HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1201 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COU'NCIL STUOY SESSION
AGE:NDA
Monday, December 1, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
6:00 p.m. Study Session
1. look Ahead Review
2. Review of regular"meeting,agendaforJ)ecember 2,2008
3. Will Council consider amending Ashfand:Municipal Code (AMe) 13.20 local
Improvement and Special Assessments and Amending Resolution 1999-09?
[45 minutes]
CITY COUNCIL execuTIVE seSSION
AGENDA
Monday, . December 1, 2008 .
Jury Room, 1175 East Main Street
7:00 p.m. Executive Session
1 . To consuft with legal council regarding pending litigation pursuant to
~, ORS 182.810 (Z)(h)
In .compliance with the Americans with Disab;B1Ies.Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting,ple8$8 contact the CityAdmin~ offICe at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-8~735-
2900). NotJf1cation 72 houf$ prior to the If1tIfIfing will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35. 102-35. 104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT TIlE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT \VWW.ASHLAND.OR.lTS
::2
CD
Q)
en
CD
~
o
~
S
iii'
iii'
Q)
o
~
."
""'I
Q)
~
Q.
en
c:::
~
CD'
C')
-
8'
g.
Q)
~
CQ
!D
G)
j
o
a.
CIl
t=;
~
hi
c
~
'Jl
i
ilY
~
"
~
o
o
~
o
~~
~~
"'...
0.......
... '"
-- Cl'I
~~
~~
8:t:'
~~
m~
a.
I\J
0'1
Q)-i
3 :E
(1) 0
::)0
a...,
30.
~ S'
.-+Q)
00 ::)
_0
~m
o ..,
::T(1)
Q) o.
a.-o
-s::
rC'"
(1) =
(1) 0
..........0
o
a.
..,
Q)
U
S'
(Q
o
::0
~
o
::0
o
N
I\J
c.n
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <0 ~
3Q~~??IT!S::
"0 a. a.~ .g -0 (1) ~
a S' Q) .., 0 .., g 0
<Q)'-+o;::+oo"""-
(1)5~~S::~::)OO
~ (1) ::) 0 en' 0 a en
::))>()-~-()m
'-+3..,::;0 ()o'-+
Q)(1)o-ol1os::(1)
::)::)3enms::::)o
a. a. Q) )> 00 ::) Q, -
en S' ::) It" Q. - :f
"0 (Q s:: ~ ~ - -0 (1)
(1))>Q)(1)()~CD()
o 00 (1) ::T ... en _.
0)' s:: .-+ 3 Q) en' -. a
- () (1) (1) .., 0 a. I.........
~ ~ ~ a.~ ~ ~ ~
ooc..>m~en~.:;a.
(1)i\)::)~~OIIJ~
~ 0 ~ = (1) 0)' Q) (1)
3~~~_(1)~a-~
(1)oaQ),.c-~
::) 0 ;::+:=.. ,,,
.-+ Q) ::T ~ ~
en_ Q)(1)
~ ..........R
o'
::T
Q)
S
r
(I)
co
~
."
:5'
I>>
:::J
o
(I)
r"'tJ
~ Q)
~ 5
"'tJ :50
~co
~516:~6:
5 ~ 383
:5" ~ :50 a.. :5"
co ~
6:~
3
:5'
o
::0
o
N
COm "tJ "tJ
Z "tJ "tJ 0 r ::0 ::0
"T1 :r: :r: z m m m
Z en 0 en en
en -0
:E Q)
(1) ..,
Q) @
..,
S' ~
(Q ::;0
S' ~
a:::cCD
~~ ~
< C 0
5..ir::)
'<~en
m(')(1)
CD g ~.
0::10
<D t!. (1)
0.-00
Oi:?
""'tlG>(1)
:::n~(1)
Q. ::I' 0
~DO
en ::)
OJ c-
Q)
..,
C'"
Q)
~
;:0
(I)
o
o
a..
~
05
~
0;
~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 CD
m ~ 0'1 c.n ~ W I\J
."
:5'
I>>
:::J
~
"'tJ
I>>
~
en
30())>~~OJ)>I1()Z8()3)>::;O-o)>-o~~::;o -0
"Oa.O~Q)::)Q)~~O~a.g"O~ma~aCD"'(1)~ &
a~3"O::)~a-0(1)a. (1)ooa"'OOmO (1)-
<Q)3~~"'Q)S'L~@I1OOen'<a.Em::)m:E:E~ ~
(1) ::) en' 0 0 ~ @ .-+ r.c;;. 0 @ Q) .-+ (1) 0 ~ 3 a. 3 ~ ~ ~ en
30(1)en::);::+'o..........3..........~::)a.(1)3-0Q)_Q)--0 Q)
(1) 0' 0 Q);::+ (1) (1) 0 3 a. (1) IIJ ::) ~ 0 ~ 0' ~::) -..
~ )> ::) .;: '-+0-' 0 a. 0 0 ~ SO"O ::) a: ..,~. Q 0)' Q .., a. 0' g
~ 3 "" "0 00 -. 0 .-+ -' ::) -' ^ ..,.., I.......
Q)(1)~~::)= a S::(1)~=OOO' "'Q)0(1)(1)0:::C1IJ
::) -. en ::T "" .., ~ Q, =- .., m ~ .......... - ;::::;: 0000 s:: ~ s::
a. ::) (1) Qo 1'5;- (1) UJ 0 ~ ... (1):=" CD () ::T ~
en~~m~() a i3goo~~u~ ::T<C"'~~~
"0 (Q 2- Q) (1) r (Q m.-+::) Q) ~ <D 0' u iii' Cf -< Q, ~ 9t
(1))> ::)3~ 9t O'-~..,::) '-+OS::~(')h
~s:: a.-o() () a..,~"O -iCD~ ~a~()g~
);() a~~ 0 ~~@a CD~CD ~~Qgg~
en~ 0 ::) 3 =ZIIJO a~en ~ s::::)=
enc..> (1))>r2- 3 o~. (1) 3 ens:: CD 00i:
(1)i\) 0.0. (1)s::..........~ ~OJ~ (1) "'=G>
~ _0 ~ r8. s:: ~ ~ CD .-+ Q) b ::;0 iii' s:: &
3r (1)~ (1)::T(1) 00 -o"'1IJ (1) O(1)a
(1) 0 en 0 3 -')> -.. M ~! 0 ::) 3~
::)0 -..::) C'" 0 0....... '< C'"
'-+Q) ob (1) CD~ .., ::)@C'" ~ (1)
00_ ~~ ~ 00 g_, ~p~ (1) ~
~ s::~ ~ .., ~ 0
~ ~~ ~ ~ g ~
Q) o' (1) (Q (1)
S ~ ~ ~
r >"'tJ> ;:0 "'tJ~m"'tJ "'tJ;:O;:O >>>>
~ ~~~ ~ ~r~~ ~~~ ~~~~
~ :5' :50 a. ~ ~ :5" ~o a. a. :5':50:5':5"
~ ~ ~~" - co c5 ~ ~
~ ."
:5'
I>>
:::J
~
o
::0
~
o
::0
o
N
C C C
Z Z Z
"T1 "T1 "T1
Z Z Z
o
o
z
en
o 0
o 0
z z
en en
o
o
z
en
o "tJ "tJ
0::0::0
zoo
en 0 0
"tJ "tJ ::0
~ ~ ~ 1:::1
enen~m
VI
VI
o
::0
o
N
."
S'
I>>
:::J
~
en
en
.
. .
*
*
*
*
*
~
t1a
ti~
~a
~i
:!Ji
~n
~~
n
~=
~f
~!%
q~
ai
Q~
s:;
~~
~
~
~
~
~
.
.
---r--r--- ---
~
CD
Q)
(I)
CD
==
o
~
s-
iii'
iii'
Q)
o
~
"
.....
Q)
==
Q.
(I)
c::
~
CD'
C")
-
8'
C")
::r
Q)
==
CQ
!D
G)
~
o
a
~
~
9
c
g
~
i
~
~
::n
~
o
o
~
o
~~
~l!
.... ....
N....
0-'
.... N
~~
~g
8~
~~
m~
a.
~
w
lJ
Q)
<
CD
3
CD
a
s::
Q)
::J
~
CD
3
CD
a
sa
m
~
h
s::
~
CD
"'T1
-:...,..
~
CJl
CJl
-
~
N
~
~
o
W
<0
::0
CD
<
CD
::J
c:
CD
o
030030::00'62
= a = 0 CD a -. <
::::::: _, ::::::: ~ ~. _. 0 <
::o::J::O::Jen::JC::o
-. Q) -. -0 o' Q) CD
o ::J 0 <: ::J::J ..0
i@i:ien@ E
ama-i03m m
-cc3:Q):=.. 3
Q) _. en - r-I CD:xJ
-, '" '" ::0 \oJ ::J ~!
9: CD 0' o' 2 - ~
::J"'T10 =r< c-
cc-:"""CDQ)a !:!':~
~ ao;:;:o
Q) ~-~ '<0
- cc ::J "OC
~ ;;r -i 0 ~
-, 0 Q) ~-,
m - ~ ~~
o < 0' en CD
c: or -, c: CD
0'< 0 "Ocr.
