Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0216.SS.MINMINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL February 16, 2000 Council Chambers, 1175 E Main CALL TO ORDER Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. IN ATTENDANCE Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson and Fine were present. Staff present: Community Development Director John McLaughlin, Finance Director Jill Turner, City Attorney Paul Nolte and City Administrator Mike Freeman. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION: OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL LEASE AGREEMENT City Administrator Mike Freeman noted that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) had prepared a memo outlining their position on seven issues. The council looked at these items, point by point. Brent Thompson/582 Allison St./Submitted written comments which were made part of the record concerning retaining the small town feel of Ashland. Point 1: Lease Rene$totiation. The Festival believes that the present lease, dated August 29, 1969 should be renegotiated to include the proposed new theatre and the planned parking structure. Shaw expressed her concern with appearance of the council giving implicit approval to an action prior to it having undergone the appropriate planning process. The council discussed the difficulty that this may present. Hauck suggested that there be a provision in the lease that the proposed buildings are contingent upon planning approval. Nolte clarified that this is legal, and the concerns are a matter of perception. Nolte emphasized that it needs to be clear to the Festival, at every stage in the process, that this matter is contingent on land use planning approvals. Fine questioned if the lease could be postponed until after the planning process is complete. OSF Director Paul Nicholson noted that they do not want to get through the planning process only to find out that there is a problem with the lease. They intend that the planning process and the lease renegotiation would be parallel processes. Nicholson stated that OSF would be very comfortable with contingencies being included in the lease and emphasized that the Board wants to ensure that there will not be hold ups with the lease after planning approval. Shaw suggested moving ahead with renegotiations of the lease agreement, with contingencies to address planning approval. Council concurred. Point 2: Term of Lease. The Festival Board is interested in a lease term of 25 years with at least two 25-year options. Nolte commented that the City Charter states, the city cannot enter into a lease agreement that exceeds ninety-nine years, and questioned the interpretation of the charter language. Fine suggested that the lease state, at the end of the 25 years for the first lease, that it is made clear it is the completion of that lease and the second lease will be a new lease. Reid questioned whether the 25-year renewal options were automatic or if it would be open to renegotiation. Nolte explained that renegotiation could occur if it were expressly opened in the lease. Freeman suggested a provision in the lease for an opportunity to renegotiate at the conclusion of the first 25-year lease. Fine and Hauck suggested a 25-year lease with one negotiable, 25-year option at OSF's discretion. Nicholson stated that this would be a little difficult for the Board. He agreed that wording, at least one 25-year option was guaranteed, would be acceptable to the OSF Board. Nolte questioned what the council would want to Council Study Session 2/16/2000 Page I of 6 revisit at the end of 25 years. Reid explained that the community's values could change drastically in 25 years, and suggested erring on what is good for the community. Fine suggested that Nolte sit down with the OSF attorneys to find mutual agreeable wording. Nicholson noted that there needs to be a satisfactory guarantee to justify the investment required to build the proposed buildings and that there needs to be an adequate time frame to provide OSF with the security that there will be a return on their investment. Point 3: Usal~e of Festival Facilities by Third Parties. The Festival is willing to continue the existing language in the lease to allow third parties temporary use of the theatre portions of the leased premises when such use will not interfere with the operations of the Festival, with the understanding that access to the Angus Bowmer Theatre, the Elizabethan Theatre and the new theatre will be very limited because of the FestivalIs activities. The Festival is interested in making Carpenter Hall more available for community use than it has been in the past, recognizing that the Hall is already used by the Festival, and that such outside use cannot conflict with the FestivalD%= theatre activities, particularly those in the Elizabethan Theatre. Hauck stated that he would like to see some advance notice of when these facilities are to be available, so that community groups can schedule use of the building. Laws concurred that without the ability to schedule use, this clause is useless. Nolte clarified that the lease could require that OSF allow use of Carpenter Hall without making the Carpenter Hall building part of the lease. Point 4: Restrictions on Growth. The Festival Board is unanimous that the lease should not include any terms that would restrict the FestivalDt-F ability to grow in the future, including, but not limited to restrictions on number of performances, number of seats that could be sold, use of the Black Swan, etc. While the board does not expect or anticipate significant growth in these areas, it is unwilling to tie the hands of boards that might be debating these issues in the future. Fine explained that the City's livability will be affected by growth~ and expressed his concern with the Festival wanting to have sole discretion over the growth of the biggest entity in the city through the use of public lands. He emphasized that there needs to be some give and take. Nicholson explained that they want to protect the Festival's ability to grow without having any expectation of growth. Reid suggested that growth would trigger a planning process, and emphasized that planning regulation seem to be keeping pace with growth and the needs of the community. Fine pointed out that OSF is a slightly different situation, as OSF is using