Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0709.LID REPORTCITY OF ASHLAND Department of Community Development Planning Division MEMORANDUM DATE: July 9, 1998 TO: FROM: Ad Hoc LID Committee members John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Final Draft - Committee Report to Council Attached is the final draft of the report for your review. A study session has been scheduled for July 22 with the City Council for the presentation of this report. I believe it would be helpful if as many of you could attend as possible. While there may not be any direct questions of you, it could be advantageous to show committee support for the report. The changes made were essentially as recommended during the last meeting, with the exception of one issue. On Page 5 of the report, near the top of the page, a short section was added in italic type giving the City the additional opportunity to review deferred assessments as part of future lot development. As explained in the text, there may be instances where properties were envisioned to develop at one level, but through large lot development, would not ultimately develop at the anticipated density. The example presented was that a lot was assessed with a potential for 5 lots as part of an LID, but through future partitions, only created 3 lots which could not be further developed. In this scenario, the City would be responsible for covering the units costs for the additional 2 lots lost from the original LID. As proposed, the City would have the right to re-assess the property, reassigning the assessment from the 5 lots to the 3 lots. The property still pays its original assessment, and the City's funds are not depleted. However, through the property owner's choice, they may ultimately pay in excess of $4000 per unit. I would like to have copies of the final report available to the Council on Friday, July 17th. Your rapid response to any issues in the report would be greatly appreciated. I will be preparing the final version on Thursday, July 16th. Please provide any comments or suggestions prior to that time. You may contact me at: Phone: 488-5305 Fax: 488-5311 E-Mail: mac,ashland.or.us Drop Off: City Hall, 20 East Main Street AD HOC LID COMMITTEE Formed to discuss, examine, and recommend improvements to the City's policies regarding local improvement districts. Committee Recommendations for the formation of Local Improvement Districts in residential areas - Report to the Ashland City Council' ~ July,-22, 1998 Introduction: Local Improvement Districts have become extremely controversial as a result of significantly increased costs and the growing use of pre-signs. Costs have gone up over 50% since the mid 1980's (using constant 1996 dollars)--largely because of an expanding definition of street standards to include sidewalks and storm sewers. We have now accumulated enough signatures that we are able to form LID's largely with pre-signs, and although they are legally obligated to accept them, the pre-signed property owners are often opposed to the formation of the districts. Both trends have led to increasing citizen resistance, and it is in response to this opposition that this committee was appointed. Early in our deliberations we decided unanimously not to oppose the city's position that paving all unpaved streets is required for environmental and economic reasons, and to accept the city's present street standards as long as the property owners can ask the City Council for exceptions when unique circumstances exist. The following recommendations are not the first choices of all committee members, but we unanimously agree that the City should share a portion of street LID costs, that assessments should be based on existing and potential "units" rather than front footage or area, and that the policy on pre-signs requires reform. Except on the question of whether a pre-sign should continue being counted as "in favor" of a LID after pre-payment, the committee came very close to consensus--at least in the sense that all of us can live with the majority's recommendations. One committee member was forced to drop out early in the process, but everyone else has signed this report in the belief that its recommendations, on the whole, will substantially improve the LID process. Your committee met almost every Wednesday evening for over two months, devoting many, many hours to this project. We are aware that our recommendations ask for the city to share in costs that have traditionally been born entirely by the property owner, and that this will necessitate difficult decisions about increased revenues or rearranged budget priorities, but it is our belief that these changes will expedite the paving' of our unpaved streets by greatly increasing citizen acceptance of the city's intent to bring all our streets up to city standards in order to enhance our environment and promote multi-modal transportation. Allocation of Costs for Street Improvements: Presently, the abutting property owners within a local improvement district are responsible for all normal costs associated with a street improvement, including curbs, gutters, paving, storm drains, sidewalks, and undergrounding of utilities. The Ad Hoc LID Committee recommends that the lbllowing changes be made: Sidewalk improvements. The City would be responsible for 60% of the costs associated with the sidewalks required in an LID. Funding for this could be covered