Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1007.SS.MINMINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL October 7, 1998 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wheeldon called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. IN ATTENDANCE Councilors Laws, Wheeldon, DeBoer, and Reid. Mayor Shaw and Councilor Hauck were absent. Staff present included: City Administrator Mike Freeman, Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles, Director of Finance Jill Turner, City Attorney Paul Nolte, and Public Works Director Paula Brown. DISCUSSION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) PROCESS Council went through the committee recommendations as prepared by staff step-by-step. With regard to the first recommendation, that the CiO, participate in the costs associated with local street improvements, further clarification was made and implementation measures were considered based on examples. Noted that the actual percentage of City participation would be dependent on the scope of improvements included in each project. Members of the LID Committee requested justification of how the percentage was determined for the total cost to the City, and expressed their concerns that the figures discussed at the committee level were different than those presented in the recommendations currently before the Council. Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that the figures she had used for City participation were based on the actual project elements at 60% City participation for sidewalks, 20% for street surface, 75% for storm drains, and 50% for engineering and administration. When looked at in this way, the City's participation came out to 33'/2% rather than the 40% that was discussed by the committee. Councilor Laws clarified that the committee tried to find a way for the City to participate in a significant amount of the costs for LIDs, and the methodology of determining percentages for different elements of the improvements was formulated to justify the City's participation in the costs of street improvement. 40% was the original target, but the committee felt that these percentages made sense, were justifiable, and led to significant City participation. As there was no consensus on this first recommendation regarding the percentage breakdown, it was determined that the item would be set aside for additional work later. Chairperson Wheeldon stated that there was a misconceived idea that points were being negotiated in committee, and explained that when she was on the committee, she did not have the power to negotiate on behalf of the Council. Emphasized that she did not represent the Council when she was on the committee, that she was merely another member. Councilor Laws suggested the following alternatives 1) Stick with the individual percentage for the four portions of the street projects. 2) Put to Council that the City is to pay 40% on each individual project, regardless of circumstances. 3) Leave the recommendation as it is, and move forward. Jack Blackburn/805 Oak StreetlAd Hoc LID Committee member/Stated that committee members understood that their recommendations had to go before the Council, but that it was believed that those supporting the recommendations in the committee meetings would continue to do so before the Council. Looking at recommendation two, that the assessment method for local street improvements be based on a "potential unit" method rather than the '~ontage foot" method, Councilor Reid stated that this recommendation relates to recommendations #3 and #5. Used Strawberry Lane as an example to discuss implementation details. Councilor DeBoer clarified the committee's intention in choosing between "frontage foot" and "potential units" methodology, and explained that assessments for potential units would be deferred until the potential units were actually developed. Discussion of deferring costs for potential units. Ashland City Council Study Session Minutes 10-07-98 1 City Administrator Freeman asked to clarify the options discussed for recommendation one for staff to use in drafting changes to the ordinance. It was confirmed that percentages could either be left as they now stand in the staff report or adjusted to a full 40% City participation. For recommendation three, that the total number of "potential units" within a local improvement district be determined based on underlying zoning, Councilor Reid questioned whether the City now has a stipulation on future plans for the number of potential units. Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles explained that building permits are based only on the building permit submitted, but that if a partition is occurring, the City requests a master plan for the property. Further clarified that density requirements would be considered in determining '~potential units", but that this would involve some judgement on the part of the Community Development Department in order to take into account factors such as topography, unit size, and etc. Discussion of deferring assessments until development occurs as providing incentive not to develop to full density. Chairperson Wheeldon expressed concern that the City would provide an incentive to less development when the Planning Department is trying to encourage density. Questioned whether development has been defined. David Fine/735 Frances Lane/Asked whether the City has legal authority to defer assessment on potential units until they are develope& when this is in effect the City providing a long-term, zero interest loan of public funds. Council indicated that the wording of this recommendation needs to be worked out more specifically by staff. For recommendation four, that the maximum assessmentJbr individual units should be $4,000. excluding City participation and no maxim um or participation by the City should be allowed for "development property" or city- ownedparcels, it was noted that if the City were to stick with only 331/2% participation, the $4,000 cap would not be effective. Chairperson Wheeldon explained that the $4,000 cap was determined to be a reasonable amount for an individual to pay before figures were available, but that when figures were provided it became apparent that there was a difficulty with the City picking up 40% plus any amount over the $4,000 cap as these projects need to be balanced with the City's other transportation priorities. Councilor Reid questioned the differences between individual streets, noting both the physical differences and the varied levels of citizen participation in the improvements as factors affecting the City's participation in the improvements. It was determined that the figures Chairperson Wheeldon had been referring to did not include the "potential units" methodology in their calculations. Councilor Laws explained that the committee was charged with finding ways to overcome the objections to the LID issue, and that they came down to the issue of costs. This recommendation was set aside. Recommendation five, that the large, existing parcels with potential for further development would only be assessed for the existing unit, and assessments for potential lots would be deferred, was agreeable to the Council. Recommendation six, that the City require fidl p~'ment for LlD assessments at the time of the sale of lots, was also agreeable to the Council. For recommendation seven, that the "pre-signed" agreement process be revised to allow for the option of early ?ay-off and requiringfidl pay-off'when agreement is required for new development, Councilor DeBoer noted that when drafting the ordinance, the formula to be used would have to be dealt with to determine whether units charged at the time of development would be those actually developed or the "potential units" used for initial assessments. Discussion of whether to allow remonstrances even for those who have paid, with the general agreement that it should be allowed as written in the recommendations. For recommendation eight, to maintain neighborhood involvement in the local street improvement process, it was discussed that the last sentence of the background information/implementation measures prepared by staff might be Ashland City Council Study Session Minums 10-07-98 2 changed to read "It should also be recognized that minimum street standards will be maintained (full paving, sidewalks, storm drains) but that modifications where pos~iLl~ necessary will be accommodated." Council agreed to leave the sentence with "possible". Chairperson Wheeldon expressed concern over the message sent by literal interpretation of specific wording. Councilor Laws indicated that the need was for something in between a literal interpretation of possible and a literal interpretation of necessary. Jack Blackburn/805 Oak Street/Noted that Strawberry Lane figures in the illustrative report from staff was misleading as most of these improvements would be paid by a developer. Discussion of the potential situation if money were pre-paid and a developer chose to develop the street privately, how would the money be turned over. Councilor Reid stated that monies pre-paid would go into a fund to improve the street, and regardless of who was doing the improvements, those funds would go to the improvements of the street. Scoles explained that this could be done through a reimbursement agreement process. Questioned if the LID process is driven by PUD, how this would be handled. Chairperson Wheeldon stated that this issue is dealt with as part of recommendation four. Council then turned their attention to the financing issue. Chairperson Wheeldon suggested that the Council needed to clear up the issue of"potential units" and look at some more accurate figures before the issue of financing can be dealt with. Councilor Laws commented that many projects are adopted in the Capital Improvements Plan without a specific funding mechanism being set forth in advance. Councilor Laws stated that this is also in the Transportation System Plan. Suggested that unimproved streets fall under the same category. Emphasized that the plan should be adopted even if financing has not been determined. At budget time, on an annual basis, would be the time to detern~ine what projects need to be done. And doing all of this through the budget process would determine what funds are needed year-by-year. Feels that these improvements are a high enough priority that funding will be found, and stated that this is what is done with all capital improvement plans. The proposal to predetermine financing for street improvements is not consistent with how things have been done with other plans in the past, and would be difficult given that the projects on hand each year would determine how much funding was needed. Chairperson Wheeldon stated that if no financing is attached to the plan, and projects are left to be dependent on the availability of funds, it does not set enough of a priority. City Administrator Mike Freeman suggested tabling the discussion until Director of Community Development John McLaughlin returns and can recalculate figures relative to the potential lots and the proposed cap. This information would be brought back to Councilors and Committee members at a later date. Council agreed to this suggestion. Chairperson Wheeldon noted that the funding available nearly matches the 33½% that was discussed, and questioned at what percentage the City's participation should be set. Director of Finance Jill Turner suggested putting together a "mini-plan" as is currently done with the capital improvement plans and bringing back information for further discussion. It was agreed that more information from staff would be helpful. Councilor DeBoer questioned whether Chairperson Wheeldon could accept a 33½% City participation and $4,000 cap. Councilor Wheeldon said that she would need to see the numbers on potential units first. Council noted that the previous discussion of giving a 10% discount to those current Local Improvement Districts that are underway but have not yet been billed for their improvements would not be a matter for the policy being created and would be kept in mind separately. Public Works Director Paul Brown commented that the billing of costs for five LIDs is being held pending a Council decision on this matter. Councilor DeBoer indicated that he feels these should be sent now. Brown noted that these were held because staff was reluctant to send these out without the 10% discount that was expected. Staff felt that this would upset those being billed, and the issue would be coming before Council anyway through the public hearing process. Councilor Laws stated that he would like to see staff prepare information on up-front costs, and that this 10% would need to come from that up-front money. Ashland City Council Study Session Minutes 10-07-98 3 Turner noted that there was roughly $50,000 available in the budget for sidewalk LIDs, and another $233,000 in un- designated transportation related capital improvement projects. Turner stated that this might be adequate to meet costs for a year, or even two. Consensus was that the 10% discount to current LIDs needs to be considered separately, but at the same time as, the up-front money issue for implementing the LID recommendations. Concluded that this issue needs to be taken up again on the next agenda. ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Submitted by Barbara Christensen, CiO, Recorder Ashland City Council Study Session Minutes 10-07-98 4