CD CD "2. ~
en Q 00 '<
a. <<5' Q)
5' ::J cc
Q) () m
::J 0 CD
@ a. 3
CD CD
a
-
o'
::J
en
CD
c:
a.
~
r
CD
CD
"TI
S'
D.)
~
~
"'1J
or
~
~
S'
ee
r-
(1)
ee
~
"'1J
or
~
~
So
ee
r-
(1)
ee
~
"'1J
or
~
~
S'
ee
r-
(1)
ee
~
o
AJ
C
~
o
AJ
~
o
AJ"'O
~::c
z
m
~
CJl
CJl
o 0
AJ AJ
C c
tll ~
w
00
m
CD
~
00
"TI
S'
D.)
~
~
w
.....,
w w w w w
en U'I ~ W N
::OO(30)>)>rr 0
o' a := a "'T1 ~ CD Q) CD
=r -. _ -. 2 I ~ Q) 0" <
Q)::J::O::J aeno CD
-, Q) -, Q) CD < ~ -, 0
-Bg g.g ~ ~~~ ~
CD ~ CD 5' 0 Q) tQ 3
-'a.-'CD-::JO CD
CD-CDenlJQ.!:!': a
.. CCenc:...IQ)
() Q) 0" (ii' !:!': 'f ::0
g ~~~~g~m-
~ ~::J)> Q ii' (j)
s:: ~~~)> "a.
(ii' Q) a. lJ ~ Oco CDOO
~ (j) a S. or
"'T1 -, CD CD::J ~~.
CD mbO a. =0
CD ,,. ~ - -i ,. CD
en (5 ~ 1-::::---)> < I' en
^" c: '" ~ CD br
- -,CD::Js:: cr.CD
() @)>2- -. ~ ~
i en~ ~ ~
~ )>...:=::
CD .:..... ,-
en
?
CD
~
"TI
So
D.)
~
(')
(1)
r-
(1)
ee
~
~-16:-16:
~ 3 r- 3
5' S' ~ So
ee ~
r-
(1)
ee
~
o
AJ
C
~
o
AJ
~
z z z
m m m
~ ~ ~
m
>< N
m t3
(')
~
.....,
o
AJ
C
~
~
W
o
N N N
<000.....,
::OOQ)-i()O
o' a 3 ~ a (ii'
=r -. CD 0 en 0
Q)::J::Joenc:
a~a.-,()~
- 0 3 a. 0 -.
CD ~ 5' ::J g
mur~~o
"........0g,-:xJ
b> ~ m o' ~ ~
c: 0 -, ::J Q) 'C
~i~c:(j)ii'
";::;;-'..
s::alJo..::O
-. - c: Q) CD 0
enrO"_enO
~m~CDo;
"'T1 - :;: c: n
CD ():::::.,-'=
CD 0~@B:
en aCDenCD
Qo Q)o-':-n 0 &
() _ r:- a .=
=r 5' ,-
~ cc 'OJ
cc -.
m p
?
CD
~
"TI
So
D.)
~
~
"TI
So
D.)
~
~
r-
(1)
ee
~
~~~
~ 5
"TI S'
So ee
D.)
~
(')
(1)
0"'0
AJ::c
~l/O
o
AJ
C
~
Z "'0 ......
~ ::c ~ _
CJl
CJl
o
AJ
C
~
.
I .
*
*
*
*
*
~
tia
ti~
:b.9.
~I
~8.
:b.n
~~
n
~=
~f
~~
q.s
as
Q;
t;
~z.
~
if.
if.
if.
if.
.
.
bIDCXl......OlUlJ>.WI\l....
~~~~~~b>~~lr-
CC05'~Z.g~~g
fl)fI)~~!.~,,~cn~
::tl ::tl -6 ~ .~ !!!, iii ID lJ: 5'
m m 0 ~ ffi ::J 3 III ::J
"8"8~~~~~~~ra
::l. ::l. ID ~ ;:l, " ID 3. ~ z
gg~9:~~5.~~~
-l"tl~icE- 3cnocn
III o~ )>~~~ ~cniD
$ g ~ 3: ~ g.::; iD"T1~
iilm::J()iiiiDlD~~O
8-11\l- m Dl::J
;a~isl~ g a.~
III 0"
0. 2. ~~, lil
~ i"a 0 a.
~ ~~ ~ ~
g lJ:iD rg ~
~5 ~ ~
a. c :,
::tl III ::!:
~~' lJ:
iil
::J
a.
c
3
III
~
CD
Q)
en
CD
::s
o
~
s
e;;'
e;;'
Q)
o
~
."
.....
Q)
::s
Q,
en
c:::
~
CD'
~
-
0'
~
::J'
Q)
::s
CQ
!D
Gl
~
o
a.
III
f;
~
()
o
~
~
~
~
~
:!1
~
o
o
~
o
~~
~~
N....
8~
~~
~g
8~
~~
m~
a.
:::a
~
c
ii'
~
o
o
c
=
~
i:
CD
CD
ct
~
~
Ul
~
~
WO::OO
=OCDa
:::: =E 5, 5'
;:9. ;a. ~, m
o 0 0 :J
:J"'=E:Jo
m :J en CD
a-iW""
........m=~
en :::: 0 :::a
a: ;:9. 0 ~
...,0=E5.
o :J'" :J &)
CD~O~
::oS=EO
cO' :J g
?; -i~
o ~ =
- "I:
:E 0' CD
m 0&
'<
CD.;!
o cn~
a cO'
5' :J
m ()
:J 0
o a.
CD CD
." ."
or or . .
~ ~
~ ~ -
5' 5' -
co co .
r r
(1) (1)
co co .
~ ~ -
0 0
::tl ::tl ~
0 0
N N
~ ~
......
.
*
*
*
*
*
~
tile
ti.q
~a
~!
~s.
~n
~~
n
\n=
i~
~~
q~
~8
Q~
~f
~l
~
~
~
~
~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 2, 2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
6:00 p.m. Executive Session performance evaluation of a public official pursuant to
ORS 192.660(2)(i)
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes}
1. Executive Session of November 18, 2008
2. Regular Council of November 18, 2008
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Tree of the Year presentation [5 Minutes]
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Libby Edson for a term
to expire April 30, 2010 to the Public Arts Commission?
3. Does the Council wish to confirm the appointment of Larry Langston as Interim Fire
Chief?
4. Should the Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes
in operational expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law?
5. Should the 'Council approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County
concerning the placement of community service workers with City of Ashland Parks
and Recreation?
6. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a
public contract for a Risk Management Advisor with Beecher Carlson Insurance
Agency?
7. Does the Council wish to exercise an option to extend a Landfill Capacity Guarantee
Agreement with Dry Creek Landfill for 10 additional years?
COUNCIL ivtEEI'lNGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNT~L 9
VISIT TIlE crrv OF ASHLAND'S \VEB SITE AT \V\V'\V.ASHl.AND.OR.lJS
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS {Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form"
prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00
p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds
vote of council {AMC 92.04.050})
1. Should the Council approve a resolution adjusting the FY 2008-2009 Budget to
create appropriations and authorize expenditures for unanticipated expenses during
this year? [15 Minutes]
2. After hearing the appeal and reviewing the record, does Council approve, modify, or
deny the Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to construct a 592 square foot
Accessory Residential Unit above a proposed two-vehicle garage, for the property
located at 960 Harmony lane? [60 Minutes]
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all
people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Does the Council wish to enter into the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with
the Housing Authority of Jackson County regarding the acquisition of 10 acres of
property on Clay Street? [10 Minutes]
2. Should the Council approve the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order on Remand for LUBA 2007-113, [Planning Action 2006-02354] and send
Notice of Decision pursuant to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to the Parties?
[10 Minutes]
3. Does the City Council wish to appeal the decision of Judge Schively on MAA v. City
of Ashland to the Oregon court of appeals and provide further direction to staff based
on the decision? [10 Minutes]
- XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Council initiate an amendment to Ashland's Land Use Ordinance that
would require incorporating public art as part of large scale development projects?
[15 Minutes]
XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled "An
Ordinance Relating to the Review of Public Art Proposals, Establishing Criteria and
Selection Processes for the Acquisition, Acceptance, or Removal. from the Ashland
Public Art Collection," and move the ordinance to Second Reading? [10 Minutes]
2. Does the Council wish to adopt a resolution supporting drafting of a sweatshop free
procurement policy for City uniforms and garments? [10 Minutes)
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
None
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification
72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Study Session - Local Improvement District Policy Update
Meeting Date: _
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
December 1, 2008
Public Works Engineering
Finance / Legal
Martha Benne
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Michael R. Faught 552-2411
faughtm@ashland.or.us
Jim Olson
30 minutes
Question:
What revisions to (AMC) 13.20 Local Improvement and Special Assessments and Amending
Resolution 1999-09 does Council wish to schedule for action?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council amend Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 13.20 Local Improvement as
outlined in the attached ordinance and provide direction on the level of City participation in LID's
which will amend Resolution 1999-09.
