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

Home

Prescott City Council Joint Special Meeting/ Study Session — October 21, 2008 Page 19 not today as there are issues with the fees and it needs more work. The issue is the inconsistencies in data. Ms. Griffis said that an example is in her packet the total water fee capital improvement from the City, based on what Mr. McConnell gave her, numbers were $27 million. The Economist.com report shows $201 million. She was taking the total for years 2009 through 2018. Mr. Jackson said that he has not seen the information she was referring to, but he cannot possibly see how it could be true. The CIP is a massive plan of 200 projects and the City has not reduced it by 90%. Mr. Jackson, referring to the slide of the presentation, for 2008 to 2017 the resource development fee and water system impact fees need to be added together, which comes out to $230,000. He said that in one of the schedule in the study the water CIP is $201 because it is for 2009 through 2017. If they included all ten years, they would be overcharging. He said that in 2008 all of the CIP projects were funded by a prior bond, so they would be double dipping. Councilman Roecker said that the economy is in dire straights. He is desperately looking for a compromise. They do not want to kill growth entirely, but they do want it to pay for itself. He asked Ms. Griffis, after having the additional 45 days, if they were able to put a number on impact fees that their group would support. Ms. Griffis said that they did not approach it from a new bottom line for impact fees. She said that the choices they are leaving the Council with are 1) the economy is slow, the timing is not good, and she asked why they cannot sit down as a group. Councilman Roecker said that they are not going to get on the "treadmill cycle"; they have to set a rate to move forward. Ms. Griffis said that they should then leave them like they are and look at other alternatives. Mayor Wilson said that he believed the report was correct and they should pass the rates as proposed. They can then sit down and look at alternatives, but if they don't, they will never increase the rates. Councilman Roecker said that the upside is that they review these fees every two years so this is not the end of the end. Councilwoman Lopas thanked Ms. Griffis for her report, stating it was interesting reading. She said that in looking at the alternatives, a construction tax of 4%, based on a $250,000 house would be a $6,500 fee, while they are current proposing something much less than that.