Conclusion…

UPDATE: Proposed Storm Water and Road Assessment Fees- part 3

This will conclude our discussion on the proposed storm water and road repair assessment fees. As mentioned in part 1, I hope that this has brought about some additional clarity and a better understanding of the proposal. I would now like to extent my thanks to all of our residents that chose to participate. As of the time of this writing, these articles have been viewed 331 times and there have been 34 comments. So, the coverage of this has been far greater than I, or anyone else could have accomplished by word of mouth alone.

As with any discussion, the core topic got expanded upon to include other philosophies. The purpose of this conclusion is to circle back to the main subject and analyze what we have discovered.

The Genesis of the Idea:

During the Waste Pro workshops held last year, our Manager presented several (4, if I remember correctly) options as to our future sanitation fee structure. One of these options was to take the saving gained from outsourcing and funnel those saving directly into a fund for road and storm water repairs/improvements. This was presented simultaneously with the outsourcing discussion.

The Selection Process:

On February 4, 2014, the Village advertised a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 2013-05 for Civil Engineering Professional Services. An evaluation committee met on August 1, 2014, and ranked the 8 proposals submitted. Of the 8 proposals for civil engineering services, Craig A. Smith & Associates (C.A.S.) ranked the highest. The Village previously engaged with C.A.S. to oversee the storm water and road repair project at 907/909 NE 111th Street and NE 111th Street between 111th Street and 113th Street.

 

Most pertinent to this discussion, “Staff is requesting authorization to have C.A.S. oversee all future professional services related to storm water and roadway improvements in the Village.” 

The Master Plan Proposal:

 

During my meeting with our Village Manager, she showed me the original proposal from Craig A. Smith (C.A.S.) for both surveys that totaled approx. $277,000.00. After some negotiations, the current fee for services is $200,000.00 net (there are $6,182.00 in fees that also apply (gross) somewhere else- I didn’t make note as to where they go.) Total revenue collected: Storm water survey fee= $100,770.00 - road repair survey fee=$ 105,412.00.  Total= $ 206,182.00. The amount to be levied against each parcel is: $93.40 for storm water, and $97.69 for roads.   

The Next Step: 

We received a Notice of Public Hearing in the mail that was dated April 15, 2015.  This stated that on the next regular Village Commission meeting on May 5^th, 2015, those two resolutions (2015-23 / 2015-24) would be heard with the intent to establish the assessment fee(s) for both the storm water repair/improvement and the road repair/improvements beginning on October 1, 2015.  

There was a discussion on this during the April Commission meeting. This was prior to the Notice of Public Hearing being mailed out to us and comments from residents were few.  

My Involvement and the Reasons Behind It: 

As I have already stated, my first reaction was that these plan fees were exorbitant based on our small size of 1079 parcels… homes.  And after all of the research that I have complied, I still do. However, I wanted to attempt to remain as objective as possible and went to work for more answers and details. 

During my meeting with our Manager, I asked if there was a way to reduce the scope of the survey to reduce the cost, in that some of the fee tiers seemed unnecessary - I asked if there was some “minimum standard required” by the State in order to qualify for funding - I asked for comparable plans from other similar municipalities (if there are any) to compare costs-  I even asked if we could “wink and nod” as to having the plan and then pay for it out of the grants if successful. (Probably my most unethical question) but hey, I was looking under every rock here. 

Conclusion: 

In researching this subject and in my discussions with our residents (those who chose to participate) the overall sense I got was that there is resistance to gamble (as some have referred to it) $206,182.00 for just surveys with no guarantee of State funding. Remember, these assessment fees do not include any actual work, just the cost for the plans. And there are several circumstances where we may have to amend or update these plans at an additional cost. How much more then? I didn’t get an answer.   

I was able to come up with, off the top of my head, a number of reasons why this proposed strategy could be unproductive, resulting in a loss of our money. There are clear and present pratfalls to this proposed assessment design. Actually, in my opinion, there are more reasons why this idea could fail… than in it succeeding.  

 

Milton Hunter

Biscayne Park Resident