Background:
At your October 20, 2008 City Council meeting, the Public Works Director presented two new
questions for Council to consider regarding the LID based on AMC 13.20 Local Improvement and
Special Assessments language and Resolution 1999-09.
· Should the City continue to define LID policy though a resolution? Or should all proposed LID
revisions be reflected through an amendment to AMC 13.20?
· Should the City continue to subsidize LID projects with street funds when the existing
improved street system has a $2 million per year backlog of street repair projects?
In addition, the Public Works Director's staff report included responses to questions posed by the City
Council at their November 5, 2007 LID Council Study Session as well as a draft ordinance amending
AMC 13.20.
The Council questioned many of the proposed ordinance amendments, but in general indicated support
for all of the proposed amendments. However, a majority of the Council expressed concern over
removing the City subsidy for LID projects but agreed that the City subsidy should be lowered.
At the October 20, 2008 Council Meeting, the City Council discussed these questions and the proposed
changes to AMC 13.20.010. The Council generally agreed with the revisions to the ordinance
(attached) and spent the majority of time discussing how the City should participate in LID's.
A majority of the Council indicated a desire to continue LID subsidies, although there was consensus
to reduce the amount of the subsidy and to either have a proposed percentage or a cap for residential
properties rather than both.
Page 1 of3
120108 LID Policy.CC.doc
r.,
--~T
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Resolutions 1999-09 has two sections that relate to subsidies (see attached Resolution 1999-09).
Section 1 City Participation outlines the percentage of City participation in an LID project. In
this section, the subsidies are separated into four categories (sidewalk, storm drain, street surface, and
engineering and administrative costs). In order to begin the conversation about reducing the City's
participation, staffhas prepared the following chart. Staff suggests that each of the four categories be
further divided into sub-categories ensuring City participation in those projects that impact or benefit
the community generally. Staff proposes to reduce the subsidies for projects that primarily benefit
adjacent property owners to zero.
Improvement Current Subsidv Proposed Catee:ories Staff Subsidv Council
Recommendation Recommendation
Sidewalk 60% Arterial 50%
Collector 50%
Safe Route To School 50%
General 0%
Storm Drain 75% Regional Facility 60%
Stream Restoration 60%
18" Diameter or Equivalent 60%
Stormwater Convevance Svstem
General 0%
Street Surface 20% Arterial 20%
Collector 10%
Residential 0%
Engineering and 50% These costs are included in the 0%
Administrative total project cost estimates
. Note that the amount of the proposed City subsidies includes all potential City revenues (SDC,
grants, etc.)
Section 3 Maximum Assessment on Residential Properties of Resolution 1999-09 sets a cap or
maximum amount any residentially zoned property can be assessed for an LID project. The resolution
set the cap at $4,000 in 1999 but allowed the cap to increase based on the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index for Seattle Washington. The 2008 cap with the inflationary increase is now at
$5,426.
The cap artificially inflates the total City subsidy for an LID project. An example of the impact a cap
has on the City's participation in an LID project can be described by looking at the proposed Beach
Street LID project. The total cost of the proposed Beach Street LID was $277,000. There were 26
assessment units on the Beach Street LID project so the assessment with out a subsidy would have
been $10,654 per assessed units. The impacts of City subsidies are as follows:
Assessment
Assessment without subsidy
Assessment with subsidy
(section 1 of Resolution 1999-09)
Assessment with subsidy
(sections 1 & 3 Resolution 1999-09)
Property Owner Assessment City Participation
$10,654 100% 0%
$ 7,144 67% 33%
$ 5,426
510/0
49%
Staff is recommending that Section 3 be deleted from Resolution 1999-09.
Page 2 of3
120108 LID Policy,CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
· AMC 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments (online)
· City of Ashland Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
· Ashland 1998 Transportation System Plan; W &H Pacific (online)
· ORS Chapter 223 - Local Improvements and Works Generally (online)
Council Options:
1) The City Council could determine that the proposed amendments to (AMC) 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments and Resolution 1999-09 are appropriate and direct staff
to bring the draft Ordinance to Council for approval.
2) The City Council could decide to provide staff with additional recommendations and direct
staff to bring proposed modification to the Council at a later date.
-
Attachments:
1. Council Communication (Study Session), April 2, 2007; General Discussion on the Future of
Local Improvement Districts.
2. Council Communication, November 5, 2007; Study Session: Local Improvement District
Process Update and Next Steps.
3. Council Communication, October 20,2008; Local Improvement District Policy Update.
4. AMC 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments; with changes as proposed by the
City Attorney and Public Works Director.
5. City of Ashland Resolution 1999-09.
Page 3 of3
120108 LID Policy.CC.doc
r.,
Council Communication
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Study Session - General Discussion on the Future of Local Improvement Districts
Meeting Date: April 2, 2007
Department: Public Works I Engineering
Contributing Departments: Finance I Recorder
Approval: Martha Bennett
Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown 552.241 0 ~
E;.mail: brownp@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Jim Olson 552.241 ~
E.mail: oIsonj@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: 45 minutes
Statement:
This Kern will offer Council a review of past practices with regard to the formation and use of Local Improvement
Districts (LIDs) and offer a discussion of the intent for future use of LIDs to help fund needed street projects.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff has developed several options for Council's discussion, but realizes that these are in no way the only
options with respect to future use of LIDs. It is desired that Council provide staff clear policy direction as to the
intent toward future use of LIDs and provided guidance so that staff can return wKh detailed recommendations.
It is staffs hope that the practice of liDs will continue. As such, staff recommends that the Council direct the
newly formed Street Financing Task Force to discuss the need for LIDs and financing options, and have that
committee bring recommendations back to Council. Staff would then be able to involve a subcommittee of the
Street Financing Task Force or involve a separate committee to recommend Council desired changes to
Resolution 99-09 including posSible adjustments or clarifications to the following:
a. percentages for City participation
b. means of identifying benetned property owners
c. means of computing potential lots
d. the cap on the projects
e. the percentage of property owners supporting the LID (perhaps as high as 750k or more) so that
there is a clearer decision for the improvement
f. clarification with regard to remonstrance and what happens after the 6 month period
g. clarification on the handling of pre.paving signed in favor agreements
Background:
Ashland has struggled with balancing the need for City street improvements and how to finance and pay for those
improvements. One of the funding mechanisms for improvements to dirt or gravel streets and for new sidewalk
projects is the use of liDs. liDs conjure up distinct emotions from property owners often on opposite sides of the
issue. There are the basic questions that arise when an LID is inKially discussed; why should I be required to pay
for street improvements when the entire City uses this street; I don't want my street paved and would rather have
it left alone with a -rural" feel; I need to have the street paved to cut down on dust and dirt and eliminate gravel
and dirt from running into my property; it isn't safe to have (or not have) pavement; and the list goes on.
It has been the City's policy, as documented in the Comprehensive Plan, to fully improve streets to enhance all
modes of safe transportation mobility, reduce maintenance costs, and improve air and water quality. The Land
use ordinance specnies -improvements" and considers a street improved n tt has curbs, gutters, storm drains,
sidewalks, park rows, trees, street lighting, appropriate traffic control devises and paved to a width appropriate for
vehicle traffic volumes including bicycle lanes or shared shoulders where appropriate. If any of these elements
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB CounciJ\LIDs\CC 55 LID General Discussion 02Apr07.doc
Page 1 of4
rA'
are lacking, a street may be considered in need of improvement(s). From the City's municipal code, liDs may be
inniated through a variety of options.
~ By the council, at ns own inniative
~ By written petnion requesting the local improvement signed by at least 50% the owners of properties that
would benefn specially from the local improvement. Whenever all of the owners of any property to be
benemed and assessed for any local improvement have signed a petition directed and presented to the
council requesting such local improvement, the council may inniate and construct such local improvement
without publishing or mailing notice to the owners of the affected property and wnhout holding a public
hearing regarding the proposed local improvement.
· LIDs Prior to 1999
The City of Ashland has used the LID process for many different functions and with differing methodologies. In
1874, Ashland's first city charter granted the City authority for the formation of LIDs. City records show that LID
projects were implemented as early as 1911. From 1950 to 1965 the City, at the request of developers, improved
streets through the LID process wnh the cost of the improvements being borne solely by the new homeowners
within each development. However, if the developer defaulted on the project, the cost of the street improvements
on unsold lots shifted from developer to local taxpayers. The majority of the streets in Ashland have been
improved by an LID or directly through subdivision developments.
From 1985 to 1996, 31 streets were improved through liDs at a cost of $2,811 ,185 ( 1996 dollars). Four more
liDs were formed and completed between 1997 and 1998 at a cost of $490,063 (1998 dollars). Ashland used a
combin,ation of lineal street footage and lot area to calculate the cost per property owner and generally the entire
cost of the project was borne by the property owners. The Fordyce Street LID formed in March 1997, was one of
the last liDs prior to the procedural changes as a result of Resolution 99--09. The final cost to each property
owner in the Fordyce LID was calculated on an area methodology at $8,915.93 per acre; there were 92 lots in the
assessment district, most at 0.15 acres or less for an assessed amount averaging less than $1,350 per lot. The
Ann and Clinton Street Improvement LID had some of the highest assessments at $2,568 to and average of
$5,660 per property owner (highest was a multi-lot assessment at $34,245). Likewise, the Orange Avenue LID
had high assessments at an average of $5,668 per lot.