under the current $30,000 annual allotment to sidewalk improvements with LID's. Sidewalks account for approximately 15% of the total improvement costs in recent LID's. The City participation at this level would reduce average LID costs by approximately 9%. EXPLANATION: The City is strongly encouraging sidewalks in-all neighborhoods, and has established a policy where sidewalks will be included with new street construction and improvements done through the Local Improvement District process. Through the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, and by policy, the City has made sidewalks a priority, and a majority of the costs of sidewalks construction (60%) is proposed to be the City's responsibility. Storm Drain improvements: The City would be responsible for 75% of the costs associated with storn~ drain improvements required in an LID. A portion of this cost would be covered by Storm Water SDC's. Additional funding would be necessary to the remainder. Storm drains account for approximately 20% of the total improvement costs in recent LID's. The City participation at this level would reduce average LID costs by approximately 15%. EXPLANATION: The provision of storm drains serves a purpose beyond only the local streets. Storm drain collection and routing is of benefit to water quality and erosion control. Based on these city-wide issues, it is proposed that the City be responsible for 75% of the costs associated with storm drain construction. Street Construction: The City would be responsible for 20% of the costs associate with the driving surface construction. Funding for this match would need to be determined. Street construction accounts for approximately 55% of the total improvements costs for a street in recent LID's. The City participation at this level would reduce average LID costs by approximately 11%. EXPLANATION: Local streets, by design, primarily serve the immediate neighborhood. In most instances, these streets are the primary access to individual properties, but do not LID Committee Final Recommendation - FINAL INTERNAL COMMITTEE DRAFT July 22, 1998 Page 2 serve as access routes to major attractors for the rest of the City. Recognizing this predominant local use, but also seeing that local streets do provide a city-wide benefit by connecting neighborhoods and providing emergency vehicle access, it is proposed that the City be responsible for 20% of the costs associated with the driving surface portion of street construction. Engineering and Administration: The City would be responsible for 50% of the costs associated with engineering and administration associated with design of the street in an LID. Funding for this match wold need to be determined. Enginderin~ ~nd Administration accounts for approximately 10% of the total improvement costs for an LID. The City participation at this level would reduce average LID costs by approximately 5%. EXPLANATION: The design of a local street should be a partnership between the neighborhood and the City. As partners, it is proposed that the_ City be responsible for 50% of the costs associated with Engineering and Administration. Allocation of Costs Summary: It is proposed that City participation would occur at the following levels: . o I' roposed to be :, zo of Total Street Effective ,o retluclion in ~ assumed by City ~ Construclion Cost lotalcott (on a~erage) ~ J ~Engiueering mid ~ ~ ~ Administration R(F' ,. I ~'F:. q", . Allocations would be made on a specific street by street basis. Actual street costs would be utilized for the allocation of costs and percentage match by the City. For example, the City's participation would be less on a street where sidewalks are not included in the improvement. LID Committee Final Recommendation - FINAL INTERNAL COMMITTEE DRAFT July 22, 1998 Page 3 A residential cap would be established setting a maximum amount that could be charged to any one unit in an assessment district. That amount would be $4,000, adjusted annually for inflation. This proposal of matching funds for an LID would only be in effect while funding was available. At present, adequate funding is not available for this proposal. Two funding sources are presently allocated to LID improvements - $30,000 annually for sidewalks, and $50,000 annually in the Arterial Assistance Fund. Over $7 million in local street improvements have been identified. Assuming that $5 million of those improvements should occur in the next 10 years, a funding source of 40% of $500,000 annually, or $200,000 annually would need to be made available. On LID's which include City-owned property, the City will pay 100% of the assessed cost. No match will be available to these parcels. On LID's which involve development property which require immediate street improvements for development approval, the City will not provide a portion of the improvement costs for these properties. The properties involved with the development will be assessed at 100% of the street improvement costs. EXPLANATION: This proposal was not endorsed by the entire committee, but received majority support. Those not in support felt that all properties, development or not, should be treated equally. Determination of Assessment Method Currently, different assessment methods are used depending on the neighborhood. Options include front footage, area, and number of units. Combinations of these methods are also possible, such as 25% front footage and 