My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Agendas - City Council - REGULAR - 11/4/2008
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Agendas - City Council - REGULAR - 11/4/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 11:47:56 AM
Creation date
11/13/2018 11:00:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Agendas
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Agendas
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
REGULAR
Meeting Date
11/4/2008
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
11/13/2018
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Supplemental fields
Conversion Number
1384024
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Prescott City Council <br /> Regular Voting Meeting — October 28, 2008 Page 10 <br /> 2. Adoption of Ordinance No. 4665-0908 — An ordinance of the Mayor <br /> and Council of the City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona, <br /> amending Title II, Chapter 2-1 and Title III, Chapter 3-14, of the <br /> Prescott City Code, regarding the imposition of water and sewer <br /> development fees. <br /> Mr. McConnell said that since last week a memo was sent to the Council re <br /> deferment, and most of those remarks pertain to the sewer fund specifically. <br /> He said that the Sewer Fund is particularly needy for capital improvements <br /> as pointed out during budget sessions. Without having done the sewer <br /> model, the City had not identified the extent of the capital needs, and that <br /> was accomplished with the sewer model. This wastewater and water study <br /> was done which translates into the fee contained in the draft ordinance. <br /> Also, two of the attachments are candidate projects for deferral if these are <br /> not implemented. If the Council chooses to defer or adopt the fees and defer <br /> the effective dates, the staff would adjust the CIP beginning in the next <br /> regular City budget update which starts in January. They have stressed <br /> many times that because of all the factors that go into the needs, the <br /> financing of the needs, the market, the economy, it is their recommendation <br /> to update these every two years. They are one year into the process and <br /> before they know it, if Council concurs, they will start in about a year from <br /> now. He said that Dan Jackson was present should there be any technical <br /> questions pertaining to the study itself. <br /> Councilman Bell said that since he was the one that suggested the delay in <br /> implementation last week he wanted to say that with the economy the way it <br /> is, with the nation, state and local city, he thinks it is a terrible time to be <br /> raising fees on anyone. He will continue to ask that they delay <br /> implementation to July 11, 2009, but go ahead and approve the fees. <br /> Councilman Roecker concurred with Councilman Bell. He has fought with <br /> himself over the issue the whole week and he cannot see approving this at <br /> this time because of the economic conditions of the country. He recognized <br /> that they will have to defer some issues but he thinks it is necessary. They <br /> have got to give those people buying houses in the community a little time. <br /> He said that for those in the public who thinks that the Council is in the <br /> pocket of the builders, in his mind it goes way beyond that—there are a lot of <br /> families in the community that are reliant on having jobs and it is important <br /> that they give every possible chance for that to happen. <br /> Councilman Luzius said that he was not in favor of any extension. He said <br /> that they extended it two years ago and did not apply the sewer fees or <br /> change the water fees. What they are doing by postponing it is they are <br /> laying extra burden on the citizens of Prescott that are there now. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.