Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council questions $25,000 park impact-fee study as city pursues irrigation-meter grant and flood mitigation
Summary
Council members debated whether to commission a roughly $25,000 park impact-fee study after staff said that is the consultant estimate; members suggested lower-cost options. The council also discussed a state grant for secondary irrigation meters, NRCS matching options, and installing a meter on Twin Creek to reduce flood risk.
Mount Pleasant City Council debated the value of a consultant study to establish a park impact fee and discussed concurrent water-meter and flood-mitigation work.
The Chair reported that Justin estimated the cost of a park impact-fee study at about $25,000 and asked whether the council thought the fee study was worth the cost. Several Committee members expressed reluctance to pay that amount and suggested exploring whether the city could develop an acceptable study in-house or use a smaller, targeted approach. One Committee member said, "I have a hard time with the impact fee to start with... and then to pay somebody that much to tell us about it." The Director and others noted that state rules require a study that justifies any impact fee and that the study sets the maximum fee that can be charged.
Separately, the Chair said the city applied for state funds for secondary irrigation meters and received a grant but learned that placing meters in private backyards was not feasible. The Chair said the city is pursuing a variance that would allow metering at points that still show total inflow into the city system, and staff discussed using state funds combined with NRCS support as a match. The Chair added that placing a meter on Twin Creek could take that area out of the flood zone by creating a retention area.
Councilors asked staff to return with clearer options and cost comparisons for the park impact-fee study and to report back on technical and logistical details for the irrigation meters and any variance requirements. No formal vote on commissioning a study or on grant-matching decisions was recorded in the provided transcript.
