01-27-14 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION January 6, 2014 DRAFT 2 people are happy with them, why force the water utility? Mr. Grochala explained that 46 the assessments rolls for the Shenandoah project at one time did inc lude utilities with the 47 understanding that the work could be taken out. Mayor Reinert noted that information 48 about what people want is the best reason to have neighborhood meetings first, before any 49 feasibility study is done. The council heard Mr. Grochala explain an option where the 50 city decides to proceed utilizing street reconstruction bonds funded by property tax es 51 (with a 5 year plan in place) and allows the neighborhood to consider adding utilities as a 52 separate p roject. The resident of Hokah D rive asked if residents could have an individ ual 53 option for utilities or not; he added that the demographics in that ne ighborhood are such 54 that a certain level of assessment could actually push some people out. Mr. Grochala 55 explained th at typically projects have included water but did not require hook up with a 56 functioning well in place. City Engineer Wedel noted that, without a hook up and 57 assessment, another funding source would have to be id entified for the bonds that 58 financed the utility improvements. Community Development Director Grochala added 59 that a financing policy is appropriate so people can understand the opt ions clearly. The 60 resident of Hokah Drive added that the city should have a schedule of improvements that 61 people can see and plan on; he thinks people expect some sort of assessment but the size 62 has to be appropriate and workable. 63 64 Mr. Grochala noted that there are certain stipulations attached to funding types - i.e. street 65 reconstruction bo nds count as part of the city’s debt ceiling, some bonding may require a 66 certain level of improvement (curbs and gutters). He also reviewed information included 67 in h is report on possible financial impacts of new bond issuance, with and without an 68 assessment. Whatever process is ultimately undertaken would have to be phased in. A 69 five year plan is needed. He suggests that March of this year would be a key time to look 70 at starting either a feasibility study under the existing charter, a charter amendment or a 71 reconstruction bond ing plan (doing that plan should probably be done anyway). 72 73 The Mayor suggested that the conversation has been started and that is importa nt. The 74 first decision he think s is process. The council will contin ue working on the subject at 75 work sessions and staff will provide more details for discussion including how to proceed 76 with a five y ear plan and how to approach the Charter Commission. Council Members 77 Rafferty and Stoesz indicated that they would attend the January Charter Commission 78 meeting to give them a general idea of the council’s discussion. 79 80 2. NE Drainage Study Update – Community Development Director Grochala recalled 81 that the city has been working with the watershed district on drainage in this NE area of 82 the city. The council authorized a study that resulted in a plan for a storm sewer pipe 83 along the future alignment of Otter Lake Road to Clearwater Creek for drainage. The 84 plan would require permission to allow an increase in . The watershed is reviewing the 85 proposal but has to include consideration of impacts on capacity. The work will continue 86 and will incur some additional costs for engineering and modeling. 87 88