Apr 23, 2024 Council Meeting

Agenda (click to open)

View the meeting (click to open)

Current Events

  • If you or people in your area want to meet and discuss current/future topics related to the city, reach out to me to set up a time to visit. (email, phone call, zoom, or in person)
  • As you're driving on the river road by Stephens' park you'll notice construction on the south side of the road. That's the new central water system treatment facility in progress.
  • Many of you are familiar with the phrase "rural look and feel" or "rural character." Dayton residents have said this is important to them and I agree. It's even in our mission statement. We've had a couple work sessions on the topic and I believe it'll result in a list of ideas we will be prioritizing for the future. If you have ideas, please let me know.

Work session on Intersections

This was a discussion on the many intersections we have in the city and what can be done with each to improve safety and traffic flow. The intersections were scored to determine their priority, a rough estimate on the cost to improve them, and what the "value" was of that repair. The scoring included a number of factors including person / property damage, traffic rate, and complaint level. I think the scoring relied too heavily on traffic counts and not enough on accidents. A good example of this is the intersection of Brockton and 12 came in high.

As expected, the costs are significant even for basic improvements. An additional factor is most of these roads involve a county road and a couple were entirely (or close) county roads. And... we all know that roads aren't very high on the counties care list.

Item F (Chip and Fog Seal Plans)

The pavement industry is still fairly divided on whether or not applying the tradition sealant and rock chips extends the life of a road to the extent that it costs. And to further complicate it they now have a spray that's applied to the chips to help lock them in place (for a heavy cost). Just hearing the rough numbers, the cost versus what it buys us in longevity doesn't seem to make sense to me. The council asked staff to get better numbers and we'd look at it at the next meeting.

Item G (Ballot Questions Discussion)

This was a discussion on what our attorney thought we should be doing if we wanted a referendum on the ballot. A few specific questions have come up in the past couple years and I thought a referendum would be a valuable way to get a clear measure of where the residents were at. One example was an athletic park. In my door knocking I have heard far more residents say they wanted more trails and felt we had enough parks. I've also been told repeatedly by those that want an athletic park that I'm asking the wrong question.

Our attorney felt we needed to have much more detail on any questions we asked. I've looked at a few referendum questions in other cities and I'm not sure I agree with her. There will likely be more to come on this one.

Item H (Garage Size and Driveway Aprons)

The first part was a request to simply mandate that new houses have bigger garages. Almost all of our new developments are managed to some extent by HOAs. Those HOAs are very restrictive on anything stored outside such as garbage containers. What ends up happening is everything that is stored inside removed garage space. The obvious question is... "why don't you buy a house with bigger stalls?" and that gets to a simple answer, one which I'm somewhat sympathetic to; The housing market isn't as free and open as one might think. It's also why all the houses tend to look the same. Buyers are able to buy what's offered, not necessarily what they want. On the other hand mandating bigger garages not only adds to the price of a home, but there are buyers that don't want all the garage space. One of the council members wanted this, the rest (me included) decided we didn't want to mandate bigger garages.

The second part involves new home construction and a problem that often shows up later. When a house is built, the area just in front of the garage is backfilled and SHOULD be adequately packed but often isn't. After a few years the dirt settles and, if it's asphalt, the asphalt settles with it. Now you have to pay to get it fixed, which often times means cutting out the failed area, filling it, then either repave or more often, put concrete there. After talking to a number of people it sounds like having that area (referred to as the apron) be concrete when the house is built isn't much more expensive than asphalt. I have this exact problem with my house but my apron was already concrete. I know it's hollow under there because I can hear it when I walk on it but because concrete doesn't "flow" like asphalt it hides the problem. The better solution would be to make sure the builders are packing the area but that's almost impossible to enforce. 3 of us (me included) agreed that we would like to require that of new homes. Staff will put together an ordinance change for a future meeting.

Item I (Ditch Stabilization Project)

This was a discussion to approve a bid to do some work on a small ravine that the county didn't do when they completed their ravine project last summer. It will be almost entirely funded by various grants.

Item J (Extended Home Business)

State statute lays out what is required to run a business out of an agricultural or residential zoned property. And as you can imagine, it's clear as mud. This resident didn't know that if you have your business located at your property you are required to have a permit from the city. I would guess most residents don't know that. Along with the permit can come other requirements that are intended to keep the neighbors happy. This request was pushing the limits but 3 of us (me included) felt that giving the property owner 5 years find a better location was a good solution.

Item K (Event Center Permit)

About 5 years back the city started requiring residents that host large events on their property to apply for a permit. It was basically for emergency services to know there was an event going on. This was a permit application for Dehn’s Pumpkins. The permit was approved 5-0

Item L (Closed Session)

This closed meeting was to discuss with our attorneys the current status of the lawsuit against the cities of Dayton and Corcoran from Housing First. What I can say and is public knowledge:

  1. The claim made was that those cities were not providing due process and effectively violating the takings clause of the constitution due to the fees being charged for housing permits.
  2. The court ruled against Housing First on both of these claims and additionally said they didn't have standing to bring the suit.
  3. The ruling was appealed and the appeals court upheld the claims decision but disagreed on the standing.

Feel free to contact me with questions or concerns about the city!