HomeMy WebLinkAboutRiverside Annexation Public Comment from Greg Metzger 8-18-14From:Greg Metzger
To:Agenda
Subject:For inclusion in packets for Aug 18 City Commission Meeting
Date:Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:24:16 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi,
Thank you for considering the addition of our neighborhood, Riverside, to the city’s sewer system.
I am writing you as a resident…with no official capacity in any of the organizations involved at this
time. I would like to share some of my thoughts and concerns.
1) Our neighborhood is very diverse with people from their late 80’s to a couple not yet in
their thirty’s. If there is a dominant group it would be over 65 (not…me yet) and retired.
2) 1/3 of us are on fixed incomes.
3) Most of the older folks have lived in the county their entire lives.
4) Many of us do not want to be in the sewer business.
5) When the discussion was for a 10 year period I felt we could probably pass it…no
guarantees.
6) With the evolution of Chris’s proposed motion changing to 5 years I believe it will not be
even close to passing.
7) The older people are willing to spend the money to create our own system.
8) If we do have to build, the cost of sizing up a little to access the surrounding
neighborhoods is likely in an effort to reduce our individual costs.
9) The VAST majority of the residents do not understand the ramifications of us running our
own sewer system, and do not believe they ever will. Many don’t have the capacity, many
more no desire(the reason we should be in the city). This leads to what you may feel is a
“bad” decision by our residents.
10) The city will gain a significant length of sewer line. The city will gain a pump station. The
city will gain continuity for future annexations.
11) Most importantly, in my mind, the city gains a minimum of $1,152,000 in additional sewer
revenue, $120,000 in impact fees in addition to the capital noted above. This is without any
significant expense outside of staff time. (Calculation: $80 per month sewer fee x 120
housing equivalents x 12 months x 10 years. These are conservative numbers and do not
include any increase in sewer rates, nor the exact count of households)
12) I believe that number will be $0 with the five year proposal. And we will be a barrier
regarding leapfrog development.
13) The added bonus…not included at this time is access to our water. Of course we are
adamantly opposed to giving up these rights…which I and certainly I am sure Chris feels will
only last until public water laws cause us to have to invest in a filtration or mitigation
system of some kind. I would not bring this up in the public meeting as it is a “sacred cow”.
14) The possibility of a future agreement with Riverside Country Club to use treated waste
water on the golf course also is improved if we are in this agreement.
Having stated all of these things I realize we are asking you to move from your current set of
annexation criteria and that your concern and obligation is to the tax payers of the city. The
accumulation of 1.15 million in funds goes a long way to helping pay for other city needs such as
the storm water treatment upgrades, and nitrate credits. I believe the 5 year proposal is dead on
arrival. I believe the 10 year plan is viable, yet will also be a challenge for us to get passed. It is not
also unreasonable to think that after some time in the program, with homes changing ownership
that the neighborhood could move to full annexation sooner rather than 10 years. This is a difficult
situation for all of us for it pits neighbor against neighbor…
Thank you for your time and consideration, Greg
Greg P. Metzger
(406) 551-3265
Greg P. Metzger
KBZK/KXLF Sales Manager
(406) 551-3265
greg@kbzk.com