· Resolution.99-09
These higher assessment costs and the variance in the way a property was assessed (square footage or lineal
front footage along the street to be improved) created additional controversies with the request to form the
Tolman Creek Road LID and the Strawberry Lane N1estwood LID. The Tolman LIDs was stopped and placed on
hold while the City Council and a newly formed Ad Hoc LID Committee discussed solutions. The Westwood
portion of the larger Strawberry LID proceeded under the old processes.
The Ad Hoc Committee was formed in early 1998 and held its first meeting in March that year. At the Council
Study Session held on October 7, 1998, final implementation measures were discussed (attached) and as a
result, Resolution 99-09 was adopted on February 3, 1999 (text attached).
Resolution 99-09 changed the assessments to potential unn method, rather than the frontage foot method, which
requires the Planning Department to determine the maximum number of potential unns on properties within a
proposed local improvement district by taking into consideration the zoning, densities, topography, transportation,
utilities and such other factors as necessary to evaluate the development potential~of the properties. The
resolution also placed a cap on each lot within the assessment (then $4,000 and is $5138 as of April 2006) and
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB CounciI\LIDs\CC SS UD General Discussion 02Aprl>7.doc
Page 2 of4
~A'
required the City to participate in improvements to local streets serving a residential neighborhood at the following
percentages:
'. 600/0 of the total costs for sidewalk improvements
· 75% of the total costs for storm drain improvements
· 200/0 of the total costs for street surface improvements
· 50% of the total costs for engineering and administrative costs
"
At that time, staff identified 42 street sections needing improvements within 5-10 years and an addttional17 street
sections needing improvements in 10-20 years. The total cost of these 59 street projects in 1998 was
$6,073,600. In 1998, staff estimated the costs to design and construct a new 22 foot road section wtth curb,
gutter, storm drain, sidewalks and park rows was $140 per lineal foot. Today that cost is more in the range of
$220 per lineal foot.
· LIDs Since 99-09
Since passage of Resolution 99-09, 10 LIDs have been proposed with 7 formed and all but one has been
completed and fully assessed. The Plaza Avenue LID was remonstrated last year and has not been formed, the
Waterline Road LID was formed but not constructed, the Oak Street Sidewalk and traffic calming project was not
officially an LID, but allowed '\toluntary- participation and was not assessed as an LID, and the liberty Street LID
was proposed, but not formed. Two of these street improvement projects, Tolman Creek Road and Strawberry
Lane were large assessment areas, initially fairly expensive to the property owners and were originally discussed
prior to the 99-09 resolution, but not formed. With the 99-09 Resolution and cap in place, both were successfully
formed and constructed. Three of the projects completed post 99-09 were for sidewalks, traffic calming and some
storm drain work on Oak Street, Helman Street, and recently on Nevada Street. The Nevada Street LID caused
significant controversy in how the district was formed and has not yet completed final assessments.
· Future LiDs
Currently staff has identified 35 streets and several alley sections that remain unimproved. This totals 8.4 miles of
road surface and 2.2 miles of alleys. Although the costs of these sections has not been detailed, rough estimates
would indicate over $10 million to fully improve these sections. Primarily these roads are comprised decomposed
grantte surfaces which can cause environmental concerns to creeks. Staff is particularly sensitive to the following
streets that are on steeper grades and/or closer proximity to creeks: Ashland Loop Road, Beach Street, Fork
Street, Glenview Drive, Granite Street, liberty Street, Pinecrest Terrace, Plaza Avenue, Ridge Road,
SchofieldIMonte Vista Streets, Terrace Street, Walnut Street and Waterline Road.
LI Ds offer an important element to local governments for financing options. Although they can often be
controversial, the ability to leverage funds from property owners that receive direct benefit from the improvement
is one way that local government can continue to make improvements within the community. As shown in the
attached Oregon Legislative Policy & Research Office document (November 1997) regarding the uBasics about
Local Improvement Districts" these special assessments are used for storm and sanitary sewers, street paving,
curbs, sidewalks, water lines, recreational facilities, street lighting, and off-street parking. They can be used to
fund reconstruction of deteriorated, substandard or outmoded facilities in both older and newly annexed
properties.
Current increases in construction costs preclude much City financing of unimproved roads wtthout addttional
funding sources. In addition to LIDs, there have been developer improvements, federal grants for CMAQ
(Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) funds used for a portion of certain improvements (currently those being
completed at C Street and Eureka), state grants fora portion of some sidewalk projects, and state funds for a
G:\pub-WJb\admin\PB CounciI\LIDs\CC 5S UD General Discussion O2Apt07.doc
Page 3 of 4
r~'
I ---- -
portion of some street reconstruction projects. Without the use of LIDs that extend City funds, staff is concerned
that this will signnicantly limit the ability to improve the remaining 10 plus miles of unimproved streets and alleys.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 13.20; Local improvements and Special Assessments
City of Ashland Resolution 99-09
Budget Documents including the Capital Improvements Program
City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (1998)
Transportation Element, Chapter X of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan (1996)
Council Options:
Staff is committed to using LIDs for the benefit of the community and as directed by policies of the Council. It is
hoped that LIDs will continued to be used in the future, however, that is purely a policy decision of the Council.
Staff sees two basic options before Council
1. Discontinue future use of all LIDs.
2. Continue to use the LID process as stated in the 99-()9 Resolution, or with any of the following
modnication(s):
a. Change the percentages for City participation
b. Change the means of identifying benefited property owners
c. Change the means of computing potential lots
d. Change the cap on the projects
i. Change the percentage of property owners supporting the LID (perhaps as high as 750k or
more) so that there is a dearer decision for the improvement
e. Clarification with regard to remonstrance and what happens after the 6 month period
f. Clarification on the handling of pre-paving signed in favor agreements
Should Council desire to continue the use of LIDs, it is recommended that the financing need and discussions
take place as a part of the newly fanned Street Financing Task Force and that Council charge that committee to
bring recommendations back to Council. With those recommendations in hand, Council can then direct staff to
bring ~ck additional changes with regard to the specific Resolution adjustments as mentioned above.
In lieu of using the Street Financing Task Force, Council may wish to create a new committee to specifically look
at the LID process, and direct staff to develop that option.
Potential Motions:
None. Staff requests direction, but as this is a study session, no formal motions are taken.
Attachments:
1. Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 13.20; Local improvements and Special Assessments (text from
www.ashland.or.us)
2. Final Implementation Measures for Ad Hoc LID Committee Recommendations (as a result of the October 7, 1988
Study Session)
3. City of Ashland Resolution 99-09 (text from www.ashland.or.usl
4. Oregon Legislative Policy & Research Office document (November 1997) regarding the -Basics about Local
Improvement Districts.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\LIDs\CC SS UD General Discussion 02Apn>7.doc
Page 4 of4
rtl'
I __n_
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Study Session: Local Improvement District Process Update and Next Steps
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
November 5, 2007
Public Works En .
Finance
Martha Beon
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Paula Brown 552-2411
brownp@ashland.or.us
Jim Olson (olsonj@ashland.or.us)
30 minutes
Question:
What direction would the Council like to provide to staff about changes it wants to make to City
policies and practices for using Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) to fund street, sidewalk and storm
drain improvements, considering the work done to date to implement the Council's April 2007
direction on LIDs?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the following six items:
1. Continue to utilize LIDs as a viable and important funding mechanism for future street,
sidewalk and storm drain improvements.
2. Consider further evaluation to develop the City's funding cap and specific logic in identifying
property owner approval and assessments to fund LIDs. A preliminary set of recommendations
are presented for further/future discussion on page 6 of this staff report.
3. Modify Resolution 99-09 once revised assessment methodology and funding caps are '
determined.
4. Wait for the updated TSP (should be finished by June 2008) to prioritize the current list of
LIDs for sidewalks based on sidewalks to schools, transit stops and major gathering areas
(parks, library, etc.)
5. Prioritize the current list of LIDs for and road pavement based on traffic volumes and
neighborhood support for the LID. See suggestions on page 5 of this report.
6. Consider utilizing LIDs to establish funding mechanisms for electric underground services,
street lights and other non-traditional utility enhancements.
Background:
During the April 2, 2007 Council Study Session, Council heard a staff report on the general use of
LIDs (see attachment 1). The meeting minutes suggest the following review items:
Council consensus was to maintain LID~. but to review Resolution 1999-09. Request that staffprepare
a memo on the ideas and concerns that have been broughtforward at tonight's meeting [see bullets].
. support continuing with LIDs; the resolution could use some refinement.
