 1, Section 1, Findings and Intent: Chairperson Squires asked how
potential state legislation changes would affect this ordinance. Mr.
Carlberg did not know, but he has given a copy of the proposed ordinance
to the Coon Creek Watershed District. They will review it and note any
errors, conflicts, etc. He hoped that information would be available
for the public hearing on this ordinance. Staff can also look into any
proposed wetlands legislation at the State as well.
Page 2, Wetland Buffer Monument: Commissioner Wells suggested the
markers be permanent corner markings like lot stakes so they would not
be removed or lost. Commissioner Putnam felt the buffer strip would
naturally occur; and if there is none, would the City require one to be
put in? That 16 1/2 feet of buffer area might have been there for a
long time, and he questioned if there would be a need for permanent
markers. Mr. Carlberg explained the process of delineating the wetland
to protect against the 100-year flood elevation. It is possible for the
wetland boundaries to change over time. Chairperson Squires had a
concern with iron monuments. They are used for lots, which always
remain the same. But he didn't agree with installing iron monuments to
delineate boundaries that may change. Mr. Carlberg also felt permanent
iron markers may be confused with actual corner markers. The bigges~
concern is what happens over time. Wetlands will have to be monitored
so people don't sod or mow to the edge of the water. The intent is to
avoid contamination of the wetland area with additional fill, lawn
fertilizer, etc. Commissioner Putnam also felt permanent iron markers
may not be necessary given today's technology of being able to determine
lot lines, wetland delineations, etc., with hand-held computers. No
change was made.
Definition of Wetlands: Mr. Johnson stated this definition is the same
one taken from the Wetlands Conservation Act, but he will double check
it.
,
./
Page 3, Wetland Area Buffer Sign: Commission
possibility of having a very bright, visible
wetland area and buffer during construction, and
discussion was on the
sign delineating the
then replace that with
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning commission Meeting
Minutes - March 12, 1996
Page 4
\
,,)
(Discussion - Wetland Protection Ordinance, Continued)
a smaller, more natural permanent sign on the wetland buffer monument
posts indicating the buffer area. The permanent signs should be
aesthetically pleasing, possibly a metal band around the post. Mr.
Carlberg stated Staff will do further research on permanent versus
temporary buffer signs.
- ,
Section 4, (a), Buffer strips: Commissioner Wells suggested the buffer
be greater than the 16 1/2 feet proposed in the ordinance to protect the
wetlands. Chairperson Squires felt there may be areas that have a
natural buffer of more than 16 1/2 feet and forcing that specific buffer
zone may be unnatural. Mr. Carlberg explained this is a 16 1/2-foot
buffer outside of the delineated wetland boundary. Now they sod right
up to the water. This would eliminate that practice. Commissioner
Luedtke didn't feel 16 1/2 feet is enough to preserve the natural look
of the wetland. Commissioner Putnam stated some people will clear to
that buffer; others will leave a greater buffer. If it is a naturally-
occurring buffer, it would look unnatural by requiring a larger buffer.
Also, in the urban areas, any more could have a severe impact on what
can be done on the lots. Chairperson Squires didn't know if there was
anything that could be done with uniformity. They can only deal with
minimums. He has also been surprised when looking at wetland
delineations as to what is considered wetlands. He felt they are very
liberally defined, and adding another 16 1/2 feet beyond that
delineation would be a very large area, especially in the urban area
where it could really encompass a lot of the back yards. He questioned
whether these same rules would apply to ponds that have been
deliberately created on private property. Mr. Carlberg stated he will
ask the Watershed if the 16 1/2-foot minimum would also apply to
privately developed ponds as well as protected wetlands.
,
~ - /
Consequences: Commissioner Wells felt there should be more teeth in
the ordinance and include consequences if barriers are violated.
Chairperson Squires wondered if that is covered under the Development
Agreement with the developer. Mr. Carlberg did not know if there was an
escrow; but if there is a problem during construction, the developer is
tagged and development is stopped until the problem is corrected.
\
,)
/1
Page 4, Section 5, Protective Barriers: Mr. Carlberg stated as
written, the barriers would be removed when the Certificate of Occupancy
is removed. The Commission stated the discussion was to have permanent
markers as discussed previously. There probably would be no problem witlJ
the first owner of the lot; but as the lot is sold to others, people
will not know about the barriers unless they are marked. Again, any
markers during construction would be bright and reflective; and
permanent markers would be unobtrusive, possibly metal wrapped around
the pole stating "wetland protection buffer". Mr. Carlberg suggested
the last sentence in the section state, "Upon the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy Permit from the Building Department, the
protective barriers shall be removed by the developer/builder." He will
discuss the issue of escrowing for protective barriers with the
Engineering Department.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - March 12, 1996
Page 5
\
'- ;
{Discussion - Wetland Protection Ordinance, Continued}
Page 4, Section 6, Wetland Buffer Strip Protection Plan.
phone number in the second paragraph, Item 1.
Remove the
Page 4, Section 7, Buffer Strip Vegetation Re-Establishment Performance
Standards: Commissioner Wells argued the buffer area is not to be
disturbed, so there would be no need to re-establish the vegetation. If
there is a problem, she'd like to see the vegetation replaced with the
original vegetation. After further discussion, the general feeling was
that as written, the references to natural vegetation may be sufficient;
however, Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will look at the section again to see
if some clarification can be made to preserving the wetland vegetation
that is appropriate. He will also ask the Watershed about re-
establishing the buffer area. Wetland plants would not be found outside
the wetland area.
