Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Water Sewer Road topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs Brentwood Circle sewer, water and road feasibility; homeowners face assessment questions
Summary
City staff presented a feasibility report for Brentwood Circle (Cedardale area) utility and road improvements estimated at $525,000. The project would add sanitary sewer, adjust water mains and widen the roadway; assessments and potential lot splits prompted questions about homeowner costs and possible deed restrictions.
City public-works staff presented a feasibility report for Brentwood Circle in the Cedardale area during a Baxter work session, proposing sanitary sewer, water-line reconfiguration and a roadway upgrade at an estimated total cost of $525,000.
The proposal matters to residents because it would extend sanitary sewer service to 11 existing homes, create assessment obligations for certain lots, and could enable two large lots to be subdivided; staff said those splits would incur additional assessments and subdivision costs that a homeowner estimated could total about $28,000.
Staff described the proposed work: bring sanitary sewer in from Frankwood Drive, rearrange the water main at the cul-de-sac and replace known plastic water tees in the area; widen the existing 24-foot road to a 26-foot city standard and add roadside ditching for stormwater. Staff provided cost breakdowns: sanitary sewer about $209,000, water distribution about $52,000 and roadway $264,000, for a combined estimate of $525,000.
Assessment rates presented in the report were the city’s adopted 2024 figures and projected 2026 values: sanitary sewer assessments at approximately $5,556 in 2024 (projected $5,894 for 2026), water assessment for newly served lots $2,625 per lot, and roadway assessments about $7,859 per ERU. Staff also noted the city collects a sewer availability charge (SAC) of $600 per house. For the Brentwood project, staff estimated 13 ERUs for sanitary sewer, yielding roughly $76,620 in assessments and leaving the remainder to city funds.
Council members and residents questioned fairness and financial impact. One homeowner said dividing a large lot and paying subdivision fees, assessments and other charges could sum to “somewhere around $28,000,” and said that would likely deter them from pursuing a split. Council members discussed conservation-easement or deed-restriction options to prevent future subdivision but asked staff to verify legal enforceability with the city attorney. Staff noted conservation easements run with the land and could preclude future subdivision but warned of unintended consequences for city planning.
Staff also explained the city’s assessment policy: properties that can be subdivided under current ordinance are typically included in feasibility studies and thus may be assessed; if a lot cannot be subdivided under ordinances, it historically has not been assessed. Council asked staff to clarify the final draft structure of the report (whether to treat the two large lots as one or two ERUs) and to return with cost comparisons and legal guidance.
The project was discussed as a candidate for the city’s 2026 capital-improvement program. Staff asked the council for consensus to finalize the feasibility report and include the project on the list of 2026 projects. Council members signaled they wanted additional clarification before final acceptance, including confirmation that stubs or service points would be installed if the roadway is reconstructed and more detail on subsidy sources for the city’s portion of cost.
Next steps: staff will check legal options for deed restrictions or conservation easements, calculate precise homeowner cost scenarios for splits (including surveying, SAC, park dedication and subdivision fees), refine the assessment exhibit, and return a final feasibility report and assessment resolution for council consideration.