public land. Laws stated that he would like the public to have a strong voice in any growth in the downtown area, and while that is not always possible, it is here. He suggested that something be done through the lease or the planning codes to prevent full time use of all three theaters year-round. Hauck feels that it is unfair to regulate OSF when we cannot regulate other businesses, and suggested that this might be a land-use matter and not part of the lease renegotiation. McLaughlin stated that ordinances can be written that regulate theater size and operation requirements, such as hours of operation and seasons. Nolte expressed his belief that this could not be retroactively applied to existing theaters because of the non-conforming use laws. Fine stated that there may be a need for a land-use ordinance amendment prior to signing a lease agreement. Reid emphasized that this would apply to any business in the Council Study Session 2/16/2000 Page 2 of 6 downtown to address potential impacts. Laws suggested that there be trigger points in the lease agreement that would bring the city into the decision making process concerning theater growth Nolte asked for clarification regarding the issue of community group use of Carpenter Hall. He questioned whether Shakespeare would be able to conduct performances during times when community groups were using this space. Nicholson stated that it may not be a good idea for council to regulate the number of performances that OSF can conduct, as an increase in the number of performances outside the current season is probably the best thing, economically, that could be done for the city. Laws stated that this is an incorrect assumption. Shaw read information submitted by Brent Thompson, concerning the need for limitations on the Festival to ensure that the small town character of Ashland is preserved. Hanson stated that he feels that OSF is self-regulating. and that there may come a time when there is so much traffic that theater attendance would suffer. Suggested that there does not need to be a lot of regulation in the lease, as the Festival is smart enough not to overgrow. Freeman noted that Wheeldon had left him a note indicating that she was not in favor of any restriction on growth. Point 5: ParkinlI Structure. The Festival Board is willing to front the costs of a multilevel parking structure with a capacity for between 112 and 150 vehicles. with the understanding that if paid parking is introduced in the downtown area, the Festival would be reimbursed for the cost of the expanded parking. Hanson questioned if paid parking was under consideration. Freeman explained that there has been some discussion within the Chamber of Commerce to introduce paid parking, but nothing formal. Shaw suggested that this should be separated, as the introduction of paid parking downtown to fund the parking structure could create bad feelings toward the new structure. She stated that if there were paid parking in the structure, a portion of the fee collected could be used to reimburse the Festival. Freeman noted, on Councilor Wheeldon's behalf, that she feels that OSF should pay for the cost associated with a parking structure. regardless of any future revenue source. Freeman also raised the issue of maintenance costs, and the need to look at this issue further. Laws agreed with Wheeldon, and stated that if OSF has the capability to pay for the lot, then that should be their contribution toward resolving the problems Shaw clarified, and the council concurred, that they would delete the statement that the Festival would be reimbursed for the cost of the expanded parking. Nicholson noted that instead of looking at a two level structure, they could dig two feet deeper and look at a three level structure in order to reduce costs and increase the number of parking spaces to 150. He suggested that providing this significant number of additional spaces should merit reimbursement by the city. Reid suggested that this be looked at by the parking committee. Shaw suggested amending the point to read "The Festival Board is willing to front the costs of a multilevel parking structure with a capacity for 112 vehicles." Explained that this would be a minimum level, and was all that needed to be stated at this point. Point 6: Future Air Rights Above the Parkinl~ Structure. The Festival is willing to agree that future air rights for building above the parking structure would be held by the City, with the understanding that the use of those air rights would need mutual agreement between OSF and the City. Council Study Session 2/16/2000 Page 3 of 6 Hauck stated that this was reasonable. Fine suggested that the city should be able to use these rights as long as it did not unreasonably burden the Festival. Nicholson suggested that the Festival board would require more specificity to address design compatibility. Point 7: Other Lease Terms. The terms incorporated in the existing lease are acceptable to the Festival's Board. Shaw noted that it had been requested, that any new lease require the Festival to provide public restrooms, with hours of availability from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Hanson noted that there would be restrooms in the parking structure, so this should not be an issue. PLANNING DIVISION COST OF SERVICE Director of Community Development John McLaughlin explained that staff has been looking at ways to recover costs, and noted that staff has been working with CDA Consulting. He introduced Clay Moorehead, who would be presenting proposed changes to the Planning Division fee schedules. Freeman explained that this was one of the strategies discussed in last year's budget process for covering some of the holes in the General Fund. Noted that initially, they had intended to raise these fees this year~ but as this issue was looking at, it became more complex and a consultant was brought in. Freeman confirmed for Shaw the consultants had determined, that based on workload and the goals of the city, current staff levels are appropriate. Freeman noted that he hoped to present all recommendations on staffing from the consultant, along with his recommended responses, in the near future. Reid asked that Moorehead address her concerns regarding development paying by impact, so that a small, single- unit planning action is not charged the same as a large