,
)
Page 6, Section 8, Encroachment in Buffer Strip Areas: Discussion was
on the ability to place docks, duck blinds, boats, etc., within that
buffer strip areas. Commissioner Wells argued by placing anything
within that area, the vegetation is killed and the buffer zone is being
changed. Commissioner Luedtke stated he would like to build a dock to
the water area to be able to go out and enjoy it. Mr. Carlberg staten
the intent is to keep structures, fences, play equipment, etc., out of
the buffer strip. He didn't know if they can expand it to include
temporary storage of boats, docks, etc. Chairperson Squires questioned
whether a dock is a permanent structure and suggested Staff look at
whether the items listed are adequate or whether it needs to be
expanded.
Page 6, Section 9, Variances: Chairperson Squires thought these should
be use variances which would allow someone to build a structure in the
wetland buffer area. Commissioner Putnam thought someone should be able
to apply for a variance on the 16 1/2 feet of buffer area as well, as
possibly the elevation or other topographical feature would warrant a
smaller buffer zone. Staff was asked to clarify an area variance
provision as opposed to a use variance.
Page 7, Section 10, Inspection and Investigation: Chairperson Squires
noted the last sentence is similar to one that created considerable
resident concern when proposed in another ordinance, that is granting
the inspector the authority to enter onto private property at any
reasonable time to carry out the duties assigned under this ordinance.
He cautioned this may be an issue.
,
\, J
Page 7, Section 11, Penalty: Commissioner Wells questioned the five-day
provision to comply, feeling a lot of damage can be created within that
time frame. Five working days is a long time. Mr. Carlberg felt it is
a reasonable time period, in that the person does have to be given time
to correct the problem. They can attempt to distinguish between the
situations of a private homeowner and during the course of construction
when dealing with a contractor/builder. Chairperson Squires also
suggested a sentence be added that the provision does not necessarily
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - March 12, 1996
Page 6
\
,
J
{Discussion - Wetland Protection Ordinance, Continued}
limit the remedies given to the City under other ordinances. Make it
clear this isn't the only penalty that can be levied against the person
who violates the ordinance.
Mr. Carlberg stated changes and corrections will be made to the proposed
ordinance and a public hearing scheduled as soon as possible.
DISCUSSION - ANTENNA/TOWER REGULATION ORDINANCE
Mr. Johnson explained two companies have approached Staff asking about
the possibility of placing antennas on the City's water towers. Staff
is in the process of drafting an ordinance that will address height
restrictions, permits, locations and setback requirements, policies, and
lease agreements. His research has found that other communities require
a permit process and charge a fee when antennas are placed on the
cities' water towers. The City Council has indicated they would like to
see these antennas and towers located on City-owned property and that it
become a financial benefit for the community. It would also be possible
for more than one company to have antennas on the same water tower. One
communications company is in the process of drafting a five-year plan
for the installation of their antennas, and they will send that plan to
the City for review. He asked the Commission what other issues they
would like to see addressed in the ordinance.
'\
'.. J
Commissioner Wells wanted to be sure the frequencies being used by the
telecommunications companies do not interfere with or cause problems
with garage door openers of residents, etc. Mr. Johnson stated in most
cities the telecommunications company are required to submit a copy of
an interference analysis to be sure there will be no interference
problems. That can be placed in the lease agreement. Commissioner
Putnam felt the antennas would not be obtrusive if placed on the water
towers. A concern would be how many are needed in the City to cover the
area. There may not be public property available in the northern
portion of the City. He would also be concerned about the density. How
many will an area or a water tower support? Mr. Carlberg stated the
intent is to be sure the City has control and to protect the City in
these situations. There have been no problems with the towers that have
already been constructed in the City.
'.,
"j)
Chairperson Squires felt that many of the issues, including liability,
maintenance, upkeep and subleasing, can be handled ln the lease
agreement, which presumably will be drafted by the City Attorney. He
also advised that the terminology "city property" be used as opposed to
"public property". He recalled seeing something on the federal level
dealing with this issue and suggested that be researched so any federal
regulations would not preempt the local regulations. Commissioner Wells
suggested the revenues generated from the fees be specifically
earmarked, so residents can be told how those funds will be used. Mr.
Carlberg stated the Council will need to address that issue.
)
"
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
J
)
April 29, 1996
Mayor and City Council
Richard Fursman
Transportation Fee
The Council will be weighing positives and negatives when considering a
transportation fee for new development. The framework for
consideration of such a fee is the direction given to staff by the Council.
The mission statement adopted by the Council and the subsequent
"goals" have directed staff to do the following:
"The City shall identify public transportation needs and develop either
public or private plans to meet those needs."
"AII City services shall be reviewed to determine if a charge should be
levied to the beneficiaries of the service, and what that fee should be."
Now more than ever, the City is faced with overwhelming transportation
challenges, Primary transportation routes are becoming clogged and
dangerous. Funds are needed for intersection development, turn lanes,
traffic lights, overlays and other safety features to help funnel traffic in and
out of developments in a safe and timely manner.
The funds received through the State are not sufficient to cover the
anticipated costs of all the upgrades needed. Additional general fund
taxes for the development and upkeep of transportation routes has been
discouraged by the council.
Staff has suggested the council consider a $2501l0t transportation fee on
new developments. (There would also be a commercial rate established)
This would help the City collect a portion of the funds needed to address
the aforementioned needs.
Alternative
1. As an alternative to establishing a set fee, the City could require that
each plat or development also present a transportation impact study, if the
study indicates that the present infrastructure is inadequately designed to
provide safe and timely discharge of vehicular traffic, then the plat would
be delayed until the City had the funds to build the necessary
improvements.
,
, /
Memo Page Two
2. Another alternative would be for the "CITY" engineering department to
do a transportation impact study each time a new plat were developed, or
when circumstances warranted, and assess the new development their
"fair share" of the improvement costs.
3, A third alternative would be for the City to fund the improvement costs
external to the development. This would be funded with general fund
dollars through ad valorem taxes and state aid when possible.
/
)
2