Development services staff presented an informational proposal for a residential creek maintenance and erosion mitigation cost‑share program that would use a priority scoring system and annual drainage‑fund allocations to support repairs for homeowners facing erosion threats.

Director Ahmed Alkasy said staff reviewed other cities’ approaches and recommended a 50/50 cost‑share program for residential properties adjacent to creeks, with projects prioritized by severity, threat to structures and number of properties affected. Alkasy said the funding source would be the drainage fund and staff proposed an annual allocation of $500,000. He described a program rule set that would focus on erosion remediation (not aesthetic landscaping), require property easements and require homeowners to participate in procurement, design and construction coordination. Staff said selection would rely on a technical scoring form; higher scoring projects would be selected first and property owners would be expected to pay their share within a specified window after acceptance.

Council members raised implementation concerns: several asked whether homeowners could have payment plans instead of single‑sum payments and whether a sliding‑scale or additional city contribution should be available for households on fixed incomes. Staff said those options could be explored in program design and that liens or other repayment mechanisms could be used; staff also said ongoing maintenance would remain the homeowner’s responsibility unless public infrastructure or utilities are threatened and require city action. Council members asked for further analysis of estimated costs if the city did not implement a program and requested the staff present senior‑household impacts, an outreach plan and a clearer payment/repayment structure when the item returns for action.

Alkasy said staff planned to return in January with program delivery alternatives, bring a draft ordinance in March, and seek council approval in April with outreach and applications following. No action was taken at this meeting; staff said they would include more detailed funding scenarios, equity options (sliding scale or payment plans) and prioritization criteria in the follow‑up materials.