. the Council reevaluate their policy for paving all streets
. LIDs could be a good too/ when there is a greater percentage of approval in the neighborhood
. need to adjust the resolution to make LIDs fairer
. concentrate on LIDs for areas where sidewalks are needed for school children
· come up with a more easily determinable policy for assessing the LIDs costs
· in favor of continuing to pave streets; agreed that the resolution should be looked at
Page I of7
CC LID Process Update and Next Steps oct07.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. LIDs are a useful tool, but the resolution needs to be reviewed
· form a subcommittee of members of the Council and Planning Commission to discuss
appropriate improvements for a neighborhood
· in addition, request was made for staff to bring forward a recommendation for an annual target
to be spent on LIDs
Staff has researched several cities primarily in the west (Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Virginia) that
utilize LIDs as a financing mechanism primarily for transportation projects (streets and alleys), but
also have been used for other infrastructure (water and sewer lines extension, street lights, underground
power, parks) and Portland has used an LID for TriMet (transit) service extensions. What has been
most interesting is that the majority of these cities and in some cases counties, the cost of design and
construction is fully borne by the benefiting district.
Formation and Remonstrance: The ability to initiate, protest and stop an LID is done in different
ways typically based upon state law. Below are just a quick set of examples:
1. Poulsbo W A: A petition signed by property owners of at least 51 % of the total area within the
boundary of the proposed district. Public hearing then Council may approve an ordinance to
create the LID then there is a 30 day period to protest. If property owners representing at least
60% of the assessed value in the LID file written objections, then the project cannot move
forward. No additional appeals to the project after the 30 day period. Final assessment also
has a public hearing and objections regarding the final assessments may be heard at that time.
2. Tacoma W A: The petitioner contacts all of the affected property owners. When signatures of
property owners representing 50% or more of the property frontage abutting the improvement
have been gained, the petition is valid for consideration. The cost of an LID assessment
depends on the type of improvement requested. Some LIDs are full-cost to the property owners
(street lights for example) and some improvements are at fixed rates (such as permanent street
and alley paving), where the property owner pays a pre-determined amount and the City
participates in all costs above the fixed rate. The size and shape of a property and its proximity
to the improvement are the factors that usually determine individual assessment amounts.
3. Jackson County OR: A petition must be signed by not less than 60% of the owners of land
representing 600/0 of the land abutting the proposed improvements. Once the cost of the
improvements is determined and the estimate is mailed to each property owner, the owner has a
right to make written objections. If the Board of Commissioners receives objections signed by
more than 50% of the owners of land representing 600/0 of the amount of the assessment for the
proposed improvements, the proposed improvement is declared abandoned and no new petition
may be filed for a year.
4. Portland OR: Requires written petition which will be considered valid only when property
owned by petition signers added to property covered by waivers of remonstrance and property
owned by the City represents more than 50 percent of the property in the proposed district as
measured by the proposed assessment methodology. Property owned by the City, including
property owned through the Portland Development Commission, shall be counted in support of
formation of a local improvement district.
S. Ashland OR: Requires a written petition requesting the local improvement signed by the
owners of property that would benefit specially from the local improvement and that would
Page 2 of7
CC LID Process Update and Next Steps oct07.doc
,.,
,-----
CITY OF
ASHLAND
have at least 50% of the anticipated assessment. If at the hearing, the owners of two-thirds of
the property to be specially assessed for the improvement, or the owners of property which will
be assessed for two-thirds or more of the proposed assessment, deliver to the council a
remonstrance to the improvement, then action on the improvement shall be suspended for a
period of six months.
6. Oregon Revised Statute: ORS 223 provides the rules for the use of assessments and SDes in
Oregon. It discusses the assessment of public and private properties. It does not state the
specific assessment valuation process. The entire ORS is attached on the City's web site.
Current Assessment Metbodologies: the cost of improvements is split in several different ways.
Many agencies require the full cost of the improvements to be paid by the affected property owners.
Some agencies will pay a portion of the costs. Most assessments are either front footage along the
improvement (typically applies to a road improvement) or a percentage of total square footage of
property within the assessment district. With complaints that front footage did not require adequate
payment for flag lots, and that square footage did not discount unusable hillside or drainage swale
property areas, the City of Ashland developed Resolution 99-09. Resolution 99-09 changed the
assessments to potential unit method which requires the Planning Department to detennine the
maximum number of potential units on properties within a proposed local improvement district by
taking into consideration the zoning, densities, topography, transportation, utilities and such other
factors as necessary to evaluate the development potential of the properties. The current allocation of
costs on a per unit method appears to work better than just front footage or total area.
Current Cost Sharing: Ashland is one of the few communities that shares in the cost of all LIDs.
Resolution 99-09 placed a cap on each lot within the assessment (then $4,000 and with an increase for
inflation based on the ENR, the current cap is $5,251 as of April 2007; a 31.3% increase in 8 years)
and required the City to participate in improvements to local streets serving a residential neighborhood
at the following percentages:
· 60% of the total costs for sidewalk improvements
· 75% of the total costs for storm drain improvements
· 20% of the total costs for street surface improvements
· 50% of the total costs for engineering and administrative costs
Page 3 of7
CC LID Process Update and Next Steps oct07.doc
rA'
-,---
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Project List: Staff took a look at projects and separated them into two categories; sidewalks and
streets. Staff then took a stab at developing priorities so the list you see is staffs prioritization:
Sidewalk priorities were based on the need for a completed pedestrian link for sidewalks to schools,
transit stops and major gathering areas (parks, library, downtown core, etc.)
As presented in the 1998 TSP: Ashland's network of sidewalks and paths for pedestrian use in the
City is not continuous, particularly outside of the downtown core. A systematic approach identified
the routes most used by pedestrians to provide system-wide access, circulation and continuity.
Major pedestrian corridors and trip generators include schools (elementary, secondary, SOU),
parks, civic attractions and services (City services, libraries, museums), the downtown core and
retail, shopping and service areas. Bus stops and bus shelters are also considered pedestrian
generators. Routes connecting generators to each other and access from nearby residential areas
were classified as pedestrian corridors. Certain avenues were removed from the corridor
classification because other facilities served the same foot traffic or because the avenue was not in
an area where many people walked.
Needed pedestrian projects were identified wherever adequate sidewalks did not exist on both
sides of the street in a pedestrian corridor. Projects associated with street improvements were
assumed to be constructed in conjunction with their associated street projects. The remaining
pedestrian projects were prioritized: sidewalks serving elementary schools, middle schools and
high schools were top priority (years 1-5); routes of high pedestrian use, sidewalks along existing
and future transit routes were secondary priorities (years 6- 10), followed by all remaining projects
(years 11-20). Only 4 of the original 16 "first 10 years" projects have not been completed.
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS (one or both sides or Itreet)
1-5 Years
Hi complete
N Laurel St W Hersey St Randy St City $78.000
He complete
Nev complete
complete
Beach St Ashland St Henry St
H complete
Mo complete
complete
low complete
M complete
W complete
H complete
6-10 Years
Map complete
Hersey St N MaiD St Oak St City $88,000
E Main St N Mountain Ave UPRR City 538,000
Page 4 of7
CC LID Process Update and Next Steps oct07.doc
~A'
.-.-----
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Current unpaved streets were prioritized based on traffic volumes and the current understanding of
neighborhood support for an LID.
SUMMARY OF GRANITE SURFACED STREETS
Street
Length
Feet
Proposed
Impr Width
ROW
Width
C Street 300 70 36
Eureka Street 400 50 28
.~ Beach Street 500 40 28
en
Q Monte Vista 640 23.5 20 no SW
= Schofield Street 700 40-60 28
-
Plaza Avenue 650 45 28
Peache Road 150 40 28
Almond Street 1700 40 22
'5 Ashland Loop Rd 1045 40 20 no SW
H Fork Street 1750 40 20 no SW
~ 1i' Glenview Street 6400 40-60 22
~] Granite Street 1600 40 22
~ ~ Terrace Street 750 40 20
~ 'g Walnut Street 1400 40-47 28
! Liberty Street 500 40-60 22
OR 8 Nevada Street. 1500 60 28
0--
~ Clay Street 500 60 36
~ Pioneer Street 2600 45-50 20 no SW
Pinecrest Terrace 750 47 28
Alaska Street 150 40 28
J!l Black Oak Way 850 41-50 28
c Elkader Street 400 40 28
~ Fox Street 600 40 22
~ en Larkin Lane 150 50 28
~ 8 Mae Street 350 40 28
o ~ Meade Street 450 40 20
I-l ~
c.2 0 Mohawk Street 250 60 28
~=;
oW" Pine Street 450 20 Partial 18
'8 :
't:: Prospect Street 300 40 20
~ Ridge Road 500 25 20 no SW
o Ross Lane 430 20 28
=
Tamarack Place 450 47 28
Wildwood Way 300 25 20 no SW
TOTAL Cost to improve Granite Surfaced Streets
Estimated
Cost 1998 $
$53,400
$61,200
$76~500
$66,560
$107,100
$99,450
$22,950
$236,300
$108,680
$182,000
$889,600
$222,400
$101,250
$214,200
$69,500
$229,500
$89,000
$270,400
$114,750
$22,950
$130,050
$61,200
$83,400
$22,950
$53,550
$60,750
$38,250
$46,800
$40,500
$52,000
$65,790
$68,850
$31,200
53,992,980
Page 5 of7
Estimated
Cost 2008 $
$82,770
$94,860
$195,075
$103,168
$166,005
$154,148
$35,573
$366,265
$168,454
$282,100
$1,378,880
$344,720
$156,938
$332,010
$107,725
$355,725
$137,950
$419,120
$177,863
$35,573
$201,578
$94,860
$129,270
$35,573
$83,003
$94,163
$59,288
$72,540
$62,775
$80,600
$101,975
$106,718
$48,360
$6,265,619
Est w/CMAQ
Cost 2008 $
$186,233
$213,435
$438,919
$232,128
$373,511
$346,832
$80,038
$824,096
$379,022
$634,725
$3,102,480
$775,620
$353,109
$747,023
$242,381
$800,381
$310,388
$943,020
$400,191
$80,038
$453,549
$213,435
$290,858
$80,038
$186,756
$211,866
$133,397
$163,215 ,
$141,244
$181,350
$229,443
$240,114
$108,810
514,097,643
design CMAQ 2007
design CMAQ 2007
design CMAQ 2008
design LID 2008
design LID 2008
design CMAQ 2009
desi JaCo 2009 CMA
partial Manzanita to Church
partial Terrace to Glenview
Vista to Glenview
180 ADT with mixed uses
440 ADT highest
220 ADT
planned LID
partially done
JaCo involvement
I f even counted, most
ADTs below 100
Need extra ROW for 28'
CC LID Process Update and Next Steps oct07,doc
r.l'
~~~~~ -
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Recommended Revisions:
1. Construction costs are increasing dramatically, especially over the last several years. When
Resolution 99-09 was adopted, the City's cost share of each project was estimated at 40%. Due
to the cap for property owners, the City is now paying roughly 60-75% of many projects.