75% units. Standardize the assessment method city-wide by using a "units" method. Assessment districts would be delineated, and the number of existing and potential units (based on underlying zoning) would be the basis for assessment. For example, if a district contained 100 homes/lots, each home would pay 1/100th of the of LID cost. EXPLANATION: Issues have been raised by neighborhoods that there has been no consistency between past LID's - some have been assessed based on frontage foot, others by area, some by a combination. This recommendation would standardize the approach for all LID's, recognizing that all lots within a district benefit in a, more or less, "equal" manner from having a paved street access. This assessment method would still allow for the use of "partial units" to address unique situations, such as comer lots ( ½ unit). LID Committee Final Recommendation - FINAL INTERNAL COMMITTEE DRAFT July 22, 1998 Page 4 Each lot would be initially responsible for one unit. If the potential exists for additional lots, either through partition or subdivision, a potential lien with notification is placed on the property for the costs associated with those lots. When the lots are created, the LID costs (plus interest) would be due at the time of first sale of the lot after the agreement had been signed. If a payoff is requested prior to design of the street, payoff would occur at the maximum assessment amount ($4,000/unit, adjusted annually for inflation). The City reserves the right to review the assessment of potential lots at the time of future partition of subdivision. For example, if during the initial LID,for~mat!on, a property is determined to have a potential development of five lots, but through f~ti~re partitioning only three large lots are created with no further development potential, the City would reserve the right to re-allocate the 5-lot assessment among the three lots. Maximum assessment would be $4,000 per unit, adjusted annually for inflation. Potential lots would be responsible for $4,000/unit, plus interest, or the estimated costs plus 10% if street design work has been completed.. Current semi-annual payments for an assessment of $4,000 at 6.95% interest would be approximately $328 over ten years. Agreements: Maintain existing pre-signed agreements, and utilize them as necessary for future street improvements, in line with the recommendations here. Create a system for "pay-off" of agreements prior to street construction. Pay off would occur at the maximum cap amount ($4,000, adjusted annually for inflation) or estimated unit cost plus 10% if street design has been completed. The property would no longer have financial responsibility to the street improvement, but is still considered "in favor" of the improvement for initial district formation. However, the property owner would retain the right to remonstrate to the formation of the district at the time of the public hearing. This would require an ordinance amendment to the current procedures. EXPLANATION: This issue resulted in two points of view on the Committee. The majority of the committee support the statement as presented above, while the remaining members do not believe that property owners should be able to remonstrate after the financial responsibility has been met. Continue to allow smaller developments (partitions, accessory units) to use pre-signed agreements, but change to "deferred transportation improvement agreements" and require that they be paid at the time of first sale of the property after the agreement has been signed. LID Committee Final Recommendation - FINAL INTERNAL COMMITTEE DRAFT July 22, 1998 Page 5 EXPLANATION: There still remain some opportunities for development on unimproved streets, and there are instances where the burden would be very great if the owner were required to do the entire improvement independently. The portion of this recommendation where the agreement is "paid off" at the time of the first sale ties the resolution of the agreement directly to the owner who received the development benefit (partition, new unit, etc...), rather than passing it on to future buyers, as is now the case. Implementation: Funding must be available for these recommendations to be implemented. The committee chose not to make specific budgetary recommendations as part of this process, but rather to confine themselves to the policy issues. However, implementation of these recommendations should involve the following: First steps would involve determination of a funding source for the City matching funds. Options include the existing sources now allocated for sidewalks ($30,000/yr) and Arterial Assistance ($50,000/yr). Short term options could include approximately $200,000 available this budget season, but has yet to be allocated by the City Council. Other priorities may rise above local streets for this funding source. Similarly, an increase in the Transportation Utility Fee could be utilized. Again, competition for funding for transportation projects may make this option unavailable. Revise the existing agreements to "Deferred Transportation Improvement" agreements and clarify the payoff at the time of first sale of property after recording of the agreement. Revised city ordinances to allow for payoff of potential LID's if desired by property owner for properties with previously recorded agreements. Payoff would occur at the proposed cap ($4,000, adjusted annually