Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-16 SDC Committee_MIN SDC COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES th Wednesday, August 16, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT Mayor Cathy Shaw, Councilor Carole Wheeldon, Larry Medinger, Dennis Sweet, and Darrell Boldt were present. STAFF PRESENT Director of Community Development John McLaughlin and Parks Director Ken Mickelsen were present. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:07 p.m. PRESENTATION OF PARKS SDC UPDATE Parks Director Ken Mickelsen noted that the Parks Commission has already seen this presentation and approved the proposal. He explained that prior to taking this to the Council, he wanted to present it to the SDC Committee. Consultant Wes Reynolds (AICP) explained his report on updating the Parks and Recreation SDC. He noted that the figures in the chart would be slightly different due to adjustments for inflation, but stated that the changes would be by only a few dollars in each category. Reynolds further explained that population projections had been used in reaching his conclusions. He pointed out that currently, growth is outpacing projections, and suggested that if growth continues the projections may need to be reviewed. Reynolds pointed out that while the city's park land inventory has increased, in terms of land owned by the city it is still not quite up to the standards identified in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that these shortfalls are addressed by leasing or sharing land from the Ashland School District and Southern Oregon University. He explained that these lands are taken into account in the methodology used here. It was noted that the population assumptions used here were based on the 1990 census. It was also explained that residential growth is outpacing the growth in tourist accommodation rooms at this time. Medinger questioned what difference it would make if the Lithia Springs Hotel renovation were completed and the Hotel were in operation. Reynolds stated that this would affect the "Tourist Accommodation Factor" and briefly explained the methodology. Wheeldon questioned whether Ashland's regional destination status is taken into consideration here. She suggested that day trips should also be considered as having an impact. Reynolds explained that Ashland is the only city in the region now charging tourist rooms SDCs, and explained that this was based on a known relationship between tourism and impacts on the city's systems. He suggested that the relationship between day trips and system impacts is a little less clear. Reynolds also noted that in addition to SDCs, property taxes and the food and beverage tax provide additional funds for parks in Ashland. Director of Community Development John McLaughlin explained that other cities do not charge SDCs against businesses, and rely instead on the SDCs from housing, which are paid when business owners and employees build in the community. Boldt questioned average growth factor used. Reynolds confirmed that the factor used in from the city's Comprehensive Plan. McLaughlin noted that over the last two years, growth has been higher than projected. He explained that staff is waiting for new census figures before looking at revising these numbers. He noted that recent growth has been closer to 3%, but emphasized that historically growth has tended to even out and the projections have been accurate over the long-term. Reynolds also noted that growth does not have a big impact on the Parks and Recreation SDC. Wheeldon questioned the role of SDC charges in reaching an ideal amount of park land for the city. Reynolds suggested that the city needs to buy more park land in the particular categories where deficiencies have been identified, and referred the committee members to Table 4 of his report. Reynolds emphasized that historically, the city has done very well in making acquisitions to address identified needs. Discussion of whether the city needs to purchase additional park lands, or if it could continue to rely on leases from the schools or shared park lands. Shaw suggested that the leased and shared lands be counted as part of the inventory. Reynolds explained that there are no assurances that many of these lands will be available in perpetuity. He emphasized that in some cases, the city does not even have agreements ten years down the road, and suggested that this would need to be addressed. He also noted that in some cases, these lands could be needed to allow for the building of new facilities for the schools. Wheeldon emphasized that the schools are also using city park lands, and noted the North Mountain Park fields as an example. She suggested that it was necessary to ensure that no one is being short-changed, and questioned whether “double duty” lands could put the city's park land inventory farther in arrears in the future if not addressed now. Medinger questioned whether the School District's purchase of the Waldorf School property would make additional playing fields available. He suggested that this site would be an excellent opportunity for another partnership between the city and the schools. Medinger emphasized that he feels the sharing of lands goes both ways, and suggested that there is a lot of room to cooperate. He noted that this should be particularly true with new purchases to be made over the coming years. Mickelsen noted that there is some difficulty because the School District has limited funding and limited lands. He also noted that in the case of the Waldorf School property, the playing field potential is limited by the location in the flood plain. He stated that he does not feel this is a solution for the city, and noted that the Parks Department is currently looking at the Taylor property to expand YMCA Park on Clay Street and a site across from North Mountain Park, as major parcels are what is needed currently. Shaw suggested looking further at the Waldorf site, as the School District is already acquiring the property. Shaw emphasized that this location is perfect for its proximity to several schools, and suggested that playing fields are a good use of lands that are in the flood plain. Shaw reiterated her belief that "cooperative lands" should be considered in park lands inventory, with obvious caveats kept in mind. Mickelsen stated that the lands shared with the School District are less of a concern that those shared with SOU. He emphasized that the loss of use of the fields on SOU property at Iowa Street could create big problems. Mickelsen emphasized that this is a more fragile situation than with the School District. He concluded that there needs to be a "hub" developed, rather than trying to meet parks needs one playing field at a time. Medinger questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan assumptions as true reflections of usage needs for the city. Mickelsen stated that the city is definitely short in the category of large playing fields. Reynolds noted that the City of Medford has considerably more lands per 1,000 citizens for parks than Ashland, as do some other nearby cities, but he emphasized that Ashland is getting good use of its park system through intensive management. Reynolds noted that the dollar figures used