There has been concern that the tax payers of the City are paying for more than their share of
other LIDs that do not directly benefit them this way.
Recommend that the City's share be capped at 40% with the affected property owners
responsible for their share at 60% of the total project costs with no cap on the individually
affected property owners.
2. Recommend that the "administrative" cost portion of all LID projects be expanded to include
all design, engineering, construction management, legal and other administrative costs incurred
by the City.
3. If the cap is not removed for affected property owners (see recommendation #1), then it is
recommended that any deferred street improvements (LIDs formed prior to start of any
subdivision construction; i.e.: Waterline Road) have an initial assessment that is also adjusted
annually for inflation. This would allow some property owners to fully pay for the LID at a
potentially lower rate and the City would ubank" those funds for future improvement.
4. Recommend the City require written petition which will be considered valid only when
property owned by petition signers, added to any property within the proposed district owned
by the City, represents more than 67 percent of the property in the proposed district as
measured by the proposed assessment methodology. Property owned by the City shall be
counted in support of formation of a local improvement district at the same per unit rate.
5. Recommend remonstrance language be specific to only those property owners within the
proposed district.
6. Recommend Council extend the remonstrance period from 6 months to one year, and that after
that time it is incumbent upon the original petitioners to re-engage the Council for renewed
consideration for the project (13.20.050 C.). Action on sidewalks or on improvements '
unanimously declared by the council to be needed at once because of an emergency shall not be
subject to suspension by a remonstrance of the owners of the property to be specially assessed.
7. Recommend the boundaries of the specific local improvement district be defined by the City
Engineer in consultation with the Planning Director so that the proposed improvements meet all
City standards, have a measurable impact on improving the air and water quality, and include
immediately adjacent properties that directly benefit from the proposed improvements. It is
further recommended that the proposed LID first gain acceptance by the new Transportation
Commission prior to the initial petition going to the City Council for approval.
8. Recommend that there be no requirement for "signed in favor" agreements. All property
owners within the proposed district boundaries have the right to request or object to an LID
without any City required prior agreement to sign in favor of paving.
9. Although staffis encouraged to plan ahead for LIDs, it is recommend that the Council allow
only one LID for sidewalk improvements and one LID for street improvements in any fiscal
year and that this be determined during the budget and elF process.
Page 6 of7
CC LID Process Update and Next Steps oct07.doc
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
AMC 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments
City of Ashland Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
Ashland 1998 Transportation System Plan; W &H Pacific (on the web)
ORS Chapter 223 - Local Improvements and Works Generally (on the web)
Council Options:
The discussion of Local Improvement Districts is always on of controversy. Council, if you continue
to move fOlWard with the use of LIDs to be used as a funding mechanism for future street, sidewalk,
storm drain and for perhaps other utility improvements to include street lighting, under grounding
electrical utilities, and even transit, will always incite some level of controversy.
Council options include:
1. Continue the discussion regarding LIDs and how to best rewrite Resolution 99-09 and support
staff recommendations.
2. Decline to use Local Improvement Districts as a funding mechanism in the future.
3. Forego decision at this time and ask staff to bring this back for discussion at a future time or at
Council's discretion.
Potential Motions:
Council's options following the logic above are as follows:
1. Council recognizes the value of continuing to utilize Local Improvement Districts as a viable
funding mechanism for public infrastructure improvements and moves approval of staff
recommendations as presented on page 1:
a. Consider further evaluation to develop the City's funding cap and specific logic in
identifying property owner approval and assessments to fund LIDs. Staff s preliminary
set of recommendations as shown on page 6.ofthis document should be further
reviewed unless there is time for specific elements to be discussed at this meeting.
b. Request staff brings back a modified Resolution 99-09 once revised assessment
methodology and funding caps are determined.
c. Request staff ensures the updated TSP includes a prioritized of LIDs for sidewalks
~ased on sidewalks to schools, transit stops and major gathering areas (parks, library,
downtown core, etc.)
d. Accept the loosely prioritize list of LIDs for and road pavement based on traffic
volumes and future neighborhood support as suggested on page 5 of this report.
e. Consider utilizing LIDs to establish funding mechanisms for electric underground
services, street lights and other non-traditional utility enhancements.
2. Council moves to eliminate the future use of Local Improvement Districts.
3. Council requests staff bring this discussion back at a future time and will take no action at this
time.
Attachments:
1. Council Communication, April 2, 2007; General Discussion on the Future of Local
Improvement Districts (with attachments)
2. Resolution 99-09
Page 7 of7
CC LID Process Update and Next Steps oct07.doc
r.,
-,---
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Local Improvement District Policy Update
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
October 21, 2008
Public Works Engi
Finance / Legal
Martha Benn
nng
Primary Staff Contact:
E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Michael R. Faught 552-2411
faughtm@ashland.or.us
Paula Brown 488-5587
30 minutes
Question:
Will Council consider amending Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 13.20 Local Improvement and
Special Assessments and Repealing Resolution 1999-09? -
Staff Recommendation:
Staffrecommends Council consider amending Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments and Repealing Resolution 1999-09.
Background:
Previous Council Actions
April 2, 2007 Study Session - following a staff presentation regarding LID's, the Council
consensus was to maintain LID's but expressed a need to review Resolution No. 1999-09.
November S, 2007 Study Session - former Public Works Director, Paula Brown, presented
the following six (6) issues for the Council to consider regarding LID Policy.
· Continue to utilize LID's as viable and important funding mechanisms for future
improvements;
· Consider further evaluation to develop City's funding cap and specific logic in
identifying property owner approval and assessments to fund LID's;
· Modify Resolution 1999-09 once revised assessment methodology and funding caps
are determined;
· Wait for updated Transportation System Plan (TSP) to prioritize the current list of
LID's;
· Prioritize current list of LID's for road pavement based on traffic volumes and
neighborhood support;
· Consider utilizing LID's to establish funding mechanisms for electric underground
services, street lights and other non-traditional utility enhancements.
Staff provided information on how other cities handle Local Improvement Districts, current
assessment methodologies, current cost sharing, a list ofprojects and a summary of granite
surfaced streets. In addition, staff provided a list of recommended revisions as follows:
· Cap City's share at 40% with the affected property owners responsible for their share
at 60%;
Page 1 of7
'A'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
· "Administrative" cost portion of all LID projects be expanded to include all design,
engineering, construction management, legal and other administrative costs incurred
by the City of Ashland;
· If cap is not removed, then any deferred street improvements have an initial
assessment that is also adjusted annually for inflation;
· Require written petition which would be considered valid only when property is
owned by petition signers, added to any property within the proposed district owned
by the City or represents more than 67% of the property in the proposed district as
measured by the proposed assessment methodology;
· Remonstrance language be specific to only those property owners within the
proposed district;
· Council extend the remonstrance period from 6 months to one year after which time
it is incumbent upon the original petitioners to re-engage the Council for renewed
consideration for the project;
· Boundaries of the specific LID be defined by the City Engineer in consultation with
the Planning Director; proposed LID gain acceptance by the new Transportation
Commission prior to the initial petition going to the Council for approval;
· No requirement for "signed in favor" agreements;
· Plan ahead for LID's; allow only one LID for sidewalk improvements and one LID
for street improvements in any fiscal year as determined during the budget and CIP
process.
