Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Reimbursement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues Stanley Street sewer reimbursement hearing after property owner challenges acreage method
Summary
City staff presented a sewer and water reimbursement request for Stanley Street citing total costs of $158,634 (sewer) and $174,346 (water); the property owner argued the city should prorate by number of lots, not acreage, and the council continued the hearing for further review and legal counsel.
City staff and an applicant presented competing methods for calculating how to reimburse a private developer who extended sewer and water mains on Stanley Street, and the council agreed to continue the public hearing to allow staff and the applicant to resolve new technical material.
At a Dec. 9 meeting, a staff presentation described sewer construction of an 8-inch main (approximately 460 feet) and a 6-inch water main (approximately 650 feet). Staff cited city ordinance provisions governing developer reimbursement and laid out an area-based, pro rata approach: divide the total reimbursable cost by a 19.76-acre benefit area to compute an acreage-per-unit assessment (roughly $8,028 per acre for the sewer demonstration and $8,823 per acre for water). Staff also noted two parcels were owned by the applicant at the time of construction and therefore excluded from eligibility under the city’s ordinance language.
The property owner who spoke at the hearing — identified in the record as Mr. White (owner/participant in the extension work) — disputed staff’s acreage approach and urged the council to apply the ordinance as written, which he said requires counting the number of lots that benefited. The owner provided a 2019 geotechnical report and maps showing buildable areas on his 12.22-acre holding and argued "we're literally looking to build on about 10% of that entire site," saying a per-lot assessment (divide the total cost by seven benefiting lots) would be fairer and would better reflect the ordinance’s wording.
Caroline Selick, counsel with Davis Wright Tremaine, advised the council that new information had been introduced into the record and recommended accepting public comments and continuing the matter to a subsequent meeting so staff and counsel could review the materials. The council voted to continue the public hearing; staff announced the matter will return at the council’s next regular meeting (noted on the record as Jan. 6).
Council members questioned developers and staff about buildability constraints, future subdivision potential, fire-flow and pressure at the extension, and the city’s 10-year reimbursement window. Staff acknowledged that a detailed parcel-by-parcel assessment of buildable acreage would be a significant technical effort and that some assumptions about future subdivision necessarily involve speculation. Several councilors said they were balancing the burden of administrative work against fairness to property owners who claim much of their acreage is in slope-restricted or otherwise unbuildable lands.
What happens next: the council continued the public hearing to allow staff time to review the applicant-submitted geotechnical data and to reconcile methodology questions raised about the application of Ordinance 52. The council did not adopt a final reimbursement calculation or assessment at the Dec. 9 meeting.
Clarifying details: staff record shows sewer cost $158,634 and water cost $174,346; staff used a 19.76-acre benefit area in its example calculation; the applicant says the buildable area is roughly 1–2 acres within a 12.22-acre parcel and urged per-lot proration; staff noted a 10-year limitation can apply to reimbursement authority.
Next step: council will revisit the Stanley Street reimbursement request at its January meeting after staff and legal counsel review the supplemental materials.
