CC - Agendas - City Council - WORKSHOP - 10/28/2008

Home

Prescott City Council Joint Special Meeting/ Study Session — October 21, 2008 Page 13 and also information on legitimate projects. Despite the economy, over the next few years there are projects that look like they will go to construction. Many of them are about multi -family residential development. He said that in the Council memo, some alternatives were expressed on the CIP which are being proposed. The Council could adopt the plans and fees to become effective January 11, 2009; the Council could adopt reduced fees; the Council could adopt the fees, but defer implementation of the fees, or they could take no action. He said that those are four alternatives and combinations; there are also other alternatives which could include looking at the financing tools themselves. The City's mechanism for providing infrastructure is currently impact fees. That is the way the Economists.com report was created; it assumed that the City would continue with its present financing method. That does not mean that there are not other tools, such as construction sales tax, but the City's mechanism today has been impact fees. Mr. McConnell said that his last point is that there has been some discussion of the study, which has been presented to the Council and is available on the website, reviewed by various parties. Even if the Council chooses another alternative, that does not mean that the study is invalid or has not been a productive effort. The reasons are 1) the study had two components — rates and impact fees. On the basis of the study, the Council adopted the new rates. 2) The sewer system has not been looked at for decades. The needs for new capacity and rehab are substantial and the sewer model has been completed that identify those needs. Those results were input into this study and a different basis for the sewer rates was provided, and they now have the costs of what their capital needs are for sewer, which they never had before. 3) This study has provided an opportunity for the City to look at its water resource development fee, and how the City prices water. Councilman Bell asked if it had not been discussed at one time that the fees could be due at time of Certificate of Occupancy rather than at time of permit, which would keep the contractors from having to come up with the funds in the beginning. Mr. McConnell said there is some flexibility in the Statutes with deferring payment of the fees. Presently the City collects at time of building permit, but it could be deferred. His recollection is that the deferral is only available through a Development Agreement. Mayor Wilson said that Mr. Spitzer discussed that when they talked about the future phases of his development, and it was required through a Development Agreement. Councilman Bell said that he has looked at the issue over and over and knows they need the money to do the capital projects. Considering the