The City Council then provided the following input on the LID issue:
· Concern voiced on limiting number of LID's per year
· Support for cap and required written petitions valid only when property owned by
petition signers
· Better understanding of deferral process
· Basic support for all staff recommendations
· Concern voiced that no LID's may be approved based on percentage methodology
· Noted that LID's can be used for parking and transit
· Concern voiced by several councilors in regards to the "signing in favor"
· Question if construction inflation rate could be used in relation to cap
· Storm water criteria and safety should be added
· Concern voiced on "administrative" costs
· Further clarification on extension of remonstrance timeframe
· One dissent in regards to boundaries being defined by City Engineer and consultant
· Suggestion to look at concept of hill developments and their effect on properties
· Percentage methodology needs review
Given the Council input/feedback and recent staff changes, staff is now bringing the issue of LID back
to the Council to address proposed ordinance revisions. In addition, staff would like to continue the
conversation as it relates to Council input and from a new perspective.
Page 2 of7
l.\
r.,
T-- -~-
To that end, staffhas developed two new questions based on the existing AMC 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments language and Resolution 1999-09. Those questions are as
follows: '
· Should the City continue to define LID policy though a resolution? Or should all
proposed LID revisions be reflected through an amendment to AMC 13.20?
CITY OF
ASHLAND
· Should the City continue to subsidize LID projects with street funds when the existing
improved street system has a $2 million per year backlog of street repair projects?
The question of subsidizing LIDs is one of equity and competing street maintenance needs. The equity
issue is framed by considering the difference between the cost and value of a home on an unimproved
street compared to one that was built on an improved street (a street constructed to city standards: curb,
gutter asphalt, etc.). Those who purchase a home on an improved street pay the cost for the new street
as opposed to those who purchase a home on an unimproved street. The City's current LID policy
subsidizes the reconstruction of unimproved streets with limited street funds. Those who live on
improved streets are either paying a portion of the subsidy (through street user fees) or are impacted by
the subsidy because their improved street is not adequately maintained.
Therefore, the question before the City Council is whether or not it is equitable or fiscally responsible
to continue the practice of subsidizing all LID projects. Having posed the question, staff thinks that
there may be some projects (sidewalk, utilities, etc) that do merit city subsidies. However, staff
recommends that those subsidies be considered on a case by case basis and that the City Council
consider eliminating the fixed LID subsidy.
The question of whether or not to set LID policy by resolution is the second question posed by staff. It
appears that Resolution 1999-09 was approved as a method of determining the process to subsidize
LIDs. If the Council determines that LID subsidies should not be provided for all LID projects, then
staff would suggest that the resolution needs to be repealed and not revised.
In addition to the two new questions, staff s responses to the Council in regards to the LID concerns
raised at the November 5,2008 CoUncil study session are as follows:
1. The Council voiced concern on limiting number of LID's per year.
Response: If the Council concurs with staffs recommendation to remove the LID subsidy, then
the number of LIDs projects would likely be reduced. Even if the subsidy is not removed, a
decision would need to be made as to whether or not there is sufficient staff to process a new LID
which will be determined on a case by case basis.
2. The Council voiced support for cap and required written petitions valid only when property is
owned by petition signers.
Response: Removing the LID subsidy would eliminate the need for a cap and Section 13.20.020
(B) addresses the petition validity question.
B. By written petition requesting the local improvement signed by the owners of
property that would benefit specially from the local improvement and that would
Page 3 of7
r&,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
have at least 60% of the anticipated assessment as estimated by the city engineer.
Prooerty within the orooosed district boundary. owned bv the City. shall be counted in
supoort of local improvement district formation at the same rate as any other orooertv
owner using the same methodology prollosed for the local imorovement.
3. The Council requested a better understanding of deferral process.
Response: This process will be explained in more detail at the October 21, 2008 Council Meeting.
However, the brief explanation of the LID deferral process is as follows: If during the LID
assessment process it is determined that the assessment should be based on potential unit
measurement, then those property owners with lots large enough to be partitioned into two or more
units can request to defer their LID assessment on their "potential units." The account will continue
to accrue interest and the debt is due in full when there is a sale, contract to sell or any other
transfer occurs. The property must have an assessment levied for all potential units.
4. The Council indicated basic support for all staff recommendations.
Response: The October 21, 2008 Council Meeting will provide additional refinement of the LID
process.
5. The Council voiced concern that no LID's may get approved based on percentage
methodology.
Response: This is a valid concern. If subsidies are removed and the requirement to have at least
60% of the property owners who would benefit from the LID sign the petition for a proposed LID,
then it is likely that the City will see fewer LID formation petitions. However, it is important to
note that the City Council can, at its discretion, create an LID for a project.
6. The Council also noted that LID's can be used for parking and transit.
Response: Staff is recommending AMC amendments to 13.20 that would provide a mechanism to
use LIDs for most local improvements. The proposed AMC language is as follows:
Whenever the council in its discretion deems it necessary to make any local
improvement to construct. alter" reo air" or imorove any street. transit. oarkin2"
sewer" water" irri2ation" sidewalk" electric" fiber network" street li2hts" storm
drain or any other local imorovements to be paid for in whole or in part by special
assessment, the council may declare its intention to make the local improvement by
adopting an improvement resolution. The proposed local improvement may be initiated
by either of the following methods:
7. Several councilors voiced concern in regards to the "signing in favor".
Response: "Signing in favor" means that a property owner within the proposed LID assessment
district has signed a Non-Remonstrance Aireement in favor of a future LID project. This is an
important tool as all land divisions, including partition approval requests, may require street
improvements. Street improvements along property lines impacted by a proposed partition request
Page 4 of7
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
are usually between 50' to 100' long. Building a street under those conditions can be expensive and
difficult to design. Non-Remonstrance agreements allow the property owner to defer the required
street improvements for a future LID project.
It is important to note that a Non-Remonstrance Agreement will be counted as part of the 60% in
favor of the proposed LID project. In addition, the City Attorney has provided proposed AMC
amendments regarding Non-Remonstrance Agreements. See proposed AMC amendment #2 below.
8. The Council questioned if construction inflation rate could be used in relation to cap.
Response: This is not an issue if the Council decides not to provide a funding subsidy for LIDs.
9. The Council indicated that storm water criteria and safety should be added.
Response: This issue is covered in the response to item #6 above.
10. The Council voiced concern about Hadministrative" costs.
Response: This item can be discussed in more detail at the October 21, 2008 City Council
Meeting: however, administrative costs can legitimately be added to the overall cost of a LID
project.
11. The Council requested further clarification on extension of remonstrance timeframe.
Response: Staff is now recommending that there be no extension of remonstrance timeframes. See
proposed AMC amendment #3 below. .
12. One dissent in regards to boundaries being defined by City Engineer and consultant.
Response: This issue can be further defined at the October 21, 2008 City Council Meeting.
13. The Council suggested staff look at concept of hill developments and their effect on properties
Response: Staff would like to engage the Council further on this issue at the October 21, 2008 City
Council Meeting.
14. The Council indicated that the percentage methodology needs to be reviewed.
Response: Staff is proposing AMC 13.20 amendments that would require at least 600/0 "in-favor"
petitioners (which include all Non-Remonstrance Agreements) as outlined in the proposed AMC
amendment #2 below:
The following recommended amendments to AMC 13.20 Local Improvement and Special Assessments
reflect Council input as well as staff s recommendation to discontinue the practice of subsidizing all
LID projects and to repeal Resolution 1999-09. The attached (attachment "A") draft Ordinance
provides the following specific revisions:
Page 5 of7
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
1. AMC 13.20.010 Definitions
B. "Local Improvement" has the meaning given under ORS 310.140 (9) (a) means
a capital construction oroiect. or part thereof. undertaken by a local government. pursuant to
ORS 223.387 to 223.399. or oursuant to a local ordinance or resolution prescribing the
procedure to be followed in making local assessments for benefits from a local
improvement upon the lots that have been benefited by all or a part of the imorovement.
(A) That provides a soecial benefit only to sl'ecific properties or rectifies a problem
caused by specific properties.
2. AMC 13.20.020 Initiation of Local Improvements
Whenever the Council in its discretion deems it necessary to make any local improvement
to construct. alter. reo air. or improve any street. transit. parking. sewer. water. irrigation.
sidewalk. electric. fiber network. street lights. storm drain or any other local improvements
to be paid for in whole or in part by special assessment, the Council may declare its
intention to make the local improvement by adopting an improvement resolution. The
proposed local improvement may be initiated by either of the following methods:
B. By written petition requesting the local improvement signed by the owners of property
that would benefit specially from the local improvement and that would have at least 60%
of the anticipated assessment as estimated by the city engineer. Property within the
oroposed district boundary. owned by the City. shall be counted in SUDoort of local
imorovement district formation at the same rate as any other property owner using the same
methodology l'roposed for the local imorovement
3. AMC 13.20.050
C. Effect of Remonstrance. If at the hearing, the owners of two-thirds of the property to be
specially assessed for the improvement, or the owners of property which will be assessed
for two-thirds or more of the proposed assessment, deliver to the council a remonstrance to
the improvement, then action on the improvement shall be suspended for six (6) months.
Once the six (6) months has exoired it is the oetitioner's responsibility to re-submit a new
petition for the proiect that meets the requirements outlined in 13.20.020 (B). Action on
sidewalks or on improvements unanimously declared by the council to be needed at once
because of an emergency shall not be subject to suspension by a remonstrance of the
owners of the property to be specially assessed.
