The installation of speed bumps in the Mode Highlands neighborhood emerged as a contentious topic, with residents expressing dissatisfaction due to their impact on individuals with medical conditions. Concerns were raised about adhering to established policies and the necessity of re-evaluating the decision through proper channels. A suggestion was made to replace the current speed bumps with speed humps, which are wider and potentially more acceptable to the community. Temporary speed humps were considered as a less jarring alternative.

The process leading to the installation of speed bumps was scrutinized, with an acknowledgment that the city manager should have sought commission approval. The city manager expressed regret for this oversight. Residents voiced their preferences through emails and a neighborhood poll. The absence of a homeowner’s association in the area complicated the situation, making it difficult to determine a unified resident stance.

The commission discussed the need for clarity in the traffic safety manual regarding speed bump installations, as current regulations were found lacking. A proposal was made to remove the speed bumps by January to assess their impact on traffic patterns, with plans communicated through various channels, including social media. Some commissioners advocated for a vote on the matter, weighing community feedback against procedural requirements.

In parallel, the commission grappled with stormwater management fees, exploring a tiered system to ensure fair cost distribution among residents. The current tier structure, with fees ranging from $91 to $227, was deemed misaligned with actual revenue needs. A proposal to introduce a fourth tier aimed to better distribute fees based on property size and impervious surface area. Discussions included the potential revenue implications of a five-tier system, which could generate significant additional revenue but would require careful implementation.

The commission acknowledged historical challenges in executing stormwater fee increases, noting a deficit in the stormwater fund despite previous plans to build reserves. The need for a reliable fee calculation method was emphasized, with the commission considering continued collaboration with Stant Tech for assessments. The importance of public trust and the potential for using independent consultants were discussed as strategies to enhance credibility.

The commission explored the feasibility of adopting a five-year stormwater funding plan, with varied opinions on its effectiveness. Some members stressed the importance of a structured plan to avoid annual budgetary uncertainties, while others highlighted the political challenges of maintaining such a commitment. The commission also debated the merits of funding stormwater management through property taxes versus a non-ad valorem assessment, considering public perception and financial predictability.

As the meeting concluded, the commission sought direction on how to proceed with the tier system for stormwater funding, emphasizing the urgency of timely decision-making. The need for effective stormwater management was balanced with financial realities and political implications.