HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-07 SDC MINSDC Committee Minutes
February 7, 1996 4 p.m.
Council Chambers
Committee members Kevin Talbert, John Nicholson, Tim Price, Don Laws, Ken Hagen, and Larry
Medinger, as well as ex officio members Sid Field and Don Greene, were present when the meeting
was called to order at 4:05. City staff present included Jim Olson, Jill Turner, Lynna Batters, John
McLaughlin, and Wes Reynolds, consultant.
Medinger asked if it is possible to get SDC information from other cities of similar size? Rather
than create a survey, Turner will share the results of a League of Oregon Cities survey that has
already been administered. Results are due to arrive in mid March. Laws observed that what other
cities charge isn't relevant. Ashland needs to charge to cover costs. Hagen noted that Ashland's
limited supply of water will increase future supply expenses.
The next meeting date and place was changed from Feb. 28 at the Senior Center, to Feb. 29 at
the Council Chambers. Park SDCs will be discussed, and water and sewer SDCs will be
discussed if there are further questions.
Nicholson questioned whether the City should be charging SDCs to the schools for the
improvements that will soon be made: approximately $240,000 to the middle school and $42,000 to
the high school. On the basis of the intergovernmental tax exemption agreement, he recommends
that the City change the SDC ordinance so the schools aren't charged. Turner agreed to put the
issue on a future agenda so Paul Nolte could address the committee on the issue.
Reynolds discussed the water system SDCs, noting that they are broken down into water supply,
distribution, and treatment segments. Medinger asked again for the information the SDCs are based
on. In charging SDCs for new water mains, assumed growth is based on the current annual rate of
growth (1.3-1.4%). Reynolds said the projection covers a 10 year period, to 2005. Medinger noted
that as the population increases over time, the shared charge should decrease. Reynolds said he will
look at the equation again.
Medinger reminded staff that he still wants to look at fixture units vs. square footage in figuring
SDCs. Turner said that that subject will appear on a future agenda.
Greene clarified that whereas Hosler Dam is being charged on a reimbursement basis, for the water
treatment plant unused capacity is the basis. He said "new capacity to be built" could be another
name for SDCs. He wondered why water supply is an improvement fee rather than new capacity,
why not be consistent? Talbert also wondered why two different approaches were chosen?
Reynolds said he will look at this discrepancy also.
Medinger asked if water supply SDCs get saved for future supply expansion. Turner said the City's
philosophy on SDCs is that SDCs are spent on what they're collected for. The estimation in the
budget is usually conservative. If an appropriate project is approved, the SDCs get spent on it.
Currently what's on hand for transportation projects is low. Annually, $80,000-$90,000 is paid on
the debt service for water distribution. Water conservation costs are covered by rates. The savings
realized by water conservation is an avoidance cost, so there isn't a capital project to show for it.
Green wants to know what the City SDCs are being spent on.
The sanitary sewer system has two components--the treatment plant and the collection system.
Talbert noted that the methodologies look inconsistent again. Reynolds said upgrades to the sewer
treatment plant are not shown in the report because capacity isn't pushing the project.
Medinger said that sometimes storm sewer collection systems are built by developers and that they
shouldn't have to pay SDCs on top of that. Is there a way to be reimbursed? He thinks they
shouldn't be part of SDCs at all. Turner said that if the project improved by the developer is listed
on the City capital improvements list and benefits citizens behond the development, then the
developer is entitled to a credit on that specific SDC. Medinger requested a copy of the
spreadsheets that list the projects. McLaughlin or Olson will report back on the credit process.
Medinger asked about using districting in figuring storm drain charges. Turner said that that
process would take some time to negotiate, and probably couldn't be started for another year.
Talbert also asked that the 15 % figure for growth be reviewed during the district review process.
After the last meeting Medinger talked with McLaughlin who said that at the base of every stream
there will have to be some kind of wetland or settling pond. Turner noted that due to the relatively
small amount of rain in Ashland, pollutants are more concentrated than in some other areas. Hagen
said there will have to be a mechanism in place at all the drainages to catch silt before it gets to the
wetlands, otherwise the wetland efficiency is impeded.
According to Medinger, the Homebuilders Association questions whether any living person in
Ashland has paid anything for Hosler Dam. They question whether a replacement charge is valid.
They do think we need to allow for improvements and think that if the SDC was characterized as
saving for the future there would be less resistance. Medinger requested a legal opinion regarding
the Hosler Dam reimbursement. He will ask the State Homebuilders attorney for an opinion also.
And if the concept of unused capacity were clarified it would be appreciated. Green suggested that
be based on the Capital Improvement Plan instead. Laws added that something that is 20-25 years
away is a real unknown.
Price said the issue of fixture upgrades needs to be reassessed. The current system seems out of
kilter, sometimes resulting in prohibitive costs.
Previously the City Council decided to phase in SDCs over a three year span. That has been
achieved, and the SDCs are at 100%.
The next meeting will be held February 29, at 4 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30.
(g: \jill\wp\ sdc\sdc0207 .min)