HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-14 SDC MIN SDC Minutes
May 14, 1996 4 p.m. Council Chambers
Committee members present included Don Greene, Larry Medinger, Darrell Boldt, Ken Hagen and
Kevin Talbert. Ex-officio member Sid Field was also present. Staff present included Jill Turner,
John McLaughlin, Jim Olson and Lynna Batters.
The meeting was called to order at 4:10.
Medinger noted for Council's information that the minutes do not really represent what has been
said at the meetings since they aren't transcribed from a tape.
PARKS
Turner began the discussion with the parks improvement fee for small and large active parks, and
the reimbursement fee for passive parks. On page 14 of the handout "City of Ashland, SDC
Charges, Current vs. Proposed, Updated April 24, 96" it shows that active parks acreage has been
corrected to the current number of acres. Page 15 section 3, reimbursement fee, shows that the
City has met the comprehensive plan standard. The cost of land was calculated using the index on
page 18.
Medinger objected to calculating what land is worth rather than using an inflationary multiplier.
"We're not replacing land so we shouldn't be using replacement value." Turner said the land isn't
all paid for. The City is reimbursing, paying the debt on the land. Turner tried to come up with a
current replacement value... Medinger said the figures are too inflated and better represent a future
price. The City is only paying the debt on land that has already been purchased... Greene said the
calculations should be based on cost, not current assessed value of the land... Boldt asked why, if
the land won't be replaced, should it be valued at an inflated rate?.. Turner said the figure used is
$1.3 million for 495 acres... Talbert clarified that Turner was saying there won't be park land
purchased in the future due to growth... Turner said the comp plan goal has been met for large
active parks, but Council can choose to buy more... Talbert said that whether or not the City is
going to purchase more land will determine which methodology to use... Greene said that the actual
average cost per acre for recent purchases is $7,000/acre. He suggests using that times inflation.
Medinger noted that recent opportunities arose to get land at fairly good prices... Turner said that
land which has been donated to the Parks is represented at no cost. She restated that what the
committee wants is to base the increase on CPI inflation as it affects actual cost, not on land value
inflation.
The calculation uses the cost of land (page 15) plus the cost of development ($5,000/acre) and is
based on a population of 19,995 (page 14)... Hagen said the calculation is fairly easy for straight
purchase of land but it gets more involved when development costs are added... Medinger asked at
2.5 acres/i,000 pop., what is the population? Turner said that 19,995 q- 7,061 = 27,056 future
population. Therefore, 7,061 is the divisor. $1,339,827 x inflation factor. Turner said this is
only 62 % of the land, although the SDC is designed for reimbursement on all Park lands... Greene
objected, saying Lithia Park is included but was paid for long ago... Turner said the City doesn't
have costs for all the land--the Bear Creek Greenway; Hunter Park (which was purchased from the
cemetery, also a City fund). Even at that, the average cost per acre is only $4,300... Talbert
thought the value being assigned was too low... Turner said it's difficult to value the Park lands
because old records are not complete.
Talbert moved to revise the basis for figuring the fee for large passive parks using the inflation
index rather than assessed valuation; Greene seconded the motion. Ayes all.
Turner said the process for figuring SDCs on the large and small active parks was the same. The
current City standard is 2.14 acres. The stated comp plan goal is 2.5 acres/I,000. Therefore we're
currently short by .36 acres/i,000. A total of 4.9 acres is still needed based on a population of
19,995. This is projected to cost $105,000/acre ($25,000 acquisition costs plus $80,000
development costs per acre). Turner pointed out that the recent purchase of 3 acres for Railroad
Park cost $65,000 per acre, development costs are added to that.
Boldt asked if the school grounds the City has access to are included... Turner said that since the
City doesn't own them, they aren't included in the calculations... Medinger added that the acreages
take us to the comp plan goal but the land isn't City-owned.
Greene moved to recommend an improvement fee for small and large active parks; Talbert
seconded the motion. Ayes all.
TRANSPORTATION
Medinger stated that the committee isn't happy with the proposed methodology because the City is
not building arterial streets. A transportation plan is needed. Medinger moved to upgrade what is
currently used by what's in the CIP for now and look at it again next year when a capital
improvement plan is in place. Boldt seconded the motion. Medinger recommended that a new
transportation financing plan be implemented, then review transportation SDCs. Turner said it will
be closer to two years before the transportation capital plan is done, if then.
Field asked if the $19.63 per lineal foot for travel lanes and $10.80 per lineal foot for bike lanes is
actual cost or estimated cost... Medinger said it's what the City has to pay due to Davis Bacon. If a
contractor builds the same things it costs about 60% as much... Talbert cautioned that the committee
shouldn't wait so long that adequate SDCs are not collected for projects that will need to be done...
Turner said the City has parts of the plan, but they all have to be tied together.
Medinger brought up the subject of trip ends in the methodology... Tumer said that the retail
commercial category which has such high trip ends actually can be broken down into many
categories... McLaughlin noted that fast food restaurants and banks are examples of businesses that
have high trip ends... Medinger thinks this methodology singles out businesses we all use, to the
point of essentially eliminating new ones, which will make the existing ones more valuable. He
suggested making recommendations to address this... there is also concern as to how this would
affect the viability of certain businesses... Greene said that most residential trips are to businesses,
so the SDC calculation is "double dipping."
Medinger wants to recommend charging SDC annually per business or building or function over 30
or 40 or 50 years... Turner said the main problem with that is that the City incurs the costs when
projects are done... Medinger thinks the City is immortal and will go on and on no matter what
happens. However, builders and small businesses can't take the hit of high costs all at once...
SDC Minutes -- May 14, 1996 Page 18
Turner reminded that an ordinance to pay SDCs over time had been handed out and discussed
previously... Boldt noted that the Chamber is also concerned with the proposed methodology...
Turner said that that may go back to the misinformation that's been disseminated. Transportation
Option C is an increase of only 27%, compared to the original high end estimate of 1,713%.
Hagen said that costs that aren't covered by SDCs will be shifted to some other segment...
Medinger said that's why he likes annual payments. If the business changes in three years the SDC
charges change also.
Talbert moved that Council take note of the disincentives of a 27% increase in transportation
SDCs to new retail businesses; consider time payment options; and reexamine the trip end basis
of SDCs. Medinger seconded the motion. This is reasonable because political and economic
implications need to be considered... Hagen noted that Option C isn't necessarily true cost, rather,
it's more likely far below. Boldt restated the motion such that when a new CIP document is
ready the Council will establish a review process and a broad based committee to look at the
impact and advise accordingly. Ayes all.
Another meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, May 15 at 4:00.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30.
(g: \jill\wp\sdc\minutes\sdcmin.514)
SDC Minutes -- May 14, 1996 Page 19