reflect past experience in acquiring park lands, and suggested that this may be a weakness given the rapidly changing value of land in Ashland. Reynolds also noted that the new fees would represent a 12% reduction over previous SDCs. He stated that it is difficult to quantify specifically because growth is such a variable. Wheeldon questioned lessening SDC charged if there is a need for more lands, and also inquired as to whether the changing market values of land was taken into consideration. Reynolds reiterated that his conclusions were based on past experiences, but recognized that two years down the line property could cost more than projected. He emphasized that all that is calculated here is the "proportional share." Reynolds also noted that there has been a history of some generous donation to the city in the past, and stated that the Food and Beverage Tax income is a back up source of funds. McLaughlin questioned whether there is a way to review this report where the current SDCs could remain valid. Shaw concurred. Medinger explained that the methodology must be followed, and Reynolds emphasized that these reductions are what the methodology yields. Medinger stated that if more park land were purchased, it would have an effect on these figures. Reynolds concurred that the acquisition of more acres to meet the city's needs would raise these numbers. Sweet clarified that the figures would change if land were bought tomorrow, depending on the cost and acreage, and confirmed that the methodology used is driving the changes here. Reynolds stated that the City will do best if it meets the standards it has set. Medinger and McLaughlin clarified that SDC monies cannot be saved, and can only be charged for projects that have been identified over a time period. Reynolds agreed, and noted that while it would be possible to alter the goals or the timeline, the methodology must be followed. Reynolds concluded that SDCs are a fee, not a tax, and their use is laid out very specifically, with little room for discretionary spending. Boldt concurred, noting that there has to be verifiable cost data. Medinger noted that there is property in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan which will be dedicated to the City, on the east side of Bear Creek. He noted that this land is all in the floodplain but stated that it will be donated. PRESENTATION OF MODIFICATION TO WATER AND WASTEWATER SDC CALCULATION METHOD McLaughlin noted that this proposal is revenue neutral, and stated that it is only intended to address single family residences. He stated that SDC calculation methodology for commercial and multi-family projects will remain the same. He stated that Ashland is unique in using fixture units to calculate SDCs, and stated that other municipalities base their fees almost exclusively on meter size. He further explained that while Ashland's methodology is more refined in better addressing impacts, it is a nightmare from the administration side. McLaughlin explained that the proposed change would calculate SDCs based on square footage, and noted that smaller homes would likely have fewer fixture units and thus would use less water and have less of an impact. McLaughlin noted that he had reached this proposal by looking at nine years worth of building permits based on square footage. He emphasized that he did not believe the last two years would be significantly different from the sample period. McLaughlin explained the proposed methodology, with incremental charges being based on square footage. He noted that the figures are based on a sample, and represent fairly hard data. He emphasized that the proposal would generate the same revenue. McLaughlin noted that four potential options are included in his report, and explained that they differ mainly in how the committee members make assumptions as to the impacts of larger houses. McLaughlin noted that proposal three is the one he began with, and pointed out that the square footages used are for habitable space and do not include garages. McLaughlin explained that for additions, those beyond 200 square feet would be charged by the square foot charge. He also stated that remodels would not pay SDCs. Shaw suggested that this is much more fair, as it encourages upgrades and improvements of existing homes. McLaughlin also stated that he felt it would expedite the permit process for remodels. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION McLaughlin asked the committee members to indicate their preference as to a specific proposal. There was discussion that both house size and yard size could be factors in water usage. Medinger noted that water use is also recovered through utility rates. Sweet recognized that property taxes provide a disincentive to constructing larger houses. Medinger and Shaw noted that they preferred option 4. Sweet indicated his preference for option 2. Medinger suggested using 1650 square feet as a breaking point, as houses beyond that size get into ostentation or larger families. He suggested that this would be a nice encouragement point. Shaw stated that she believes that the current 1500 to 1750 square foot category is about right. Sweet suggested that fees could be simplified, with one fee for those houses below 1250 square feet, one fee for 1250-2200, and one for all those above 2200 square feet. Medinger emphasized that there is a need to encourage smaller houses. Wheeldon suggested that the idea of three fee groups might work, with slightly different tiers. McLaughlin suggested that consolidating the tiers raises issues of equity having to do with paying for actual impacts. Medinger agreed that the range of steps McLaughlin had presented in the report was appropriate. Sweet suggested that option 3 had cleaner numbers. McLaughlin explained that option three addressed the impact of larger homes and tries to provide an incentive to build smaller homes. He also noted that some members of the City Council may be concerned with attempts at social engineering. Sweet suggested that the top step in option 4 is only a small increase over option 3, and reiterated that the numbers in 3 are cleaner and flow better. Wheeldon noted that the fee differences are significant toward the middle levels. Medinger suggested adding categories for 5000-6000 square feet with a factor of 2.5 and for 6000 square feet and above with a factor of 3.0 to discourage larger houses. Shaw and Sweet concurred. Medinger stated that these incentives will make a difference in the design process, by appealing to the budget conscious. Shaw summarized that the group preference was for option number 3, with the addition of three categories. McLaughlin stated that he would add 4000-5000, 5000-6000 and 6000+ with the factors discussed. Those present expressed a general consensus that this was their preference. SET NEXT MEETING DATE McLaughlin suggested that this could be put into ordinance form and brought back for one last meeting before going to Council. It was suggested that the document be prepared and distributed, with any comments to be forwarded to McLaughlin. Shaw suggested taking this before the Council at its next meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m. SUBMITTED BY Derek Severson City of Ashland, Planning Division