Recently a group of residents asked if I would be willing to meet with their development to discuss issues.
If you or people in your area want to meet with me and discuss any topics on your mind, I am willing to find a time that works.
- The water tower maintenance should complete sometime next week, so you should see the odd-even watering ban be removed at that time.
- We currently have 1 opening on the Parks and 2 on the Planning commissions. If you're interested and want more information contact the city or me and I can explain what they do, how much time it takes, etc.
Item J (U.S. Solar Farm Presentation)
This was a repeat of a presentation the city received about 4 years ago on solar land use.
The basics of the presentation were along these lines:
- They can only be installed immediately next to 3-phase transmission lines. This limits the areas significantly in Dayton.
- They need roughly 5-6 acres of land to work.
- They have heavy screening and use pollinating type plants (bee havens) to reduce the maintenance needed.
- The height of solar panels is 4-10 feet depending on the time of day.
While I don't understand the logic of solar given all of it's problems, I'm also someone that doesn't think the city should restrict a land owner's right to use their land as they see fit. The only complaint I've heard from people regarding solar is... it's ugly. Well, I have a LONG list of things I think are ugly but I would never make them illegal.
We also had the unfortunate belief by previously elected officials that only government should be able to do this since it is a way to make money. I am also not that person.
They don't currently have any customers, but 4 of us were ok with them continuing to talk to the city about any future plans.
Item K (Q1 Report)
These are quarterly reports given to us about the current state of our funds and cash flow. Nothing unexpected here.
The amount of new home permits / plans is down significantly from last year. That combined with our current use of a contractor (much more expensive) instead of in house planners means we need to look at our new home permit/planning fees because I suspect it's highly likely they're too low now.
Item L (Land Use Proposal)
This was a follow on discussion of the work session the council had with the planning commission. Our comprehensive plan has a number of chapters that need updating. We are about done fixing the Transportation section, but the Land Use chapter didn't match the previous Transportation Plan or the new one. Unfortunately, these are expensive to update so we're limiting changes to the areas involving the Transportation Plan updates.
Item M (TIF bond)
With the new Cubes warehouse going in just north of 81, we are able to use that new property tax before collecting it. To do that we sell a bond for the amount we believe we'll collect in taxes for a time period and we can use that to build infrastructure (roads, etc.) in the area. It's a lot more complicated than that but that's the general idea. This item was to make the sale of the Bond.
One thing I'll mention about this... the interest rate we have to offer on the bond is dependent on our credit rating. Our credit rating isn't as good as most of the municipalities in the area because of our significant debt. That debt is being paid off by new development, but if the new development stops those debt payments have to be paid out of taxes. That is why our credit rating is impacted by our debt.
Almost all of that debt is due to the massive amount we borrowed back in the 2000's. ALWAYS pay attention to who you're voting for and what their goals are 🙂
Item N (Deerwood Sidewalk)
A few months back the council discussed the idea of putting lights on Deerwood due to a residents request. That soon morphed into a sidewalk. The lights were estimated at about $40,000 and the sidewalk about $250,000. Either of those would get paid out of taxes (rather than park, water, sewer, etc.) funds.
We had 5 or so of the residents that live on Deerwood come to speak. I believe 4 did not want the lights (1 didn't care) for the same reasons I've always been against putting in lights for the sake of lights. Night time is for night time. If I go out at night it's because I want to see the night sky. It didn't seem like the council had an appetite for lights either. The resident's primary concern seemed to be their front window being lit up.
I was surprised by their opinions on the sidewalk. The same ratio was against any sidewalk. 1 was for it. There were a few reasons given but the primary one was taking care of it.
I've never really understood how a city can put something on city property (not an easement, but actual city property) and require by law that a property owner near it has to take care of it. And yes I know it's common practice.
So we had staff look at other options including making it a "trail" instead.
Item O (Fire department Utility Vehicle)
The Fire department had an approved item in this year's budget that they decided they didn't need, so they decided to look into a utility rescue vehicle instead. After a few questions I was satisfied this was a need so I was ok with it. It's primary use would be within Three Rivers Park which is a little frustrating because they provide nothing as far as financial support to the city. Another pet-peeve of mine... different levels of government don't pay property taxes. I'll never understand that.
Contact me for any questions or concerns you have.