HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-29 SDC MINSDC Committee Minutes
February 29, 1996 4 p.m.
Council Chambers
Committee members Jack Nicholson, Larry Medinger, Ken Hagen, Dave Bernard and Don Laws
were present, along with ex officio members Sid Field and Don Greene. Tim Price and Kevin
Talbert were absent. Staff present included Jill Turner, Ken Mickelsen and Lynna Batters.
Minutes of the Feb. 7, 1996 meeting were corrected to include Tim Price as present at the meeting,
and Sid Field as ex officio. Nicholson moved to approve the minutes as corrected; Hagen seconded
the motion. Ayes all.
Laws said he found it interesting in reviewing the minutes from April 1994, that the issue of using
square footage rather than the number of fixtures was raised at that time.
Park SDC methodology, as shown on pages 28-30, was presented by Wes Reynolds. It was
noted by Medinger that Siskiyou Mountain Park cost only $32,000 for 110 acres. It was noted that
in contrast, $200,000 was paid for the three acres in Railroad Park, which is in a different category.
Medinger said he wants to be sure the methodology is comprehensive and fair. The three types of
parks covered are large and small active parks and large passive parks.
A reimbursement methodology is being used for the active parks. New fees are lower than current
charges, partially due to food and beverage tax revenues. The North Mountain Park is not
represented in the draft report because the almost 40 acre parcel has not been classified yet. When
it is added in the numbers will be different.
State statute divides SDCs into two categories: reimbursement, for projects that already exist
or are under construction; and improvement.
Field questioned the numbers used when the tourist accommodation information entered the
equation. Although the draft report projects to the year 2005, it does not use comprehensive plan
projection numbers. Reynolds said the comprehensive plan numbers are not detailed enough to use,
but that that is a good point which he will look at again. Current numbers are what were used.
Again, the meals tax is the major reason fees are staying down for park sdcs. Medinger requested
that information reflecting how the meals tax is affecting the rates be presented. Greene asked how
it affects costs of the large passive parks.
As requested by the committee, Mickelsen said he would ask for an estimate of acreage for the
passive/active division of the North Mountain park. $894,000 was paid for the 40 acre park, two
acres of which were later sold to BPA. The property was purchased with meals tax and SDC
monies; development will be paid for by property taxes. Medinger said that the purchase price for
that parcel sounds like more than twice what it should have been available for due to the fact that a
substantial amount of it is in the flood plain. Nicholson noted that some acquisition costs based on
history can be misleading considering the current increases in price. The report does not have a
factor for potential increases in land costs.
An audience member asked for an explanation of why the tourist accommodation room figure is not
part of SDCs for the small neighborhood parks. Reynolds cited a study which determined that
tourists do not tend to use the small neighborhood parks. They do use the large active and large
passive parks though.
The audience also asked what is allocated for parks from taxes? The existing population of the town
pays taxes as the park levy, which is currently $1.52/$1,000 assessed value. This money is only
used for parks the City owns. Although it cannot be used for purchases, it can be used for
maintenance, development, reduction of wildfire fuels and renovation of the pool.
Turner then briefly explained the handout which lists all future capital improvement projects
for water, sewer and storm drains. The sewage treatment projects use the Engineering News
Record (ENR) cost of inflation factor from Sept. 6, 1995. Sewage treatment plant projections use
future dollars. The third phase accommodates existing population and growth.
The water supply SDC is a reimbursement SDC of unused capacity in Hosler Dam. Water supply
SDCs can be spent on any one of the proposed sources. There are three categories of charges
related to water: source, treatment plant, and distribution.
Nicholson said the SDC ordinance he has is two years old. He requested current ordinances and a
copy of current State laws.
The schedule for future meetings was discussed. Medinger suggested adding one more meeting
to the schedule. March 14, at 4 p.m. in the Council Chambers was suggested and agreed upon.
Field said it had been reported that Medford SDCs ran about $50,000, and Ashland is looking at
$43,000. He wondered if the Medford number has been changed? And if so, what is it now?
Turner said she hopes to have the numbers from the League of Oregon Cities survey to report at
one of the mid March meetings.
An audience member questioned if all but the transportation SDCs had been covered so far. They
noted that transportation is rumored to be increasing 1700%, resulting in an overall increase of
750 %... It was asked if increased fees will restrict growth... Hagen said that the citizens of Ashland
do not want to subsidize growth. Nor are SDCs meant to restrict growth... Laws said that the law
permits system development charges and the Council decided to maximize their use so growth would
pay for itself rather than be subsidized by the community.
Medinger questioned if the City really wants to charge a local retailer who is expanding an
operation the same as someone from out of state coming in to start anew. The charges can be
prohibitively high... It was noted that $43,000 is the maximum charge for a 10,000 square foot
building--when the nature of the business is decided the SDC costs may change.
In relation to Price's mentioning that different appliances can affect SDCs at a previous meeting,
Medinger said consideration should possibly be given for using a energy efficient appliance such as
a front loading washer.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30.
(g :jill\wp\sdc\sdcmin.229)