Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cost Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Buckeye staff present draft cost‑recovery ordinance; assessments limited to city parcels
Summary
Capital Improvements staff introduced an updated cost‑recovery ordinance to recoup permanent roadway costs from developments. Staff said roughly 80 parcels are implicated across four CIP projects but assessments can only be levied on parcels inside city limits at the time of assessment; the code follows state rules and uses a 10‑year assessment window.
Riley Flynn of the Capital Improvement Program presented a proposed update to Buckeye’s cost‑recovery code (formerly referred to as "Scallop Streets") and explained how the city would recover permanent roadway costs from adjacent developments.
Flynn said the proposed code would recoup design, right‑of‑way and construction costs for arterial projects and that staff identified four CIP projects currently in the queue. He said approximately 80 parcels are in scope for those projects, but "less than a third" of those parcels are within Buckeye city limits now; assessments would be applied only to city parcels when they are in the city at the time of assessment.
Council members questioned how annexation affects recovery. Flynn said the city can design and build the ultimate roadway and then apply assessments later, but if landowners choose not to annex their parcels the city may not recoup costs. He described administrative steps: cost estimates, determination of necessity, construction, levy of assessment via council action, and recording and collection tied to development approvals. Flynn noted the proposal aligns with state code and typically uses a 10‑year assessment period; if development occurs after the 10‑year window, assessment liabilities may not apply.
A staff speaker noted examples where frontage work or in‑lieu fees already paid by developers left no assessment shown (for example, the northwest corner of Lower Buckeye and Miller). Flynn said the item will return to City Council as a formal agenda item and could be followed by a public comment/cooling‑off interval before future projects proceed under the revised code.
No ordinance vote occurred at the meeting; staff will bring the ordinance back for Council consideration.