for inflation) or the unit cost plus 10% determined from the specific street design. If permanent funding source is found, then create a priority list of local street improvement projects, and schedule construction through the Capital Improvement Planning process. Maintain neighborhood involvement throughout the local improvement district process, including district formation, specific street design, and cost assessment Utilize informal public meetings to explain proposals and receive input. LID Committee Final Recommendation - FINAL INTERNAL COMMITTEE DRAFT July 22, 1998 Page 6 For the five recent local improvement districts where improvements have been completed but not assessed, or where construction has not yet occurred, provide a 10% discount on assessments. These districts include Dogwood, Orange, Ann/Clinton, Fordyce, and Westwood. EXPLANATION: The committee felt that much of the driving force behind these proposed policy changes came from lessons learned from these recent LID's, and that there should be some financial recognition back to the districts. It is estimated that this 10% discount will require funding of approximately $60,000 to $80,000 depend~nt u~i~n final assessments. Scenarios: The Committee asked that the proposals presented here be used on recent LID's to determine costs and impacts. On the attached sheet are five LID's (four formed, one proposed) where the city participation formula has been applied. The Sheridan/Schofield LID (which was not formed) is based on the total street costs, excluding the improvements completed by the developer for Sheridan. No participation by the developer is assumed in this scenario. The LID cost scenarios (Sheridan/Schofield, Orange Avenue, Ann/Clinton Streets, Fordyce Street, and Westwood Street) were prepared using the city involvement formula of 60% of sidewalk costs; 75% of storm drain costs; 20% of street surface costs; and 50% of engineering/administration costs. The two LID's in lower density neighborhoods (Sheridan/Schofield and Westwood) both exceeded the $4,000 cap, even after city participation. The other districts were well below the cap. In the lower density LID areas, the City participation increased up to 47% of the total LID costs, while in the higher density areas, the city participation ranged from 43% down to 34%. Each street has unique characteristics, with each component (sidewalks, storm drain, driving surface, and engineering) comprising different percentages of the total cost. From these scenarios, it appears that this approach would work, with the City assuming greater financial responsibility in the lower density areas. LID Committee Final Recommendation - FINAL INTERNAL COMMITTEE DRAFT July 22, 1998 Page 7 8661. '~Z ,~lnr uo!lepueLuLuooe~l leU!d ea~,!LULUO0 Ol-I %0~ %Zt~ %~,~ % 8Z~:'t,$ 99~'~95 00g'85 g~6'Z~$ OZ9'~ ~$ %Og OO0'Z~$ %0~ ~0'~$ %gz ogz'9~$ %09 90L'9~$ % ~!0 uo!l~ra~ed 05 05 088'Z$ $ ~!0 leuo~!pPV ~un~§~e^O ~G8'E~$ %og ~g~'z$ %0~ ~96'6~$ %gZ 9Z~'0~$ %09 gg~'g~$ 05 05 69~'Z$ $ ~!0 I~B!PPV ~un~§~O %£~ 9~'g~$ %og ._--; %0~ %gz %0g $ ~!O leU~I!PPV l!un~e^o %Z~ %~ % ~!0 %Og %0~ %gZ %09 % ~o gZ9'~$ 0~0'95 099'0~$ LZ6'95 uo!led~!~ed ~gZ'9Z$ 699'8~$ gg~'z~$ UO!led~!ped g09'Z$ 1!un Jed 1soo 6~ s1!un jo JequJnN 06t,'1~1~ L $ Sl elOJ. %~ 000'Z~$ u!uJpv/§upeeu!§u3 %6t, 06z'oz$ eoepns leeJlS %9E OgE'Z~$ U!I~JQ WJOIS leeJ1s poon~,seM 0E~'~$ 3!un Jed 15oO g~L s1!un jo JeqLunN 000'g9~$ SlelOl lee'lS eo,(pJo::! 06g'ff$ l!un Jed lsoo g~ si!un jo JeqLunN 6~'9'gg !. $ SlelOJ. s~,aaJ~,S uo~,u!lOlUUV 6gg'~$ l!un Jed 1soo g~ sl!un jo JeqLunN ggg'g9$ slelOl anue^v eSueJo Plagoqoslueppeqs Respectfully submitted to the Ashland City Council: A1 Alsing Harry Bartell Tom Bizeau Jack Blackburn Alan DeBoer Susan Hunt Kathleen Kahle Don Laws Steve Morjig Carole Wheeldon LID Committee Final Recommendation - FINAL INTERNAL COMMITTEE DRAFT July 22, 1998 Page 9 AD HOC LID COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 24, 1998 Call to Order: Don Laws opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Committee members present were: Steve Morjig, Alan DeBoer, Harry Bartell, Jack Blackburn, Susan Hunt, Kathleen Kahle, AI Alsing and Tom Bizeau. Carole Wheeldon and Kelly Madding were absent. Staff present were John McLaughlin and Susan Yates. There were no additions or corrections to the minutes of the June 10, 1998 meeting an~t_hey stood approved as mailed. Laws said the purpose of this meeting would be to review the draft report, make any appropriate changes and hopefully agree to a final version. Laws drafted the introduction and McLaughlin wrote the body. The Bancroft interest rate varies. It has been 6.9% on recent LIDs. The interest charged is 1 1/2% above the bond rate. Bartell thought the committee had decided the rate would be 1/2% over the Bancroft. Bartell asked the advantage of paying off one's portion of the LID early if the cost/unit comes in at less. McLaughlin said one would be buying it at a premium to get it clear. DeBoer said the City is saying they would keep the extra. Laws said it would stay in the fund for use on another LID. Bartell thought that should be stated clearly in the draft. Morjig thought if someone paid more than the actual cost of the LID that some money should be refunded. DeBoer suggested there be a maximum payment of $4000 or the estimated cost of improvements. Laws agreed. Morjig believes with regard to the payoff that it should be paid off on the