subdivision. Clay Moorehead briefly noted his background and explained that traditionally, community development department costs are placed on the taxpayers rather than developers. He suggested that this is deficient as a means for recovering costs. He gave a brief overview of today's presentation, and noted that council feedback would be necessary for this process to move to the next stage. Moorehead presented charts which showed how fees had been supported since 1993-94 and Planing Division Time Allocation. He briefly explained the current fee stTucture, and noted how fees are recovered from fees, property taxes and systems development charges. He questioned whether this is the fee recovery balance that the city wants. Moorehead noted the time allocation chart, which indicated that 37.0% of the department's time was spent on current planning, 26.0% on long range planning, 24.0% on administration/code compliance and 13.0% on building permits. He explained that these numbers represent 1/3 of the departments time in dealing with long range planning, while 2/3 is spent on current planning~ and suggested that the fee recovery should reflect this split. Reid questioned how the proposed increases related to affordability within the community. Moorehead agreed that housing affordability is a key issue, but cost balancing and cost recovery are also key, especially when there is continuing competition for the general fund dollars. He emphasized that somebody is paying for costs, and it is currently the taxpayer at large, rather than the development community or home purchasers. He emphasized that growth ends up paying 1/6 of the costs. Hauck clarified that planning fees are user fees, and it becomes a question of philosophy as to how much the city wishes to subsidize. Council Study Session 2/16/2000 Page 4 of 6 Moorehead confirmed for Shaw that without SDC's, the planning fee support is even less than indicated on the spreadsheet presented to the council. McLaughlin clarified that the SDC fees shown are the administrative portion that actually goes to planning for the review of building permits and calculating SDCs. Moorehead presented a chart which indicated total fee revenue compared to expenditures not covered by fee revenue. He posed the philosophical question of whether growth should pay for its impact, or have these impacts spread throughout the entire community. Reid noted that growth is not necessarily an outside impact, but can result from a change in lifestyles by current residents. Laws questioned subsidizing new growth and noted that despite a loose policy that while the city will not subsidize growth, it actually does. He suggested that this is appropriate in some ways, to encourage diversity and work on long range planning. He stated that people should pay for the cost of their new houses, even if that means increasing the cost of housing significantly. Fine noted that there is a general affordability problem in Ashland, and stated that if growth does not pay for itself then it will make it less affordable for those trying to stay in their present homes. Hanson concurred. Fine emphasized that he does not want to make the city any less affordable for those who are hanging on in their existing homes. Moorehead clarified that property taxes are part of affordability, and as such effects everyone in Ashland. He questioned how much of the burden should be shifted to new development and how much impact there should be in the fee structure for people purchasing permits. Fine suggested keeping time sheets and billing applicants for actual costs incurred. Moorehead suggested three possible approaches: 1 ) Creating average costs for the types of applications by dividing the cost to be recovered by the number of permits. He noted that this could be prohibitive and discourage people; 2) Using a time sheet, which works well with finite issues such as engineering. However, he suggested that feedback and involvement in the land use process could mean great cost variations for similar applications. For this teasore Moorehead recommended against this method; 3) Instituting a "community development fee" as used by the City of Newberg. He noted those Measure 50 statutory concerns, and stated that this has been reviewed by the League of Oregon Cities and determined to be sound. Moorehead explained that the community development fee would work like a building permik and be charged based on the valuation ofthe project. He noted that a l% community development fee would mean that 70% of fees would be recovered, and the remaining 30% would be tax subsidized and asked that council to discuss where this percentage should be set. Moorehead explained that if the council so desired, they could draft an ordinance or resolution establishing community development fees, in compliance with Measure 50, based on the value of buildings being issued permits. He further suggested that these fees could be used to generate revenue to support the cost of building renovations. Moorehead summarized the possible solutions: raising some of the individual fees, looking at a community development fee and looking at hourly charges for the work of some individuals, to be focused toward target cost recovery. Moorehead provided council with a questionnaire for them to provide feedback on who should pay, the taxpayers or the developers and explained that SDC and community development fees should be looked at as a whole package. Council Study Session 2/16/2000 Page 5 of 6 Hauck suggested that long range planning, such as the Hillside Ordinance, benefitted the community and should be spread across the community. Shaw suggested that anything that benefits the community should be born by the community as a whole. She stated that many of the long range planning items fall under this category, and suggested that for areas where growth and development affect the departmentl it directly should be recovered through fees. The council discussed whether developers should be charged for the cost of processes which are lengthened by community involvement. Shaw concluded that this should be pursued further, and Moorehead noted that they will bring a preliminary report back to the council within a month. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Submitted by Barbara Christensen, City Recorder/Treasurer Council Study Session 2/16/2000 Page 6 of 6