By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
Doran Kay, council member, tried to persuade other
council members to give subdividers who provide water for
their subdivisions a special break on the water impact
fee.
He was successful in convincing them that there could be
some reduction in the fee but not in gaining approval for
excusing the entire impact fee.
Howard Stubbs, council member, said he could understand
allowing water shares, dedicated to the building lot, to be
added as a third option to the water permit requirement.
"When we moved to town, we leased some irrigation water,"
said Stubbs. "I paid for it and went to the expense of
putting in a line. However, even though I had paid money to
lease the water it was sold to someone else and I could not
use it."
If the water had been dedicated to the lot, he said, the
problem would have been solved. The water would have stayed
with the lot and it would have prevented it from being sold
elsewhere.
Kay said the impact fee should allow those who had water
dedicated to the lot to reduce the impact fee by one-third
the cost. If one-half acre foot of water was subtracted from
the total fee, he said, it would amount to a reduction of
$648.34.
The secondary system should save the community impact on
the culinary system since water would no longer be needed
for outside watering, said Kay. However, as an incentive to
the subdivider, the impact fee should be dismissed if water
is dedicated to each building lot.
"The incentive to the developer should be the fact that
the lot can be sold for more money if it has water attached
to it," said Aaron Painter, council member.
Kay said both water and land are finite and are real
properties.
"We could find that we are already short in our culinary
system," said Kay. "Wait until the weather gets hot and we
start pimping water. How long do you think it will take
before the city finds itself short?"
Mayor Bryce Lynn said the city had paid for a study to be
done and had been assured, prior to constructing a second
water tank and purchasing more culinary water, that 270 more
homes should be accommodated by the new system. The
secondary system should make that figure even higher because
the demand on the culinary system would be lessened.
The city had paid $140,000 for the study of the system
and the recommendations made.
"Now you are saying that we should do away with the
option (of having an impact fee)," said Lynn. "I don't
agree. We need to keep our options available."
Darlene Fowkes, council member, said she thought the
subject should be put to rest for awhile."
"We have chewed this subject over and over," she said.
"We should give the water system, our policy, and the
secondary system a year to find out how things go. Let's
give it a chance. Then if our policy does not work, we can
adjust it."
The impact fee and the recommendation surrounding the
policy governing building permits and subdivisions had come
from those who had been hired to do the engineering and
complete a study of the needs of the community.
"A dollar is a dollar and a drop of water is a drop of
water," said Kay. On the market, water rights and water
shares were not the same thing. "Water rights allow you to
do what you want to with that right, so they are worth more.
But for the purposes of taking water, they should be treated
equally."
The council did agree to adding a third option to the
list and allowing a reduction of the water impact fee for
those who meet the requirements.
"We now have three options," said Lynn.
As for the subdivision ordinance, Rick Schnurr, council
member, said the document was now being rewritten.
|