second sale. Blackburn said the first sale was the pre-sign that would be paid at the time of sale thereby removing the pre-sign from the property thus avoiding much of the confusion that occurred in the past. Morjig thought it just adds that much more to the cost of developing. He would rather pass the cost on since the road may never be paved. McLaughlin said an agreement can be made that a street be paid for or paved. The idea is to get the payoff before the property is sold too many times and the agreement gets too far away from the original owner who signed an agreement. McLaughlin explained ifa developer builds a subdivision, he would pay the full rate (100% per unit) to provide access. This would not give the developer a break but would not cost him any more than under the present system. Hunt asked how the proposal would work versus the existing policy. McLaughlin said lots are assessed on a per unit basis but the City is picking up part of the costs. City Attorney, Paul Nolte has said there is a way to make that work. Morjig wondered if the developer would be eligible for the $4000 cap. The answer is "no", the developer will pay 100% of the infrastructure costs within their own development. McLaughlin used the Clinton Street example. There is potential for several lots to develop. If Kahle had been doing a subdivision along her unimproved street, she would not be eligible for a 40% city match. The remaining properties that are existing would get city participation. McLaughlin added the way the ordinance reads, this would apply to development of four or more lots or on a street greater than 10% grade. Alsing said there is no more impact with development of four or five lots than individuals buying on four or five vacant lots on a street. Bizeau said this could slow development on a street greater than 10% grade. There were no reservations or suggestions about the introduction. Allocation of Costs Blackburn asked about undergrounding of utilities and McLaughlin said in new development utilities go undergound. That would be considered City costs wherever it is done. Morjig thought it wiser to have the city contribute 30% instead of 40%. As the draft states, a LID cannot happen until the City has the money. What if the City does not have the money when t_h_e time comes for an improvement? Laws said it will be up to the budget committee and Council to come up with funding if they approve the proposal. All other committee members agreed to 4~%. Bizeau wants a clearer understanding of how the costs of a LID are determined (bottom of page 3). McLaughlin said in one of the earlier handouts it discusses the engineer's estimate. Doing an estimate is not easily or cheaply done. There are ballpark figures on all the unpaved streets. The City can assess up to 10% over the bid amount and any costs over the estimate is a loss to the City. Hunt wondered what would happen if a development was proposed and it is determined there is a need for access and a LID is formed but the City does not have the money to contribute. Could the City still form a LID? Laws believes all the rules would apply and McLaughlin said the Council could go ahead and form a LID if they could figure out funding down the road. Hunt asked if the new methods of assigning costs would still be valid. McLaughlin said there would likely be an ordinance amendment about how the assessments will be done. However, it is unlikely the LIDs will be done all at once which would help spread out the city's cost. Laws said, box 2 at the top of page 4, take out the comma after "property" and re-state, "which require immediate street improvement for development approval...". Add to the end of that sentence either"to these properties" or "for these lots". Morjig asked he go on record as wanting developers to get the same matching funds everyone else gets from the City. He objects that the developer is assessed 100%. AIsing does not think it fair to charge on the same street different lots different amounts. Determination of Assessment Method DeBoer suggested on the last box on page 4, second sentence, "potential lien with notification" be inserted in the middle of the sentence. Continuing with the next to the last sentence on page 4, DeBoer suggested, "When the lots are created the LID costs (plus interest) will be due upon sale of the lots and would be due prior to final approval...". DeBoer and Laws suggested adding a footnote that there will be a cost of living adjustment any time after the $4000 per unit is mentioned in the draft proposal. AD HOC LID COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 24, 1998 A.qreements Hunt felt concern that less time had been spent on this section and desired more discussion. After a discussion with McLaughlin last week, Blackburn does not have a problem with the pre-signed agreement because there would be no more financial obligation after payment is made. DeBoer can support Blackburn. Does the property owner who has "signed in favor" still have a vote? Hunt believes the remonstrance is a good way to put a LID on hold yet still giving the_ _Council a chance to consider formation of the LID in six months. McLaughlin asked the committee to consider the situation of a short street where two properties have already paid but do not want their street paved. The developer's property starts beyond the two abutting properties and is responsible for paving from there. The