Road Use Impact Fee
Happy 4th
of July! Last minute preparations are under way for the county fair. Remember –
the Winona County Fair is one of the best places to take your family for
inexpensive entertainment. The 4H projects, rides, food and livestock are great
for kids and adults alike.
Winona County
government continues to move in a positive direction by meeting the goals set
by the board. As previously shared, we have stellar staff that continues to
work on behalf of the citizens to provide great service. In the last weeks, misinformation
regarding the “road impact fee” assessed to new, intensive sand operations, and
the new Zoning Ordinance have resurfaced. I will present the particulars on
these issues. Feel free to contact our offices for additional information if
you need it.
First, expanding the road impact
fee to other products (farm production) has not been proposed (nor supported)
by any board member. As you will read
later, aggregate products are separated by legislation.
Last summer, three intensive use sand
mines applied for county permits. These mines raised many new issues that
needed answers before the majority of the board could move forward on them. Since
the owners wished to extract the sand in a significantly shorter, more concentrated
traffic pattern than previously experienced, the board needed to ensure that
water, air and road issues were addressed.
Our staff
indicated they could research and address these questions in three months;
hence, a 3-month moratorium was enacted. Countless staff hours were dedicated
to contacting air and water experts to rely upon validated, scientific data.
The conclusion was that the surface mining sand would not impact the quality or
quantity of water. Additionally, staff
did not receive definitive data indicating air would be negatively affected. At
present, no completed sand mine applications have come forward since the
moratorium ended.
The impact
upon road structure became the prominent subject. The mining companies and the
board agreed that additional road maintenance cost - above normal wear and tear
– should be paid by mining business (as a cost of commerce); rather than being
assessed to county citizens through increased taxes. Without a formal
structure, some townships could be forced into dire financial situations,
should they have to solely maintain the roads, and/or taxes would need to be
increased to make up the additional expenses. What we did not yet know was “HOW”
to assess this fee.
Some options the board evaluated are as follows:
1.
Request the miners maintain the road route used.
This would work
provided they continued along the same route for the existence of the mine. New entities would change the route, road wear
and responsibility.
2.
Use the aggregate tax as the road repair funding
source.
This fee would not come remotely close to covering the cost,
and precluded the county from using other forms of road repair funding, so it too
would require a citizen tax (increased levy).
3.
Collect a hauler fee.
After much research,
we found this to be the most fair, legal and adjustable (should actual road
wear vary from estimates). Through road impact formulas developed across the
state, we crunched the numbers and came to a 21.9 cents/ton/mile assessment on
county roads (estimated cost of additional wear on the roads). A separate fund will track the road impact
fees. If too high, we reduce it; if too little, we increase it.
We also require that the mines
bring forward a township road agreement in their application. It is up to the
township to negotiate their own road use agreement; thus we are assured that
both entities are aware of the road impact.
To clarify,
our exiting infrastructure was built for the current use. This is not a
“slippery slope” to tax farm equipment in the future. A farm expansion, nor increased farm
production, is not anywhere near the impact of the new mining industry. The fee
is only applicable to "an intensive new venture" which has been found
to disproportionately diminish the lifespan of a typical public road investment
- one that taxes our roads beyond the current use. The State of MN has made a clear delineation historically
between agricultural use and aggregate mining use by legislating an aggregate
tax in Minnesota. They did so to highlight that aggregate extraction is in a
completely different enterprise than anything else.
We are open
to evaluate better solutions.
The above misunderstandings appear
to be similar to the miscommunication regarding the Zoning Ordinance. The
following are past misunderstandings that are still thought to be true by some:
1.
You need to own 40 acres or you cannot build. False.
In fact, it is easier to build on less than 40 acres under
the new ordinance than the old one, as more of the requests follow CUP
(conditional use permit) vs. variances. Variances are more difficult and must
meet strict criteria.
2.
You cannot do any repair on your property now
without a permit. False.
You can do most repair and upkeep as previously allowed.
Some new requirements are in the zoning
ordinance as things have changed in the last 20 years (when the previous
ordinance was written). The county is required to follow State of Minnesota
requirements (water set-backs, septic, feedlots, etc.). One new requirement
that has been misrepresented is the no-fee permit for agriculture building
construction. This was done as a result of the increasing costs and occurrence
of neighbor disputes arising from structures that were not built in a legal
location (inadequate set-back, in right-of-way, over property lines, etc.).
Prevention is much cheaper than the cure in these cases.
It is my hope
that people will ask questions and pass on the facts. If you need answers,
please contact the county to get the information you need.
Have a
great holiday with your family and friends. Please remember those that cannot
be here to share in the celebrations while serving our country.
Please call
with any questions or concerns for the county.
Mena Kaehler
mkaehler@co.winona.mn.us
