Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Sewer Extension topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to seek $250,000 for design of Tradewind sewer extension after decade‑old commitments
Summary
City staff recommended — and council directed — that the city pay for design only ($250,000 estimated) to create shovel‑ready plans for a Tradewind Square sewer extension originally discussed in 2016; construction remains unfunded and was roughly estimated at $2.7 million.
City Council members on April 28 directed staff to return to the May 12 agenda with a funding proposal to pay for design work on a sewer main extension to serve the Tradewind Square subdivision, a long‑running project first raised in 2016 by The Williams Group.
Donnie Hooper, utilities and engineering staff, told the council that the city has no current funding or a developer agreement for the extension and that the request would not be built without further council action. Hooper said staff’s recommendation was to fund design only — an estimated $250,000 — so the city could develop accurate construction costs and an ROI analysis before committing to construction. “Our staff recommendation is that we proceed with the design of this project, not the construction at this time,” Hooper said.
The proposed extension would tie sewer along 58th from Osage to Tradewind Road and, Hooper said, was estimated at roughly $2,700,000 for construction based on preliminary depth assumptions; the precise construction cost would be refined during design. The original 2016 request anticipated roughly 1,152 homes across the full development, though Williams Group representatives and later staff noted the currently active phases total roughly 540 homes.
Representatives of The Williams Group said the matter began more than a decade ago and that prior staff made commitments — though no formal developer agreement was signed — that led the developers to plan for growth. Seth (Williams Group representative) summarized the development history and said portions of the project were built in phases. “We will pick it up there at the edge of the property, and then we’ll extend based off of the city policy,” he said, describing the partnership model the group expected.
Several council members pressed staff on two recurring concerns: whether providing design funds now would set an adverse precedent for other developers, and whether the project had been properly vetted in the city’s master plan. Council members asked whether similar projects had been funded in the past and emphasized the need for clear, consistent criteria. One member said the question was not the value of the development but how the city applies policy equally. Hooper said the city’s development policy manual offers latitude to evaluate exceptions and that staff had re‑examined the project’s history and policy considerations.
Council discussion ended with direction — not a vote to spend today — for staff to return at the May 12 council meeting with a formal funding request and identified funding source for the $250,000 design budget. Hooper said staff would look for savings in other CIPs or use prior‑year enterprise cash as appropriate and would bring back a specific proposal for council approval. “We will bring it back to you for a voting item of the twelfth,” Hooper said.
Next steps: staff will produce a design scope and funding recommendation, refine construction estimates at 30% design, perform an operational and ROI analysis that includes water/sewer revenue and tax revenue estimates, and return to council on May 12 with a voteable item.
