Loading...
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