provisions have been made that the two lots defer improvements and they don't want the improvements. Does that not go against the overall policy of trying to get the street paved? Hunt responded that this would be a special case, but once the Council let the six months pass, they could form the LID. DeBoer added that it takes two-thirds vote of the LID participants to remonstrate. Alsing asked why remonstrate if they have already signed in favor. Bartell emphasized to Alsing, because it is the signing in favor that is forced. Laws asked for a show of hands of those favoring keeping the agreement with the financial responsibility ending upon payment and with the property owner's vote allowing for remonstrance. Hunt and Kahle approved. Those not in favor brought up the following points: Blackburn said if the property owner has paid, he should not have the choice to vote. Hunt said just because he has paid does not assure the owner the type and design of the improvements that will take place. DeBoer said the property owner who has paid can still come to the Council to voice their opinion. Blackburn and DeBoer then agreed with Hunt and Kahle. Bizeau does not agree with the ability to remonstrate because an owner has an "in favor" vote and just by paying off the pre-sign does not eliminate the "in favor''. And, if the Council has to have two-thirds remonstrating, that would put pressure on the Council not to form the LID which would go against the city's policy. Kahle thought in that situation, it is an important "pause" for the neighborhood. Bizeau agreed. Morjig argued there are rules and reasons for the rules. There are some safety issues involved. All those but Morjig and Alsing favored. Hunt reminded the Commission that Wheeldon also favored remonstrance. Laws said the committee does not have unanimity on this issue. Delete the last item on page 5. Implementation: (Box 2) DeBoer would like wording that would urge or encourage the city to increase funding. Laws suggested AD HOC LID COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 24, 1998 scratching box 2 and let the Council work on it. Delete box 3. Leave box 4 as is. Under box 5, add "the amount to be determined be specific for the street or an estimate plus ten percent, whichever if less". Recommendation: Hunt would like a process established for neighborhood involvement that would begin with planning and continue through street design. Kahle would like some formal notification from the city when a LID will be formed. Motjig suggested inviting the neighborhood to the pre-construction conference. McLaughlin explained that every street is different and he believes what the committee is looking for is a 'formal' process to be in place outlining the neighborhood process for involvement with the LID and street design. Interest Rates The committee is proposing the interest rate at %%. Jill Turner, Finance Director has said in the past that the city's bonding rating might be affected if the city is not making enough money. Morjig did not believe the committee had enough information to determine the interest rates at this meeting. DeBoer would like to see the rate plus %%. Bartell wants to know what will happen to the surplus. Will it go into the general fund? He would rather have 1/2% but could support a higher rate if the overage goes into a LID fund. Laws recommended DeBoer bring the interest rates up before the Council as a separate issue. Kahle wondered if the those currently paying for LIDs would receive any break. DeBoer said the city is recalculating the sidewalk fee so they can give credits. Blackburn reminded the committee of his suggestion at the last meeting: The existing six LIDs will receive a 15% reduction credit plus a 25% matching fund credit for the cost of sidewalks. DeBoer would be willing to recommend 10% but not 15%. Blackburn could live with that as well. It will probably cost the city $80,000-$90,000. Alsing felt this would have to be more a political decision. Morjig and Laws asked if Finance would show some realistic scenarios of the above recommendation to see how this would work. Blackburn wondered if the committee would get all the changes and new language discussed tonight in a finished form. McLaughlin said they would. Blackburn would like consensus on all points and would like everyone on the committee to support the AD HOC LID COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 24, 1998 proposal in front of the whole community. Alsing believed it can be said "this is the recommendation from the committee". Wording could be added at the end that not every issue was unanimously agreed upon but there could be a place for everyone's signature. DeBoer asked McLaughlin to finish the document, implementing the changes, mail it to the committee, and if necessary bring it back to the committee. McLaughlin said he would like to schedule review of the proposal before the Council at the Council's July 22nd afternoon study session (usually.held:a_t 12:30 p.m.). The committee would be invited to that meeting. It will be an informal opportunity for the Council to review the document before it goes to a public hearing. Laws received unanimous agreement recommending that the unbilled districts be given a 10% reduction after the sidewalk credit. Adiournment - The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. AD HOC LID COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 24, 1998