CC - Agendas - City Council - REGULAR - 7/23/2013

Home

Prescott City Council Workshop — July 2, 2013 Page 6 some type of a cost benefit analysis was not done. She said it is her civic duty to ask the questions. She asked that all landscaping being xeriscaped. Councilman Scamardo addressed her concerns and explained how impact fees are used. Mr. McConnell explained the City is required to do a new study, which is being done, but the impact fees in place today will be charged to the developer. Thomas Slayback, Prescott resident, said he is speaking on behalf of being a Prescott taxpayer and pointed out that the Verde River is in a crisis state. It is losing 1 cubic foot per second per year. He noted that every one of the proposed houses will waste water with outdoor water use. He said we have to go to high density/multi-story development so there are not yards wasting water. He noted that the City is setting a horrible precedent and that this request is a bait and switch. Any change to an annexation that came in under Proposition 400 should go through Proposition 400 again. He is asking Council to do the right thing. If Prescott expects to grow we need to have jet service to the City, which will increase noise dramatically. Councilman Blair said all these plans are plans and subject to change. Doing the right thing for Prescott is doing many things. Many of our developments have been annexed into the City. The cost of impact is a cost to the developer. Thomas Slayback said the short term cost is to the developer and the long term cost is to the taxpayer. The developer puts in the roads but the taxpayers maintain them over the years. He said that we do not grow by putting in more and more houses. We grow economically, by the businesses and industry. Councilman Kuknyo pointed out that we charge for water and sewers and tax for the roads. Mr. Slayback said we still have our sewers that leak into the creeks and the City cannot pay for its infrastructure. He said there should be some ordinances in place so developers have to do things such as collect effluent, collect water to water plants, etc. to make things right. Councilman Lamerson asked if Alternative 1 limited where the property owner can use his allotted water on the 1100 acres. Mr. McConnell said it leaves 428.5 acre feet in place, with the restriction that 56 acre feet of that have to be used for workforce housing. Leslie Hoy said Council and the public should see the cost benefit. Councilman Scamardo asked Mr. Gisi if water allocation can be tied to building permits rather than the platting of an empty lot. Mr. Paladini, City Attorney, said language could be drafted to address Council concerns. Mr. Gisi said a phone call from a builder asking if the owner can provide flat lots for production housing triggered this request. He said they want to perform and get the rewards. He does not see this as something complicated. Mr. McConnell said there are misconceptions in the community. Cost benefit analysis makes many assumptions regarding what the market is, what the tax rates are, etc.