Kelly Kenoyer
Sweet Home city councilors voted Oct. 27 to buy a new street sweeper using a loan from the city’s Street Improvement Fund.
Councilors Diane Gerson, Lisa Gourley, Mayor Greg Mahler, Dave Trask, Susan Coleman, James Goble and Cortney Nash attended the meeting Tuesday where they discussed the merits of the chosen sweeper and various financial options for its purchase.
The council had previously heard reports from Public Works staff about the terrible condition of the current sweeper, and the high cost of getting it working again. Because that decrepit sweeper came to the city used, the council was immediately in favor of buying new this time.
“If we get something used from the Midwest that’s had a lot of salt — I mean a pickup there only lasts five years and then the frame is gone,” Nash said.
“You put a lot of money down the toilet fast if you buy a lemon,” Mahler said. “We should buy new, not used.”
After trying out various sweepers, Public Works staffers recommended a CityCat sweeper as the best one to fit Sweet Home’s needs.
Operations Manager Dominic Valloni said the compact nature of the CityCat gives it a good turn radius and good visibility. It has a low maximum speed, but that limitation isn’t a problem for a sweeper that won’t need to move across a large city quickly. A new one costs $206,186.
“The more expensive sweeper will save $30,000 to $60,000 in fuel and maintenance costs,” he said. It also comes with some warranties for specific parts.
Coleman said she was “a little surprised” by the high cost, but was convinced by staff’s arguments in favor of it.
The council spent a significant amount of time discussing the merits of various funding options, including a lease-to-own agreement, purchasing it outright with Street Improvement Funds, or by using an interfund loan to pay for the equipment over several years.
The Street Improvement Funds were a one-time payment of $1,338,040 in 1991 from Linn County to the city of Sweet Home after the county transferred 8.78 miles of roads to the city jurisdiction. That money was intended to provide maintenance and upkeep for the now city roads. Since then, the city intentionally maintained a balance of around $1,000,000 to continue to gain interest – an average of $10,000 to $15,000 per year since 1992 – and reinvest that interest into the road system. That’s the fund the city would take a loan from to purchase the street sweeper.
Gourley expressed some confusion about the interfund loan concept, in which the city’s own fund would loan the money to the city.
Finance Director Brandon Neish explained: “If we’re spending the $206,186 right off the bat, that money loses out on future interest rates down the road.”
“You’re refilling that fund and giving yourself the money you would have had with the money still sitting there.”
The council ultimately decided to go with the interfund loan at 0% interest, and unanimously approved the purchase of the new street sweeper. Staff said it will likely be on the road in 90 days, and they’ll continue to lease some rental sweepers to manage leaf season in the meantime.
In other action, the council:
– Decided to allow a methodology for system development charges that would permit fully funding all projects, though it reserved the right to only implement some of the charges further down the line. Previously, the council discussed only implementing SDCs up to $15,000, though full funding of city projects would cost $18,500. The council also plans to implement the increased charges over four years, and will cap them at $15,000 after those four years.
“If you want to cap yourselves at $15,000, you could do that in the resolution, not in the methodology,” Economic Development Director Blair Larsen explained.
Once that was clarified, the council swiftly agreed to the consensus of a fully funded methodology, with the understanding that the cap would come in with the resolution in February.
The council also decided to apply parks SDCs to all building types, not just residential buildings. This after Deb Galardi, a consultant from Galardi Rothstein Group, explained that other jurisdictions are 50/50 on applying those SDCs to businesses, and after finding out that the SDCs would drop by 6% for residential buildings if they also applied to commercial buildings.
“Businesses also use parks, and might be attracted by nice parks,” Mahler said.
Gourley agreed. “They’ll benefit from the upgrading of the community.”
Goble was the sole voice in opposition, and said “I don’t think we should assess extra taxes to an employer who could come here.”
But ultimately, the majority supported applying the fees to all buildings. That consensus kicked off a timeline for public comment: The SDC methodology report will become available on Dec. 3, 2020, and the public hearing for its approval will be 60 days later: February 1, 2021.
– Officially voted to approve the transfer of the old City Hall annex building to the city of Detroit to help them after the destruction of the town due to wildfire this summer. The building hasn’t yet been transferred because those with the skills to prepare it for transfer have tight schedules, but Springman said the department is trying to arrange transportation as soon as possible.
– Unanimously approved a “housekeeping” budget adjustment to align previously approved projects with the existing 2020 budget. Neish said the adjustment would help with audits down the line, and that every change “went through council at some point.” The adjustments move various amounts of money between funds, but are overall a net zero increase or decrease to the year’s budget.
– Voted unanimously to allow City Manager Ray Towry to be a federal certifying officer for the Community Development Block Grants, instead of having each individual application go through the mayor. The change will streamline the process for applicants, as they won’t have to wait for city council meetings for the process to move forward.