Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Special Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Horace council asks staff to redraw Deer Creek Parkway assessment after residents say protests were undercounted
Summary
After residents presented stamped protest letters and petitioned acreage they say were omitted from initial counts, the Horace City Council directed staff to rework the Deer Creek Parkway improvement district (2025‑1), narrow assessed boundaries and model a lower-cost ‘local improvement’ option; council will revisit the item at a future meeting.
The Horace City Council on July 7 directed staff to rework a proposed water, storm‑sewer and street improvement district serving Deer Creek Parkway after residents and councilors raised concerns about who the district would assess and whether the project delivers community benefit.
City staff told the council that property owners had until June 30 to file written protests to the resolution of necessity. The city auditor recorded protests covering roughly 46.6% of the district by area — short of the 51% area threshold that would block special assessments. City engineer Jim (identified in the meeting as Jim’s office) told the council those calculations were preliminary and that council retains discretion to change the district boundaries or funding approach.
At the public hearing, multiple residents presented stamped letters and petitions they said were not included in the packet. "She dropped it off with Matt," said Tracy Bockey, owner of Horseshoe Bend Mobile Home Park, referring to a resident’s stamped protest delivered May 20. Bockey said her own tally of petition signatures and acreage pushed the opposition over 50%.
Other residents, including speakers who said they had circulated petitions, asked the council to reconsider how single‑family lots and large lots were being assessed compared with subdivisions, and to ensure fairness in the special‑assessment formula.
Council members questioned whether the short road segment qualified as a collector or whether a more modest, local‑improvement approach — or a narrower assessment area excluding parcels west of County Road 17 — would be more appropriate. Staff offered to rework the map and estimates, present a pared‑down “road diet” section and show a simpler rural/asphalt alternative.
A councilor moved that staff return with options focused on local improvements, narrowed boundaries and revised cost models; the motion carried. The council did not adopt any assessment or levy at the meeting and left the public hearing record closed. Staff said it would present revised boundaries, updated calculations and options for city contributions and road section alternatives at the next meeting.
