Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central council debates whether to continue paying off‑site drainage assessment fees for single‑family builds
Summary
Councilors and staff reviewed the ODA policy enacted two years ago, discussed average billing per single‑family ODA (about $5,811), and weighed options including continuing city payments, imposing a $1,000 permit fee, or limiting coverage; no final ordinance was adopted.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilors reviewed a temporary city policy to pay off‑site drainage assessment (ODA) review fees for single‑family residential projects (five or fewer lots) after staff said the 24‑month reimbursement period is ending.
Spencer explained the program’s costs and procedures: for single‑family homes the average ODA billing from the consultant was about $5,811; the total spent through February across all ODAs was roughly $27,000. He said about 10% of submittals require multiple iterations, which raises per‑project costs, and that commercial and PUD projects typically require fuller drainage impact studies and higher fees.
Council members debated policy options. Some members urged continuing the city subsidy for single‑family homes because ODAs give the city actionable flood‑mitigation data; others argued property owners who build in conveyance zones should bear more of the cost. Council discussed alternatives — continue paying, charge a modest permit fee (suggested $1,000), or restrict coverage to very small single‑family builds — and directed staff to prepare ordinance language for council consideration.
Spencer also described technical maintenance of the hydraulic model (LAR flights every two years and difference maps between flights) and said the model is updated regularly to avoid accumulation of error.
No final change to the ODA reimbursement policy was adopted during the meeting; council members asked staff for financial figures and recommended drafting an ordinance that balances flood‑mitigation needs with developer/homeowner costs.