Notwithstanding any document or agreement obligating an owner, or the owner's successor
in interest, to be in favor of improvements or in favor of a local improvement district, or
any document of agreement waiving an owner's or successor's right to remonstrate against
improvements of a local improvement district, such owner or successor may appear at the
public hearing and exercise their First Amendment right to oooose or suooort the ~roposed
local improvement district. but such exercise shall not invalidate existing contractual
waivers of remonstrance. (Ord 2837 S1, 1999)
Page 6 of?
er.,
I ----
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
· AMC 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments (online)
· City of Ashland Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
· Ashland 1998 Transportation System Plan; W &H Pacific (online)
· ORS Chapter 223 - Local Improvements and Works Generally (online)
Council Options:
1) The City Council could deteimine that the proposed amendments to (AMC) 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments and Repealing Resolution 1999-09 are appropriate and
direct staff to bring the draft Ordinance to Council for approval.
2) The City Council could decide to provide staffwith additional recommendations and direct
staff to bring proposed modification to the Council at a later date.
Potential Motions:
1) Move to direct staff to bring an Ordinance amending AMC 13.20 Local Improvement and
Special Assessments and Repealing Resolution 1999-09 for approval.
2) Move to direct staff to modify ( ) the draft Ordinance amending AMC 13.20 Local
Improvement and Special Assessments and Repealing Resolution 1999-09 for approval.
Attachments:
1. Council Communication (Study Session), April 2, 2007; General Discussion on the Future of
Local Improvement Districts (with attachments)
2. Council Communication, November 5, 2007; Study Session: Local Improvement District
Process Update and Next Steps (without attachments which can be found online)
3. AMC 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments; with changes as proposed by the
City Attorney and Public Works Director.
Page 7 of7
r.,
.---
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 13.20
LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
SECTIONs:
13.20.010 Definitions.
13.20.020 Initiation of Local Improvements.
13.20.030 Content of Improvement Resolution.
13.20.040 Notice of Hearing Regarding Improvement Resolution.
13.20.050 Hearing on Improvement Resolution.
13.20.060 Method of Assessment.
13.20.070 Notice of Assessment.
13.20.080 Address To Which Notices Should Be Sent.
13.20.090 Deficit Assessments or Refunds.
13.20.100 Rebates and Credits.
13.20.110 Description of Real Property; Effect of Error In Name of Owner.
13.20.120 Lien Records and Foreclosure Proceedings.
13.20.130 Errors in Assessment Calculations.
1~.20.140 Installment Payments of Assessments.
13.20.145 Deferral of Assessment Payments.
13.20.150 Abandonment of Proceedings.
13.20.160 Manner of Doing Work.
13.20.170 Curative Provisions.
13.20.180 Construction of Improvement: Bids.
13.20.190 Reassessments.
13.20.200 Apportionment of Liens Upon Partition.
13.20.210 Remedies.
13.20.220 Severability.
SECTION 13.20.010 Definitions.
The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this
section unless from the context a different meaning is intended,
A. "Improvement resolution" means that resolution adopted by the council declaring its intention to
make a local improvement.
B. "Local Improvement" has the meaning given under ORS 310.140 (9) (a) means a capital
construction proiect or part theroe undertaken by a local government. pursuant to ORS 223,387
tQ..2.,~1:,J,2,2,_9LP'.!:!Xg!JmUQ..,~Q.~,;JJ...9Jiti!Hlfl9.g~.QLr9..~.Q.l.QJj.91LPr.~3:i!';IL9jD.K.~,lL<;"J~n1s;.gg,!JI~_J.Q...QgjQJJ.Qy'y'g,Q
in making local assessments for benefits from a local improvement upon the lots that have been
Qg.1}gn.t~5tb.Y....~J.LQ[JtP..~.r.L~1f.1.hs.jmj;>LQ,ygm.~DJ,
(AI That provides a special benefit only to specific propelties or rectifies a problem caused
I2Y...3:iP~S..t.5.f...l2IQll~D.i~;..~:..,-",~-,
C, "Local Improvement District" means the property that is to be assessed for all or any portion of
the cost of a local improvement and the property on which the local improvement is located,
D, "Lot" means a lot, block or parcel ofland.
E. "Owner" means the owner of the title to real property or the contract purchaser of real property of
record as shown on the last available complete assessment role in the office of the County
Assessor,
Page 1 of 10
------r---
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 13.20.020 Initiation of Local Improvements.
.
Whenever the council in its discretion deems it necessary to make any local improvement to construct.
,;!.!.t~r"...r~'p',;!jI~....QL.ttDl?.r..Q.Y.LmJ.Y..,.,~J.r..~.~.b..Jr.;!n~.!.L,.R,;!.rktng,_,.~,~~!sr."...~Y.~1.~L irri gati on :l....,~,i,~.t;?\Y.~.nL,~k9..tri.f",...,f1.!?,~r
network. street lights. storn1 drain or any other local imt)foyements to be paid for in whole or in part by
special assessment, the council may declare its intention to make the local improvement by adopting an
improvement resolution. The proposed local improvement may be initiated by either of the following
methods:
A. By the council, at its own initiative; or
B. By written petition requesting the local improvement signed by the owners of property that would
benefit specially from the local improvement and that would have at least Jill% of the anticipated
assessment as estimated by the city engineer. Property within the proposed district boundary,
owned by the City, shall be counted in support of local improvement district formation at the
same rate as any other pnmerty owner using the same methodology pnmosed 'l~)r the local
improvement.
Whenever all of the owners of any property to be benefited and assessed for any local improvement have
signed a petition directed and presented to the council requesting such local improvement, the council
may initiate and construct such local improvement without publishing or mailing notice to the owners of
the affected property and without holding a public hearing regarding the proposed local improvement.
(Ord 2731,1994; amended Ord 2755,1995)
SECTION 13.20.030 Content of Improvement Resolution.
A. Mandatory Provisions. The improvement resolution shall contain the following:
1, A description of the improvement;
2. A description or map of the boundaries of the local improvement district to be assessed;
3. A declaration of the council's intention to undertake the improvement;
4. Provision for a date, time and place for a hearing regarding the improvement; and
5. A direction that notice be given of the improvement and of the public hearing.
6, The amount of the estimated cost of the improvement made by the city engineer and a proposed
allocation of the cost of the improvement among the owners of the property to be specially
benefited;
B. Ootional Provisions, The improvement resolution may include the following:
1. A determination whether the property benefited shall bear all or any portion of the cost of the
local improvement, based upon the estimated cost;
2. Alternative proposals relating to the local improvement, but only if each alternative contains all
of the information required to be contained in the resolution if that alternative proposal were
the only proposal put forward; and
3. Any other information that the council deems relevant to the improvement.
SECTION 13.20.040 Notice of Hearing Regarding Improvement Resolution.
A. Notice, Notice of the hearing regarding the improvement resolution shall be given at least 30 days
prior to the scheduled date of the hearing,
B. Method of Delivering Notice. Notice shall be made by publication in a ne\vspaper of general
circulation within the city and by mailing copies of the notice by first class mail to the owners of lots
affected by the improvement.
C. Content of Notice.
1, The notice shall contain:
Page 2 of 10
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
a. A general description of the proposed improvement;
b, A description or map of the local improvement district to be created;
c, A description of the property to be specifically benefited by the improvement; and
d, The date, time and place of the hearing when the council will hear and consider objections or
responses to the improvement.
e. A statement that if two-thirds of the property owners to be benefited object to the
improvement, the improvement will be suspended for six months,
f. A clear explanation on how and where property owners may object to the improvement.
g. The amount of the estimated assessment proposed on each particular property,
h, Any other information the council may direct to be included.
D. Effect of Failure of Notice, Any mistake, error, omission or failure with respect to a good faith
mailing of any notice shall not be jurisdictional or invalidate the improvement proceedings,
SECTION 13.20.050 Hearing on Improvement Resolution.
A. Testimonv Considered, At the hearing regarding the improvement resolution, the council shall hear
and consider testimony, both oral and written, on the improvement.
B. Approval in Discretion of Council. The council may implement the improvement resolution and
undertake completion of the improvement only if, in its sole discretion, the improvement is in the best
interest of the city. The council's discretion shall not be limited by the fact that a majority of the
benefited property owners have requested or indicated their support for the improvement.
C, Effect of Remonstrance, If at the hearing, the owners of two-thirds of the property to be specially
assessed for the improvement, or the owners of property which will be assessed for two-thirds or
more of the proposed assessment, deliver to the council a remonstrance to the improvement, then
action on the improvement shall be suspended for si x (6) months. Once the six months has expired it
is the petitioner's responsibility to fe-submit a new petition for the proiect that meets the requirements
outline in 13,20.020 (H). Action on sidewalks or on improvements unanimously declared by the
council to be needed at once because of an emergency shall not be subject to suspension by a
remonstrance of the owners of the property to -be specially assessed.
Notwithstanding any document or agreement obligating an owner, or the owner's successor in
interest, to be favor of improvements or in favor of a local improvement district, or any document of
agreement waiving an owner's or successor's right to remonstrate against improvements of a local
improvement district, such owner or successor may appear at the public hearing and exercise their
First Amendment right ~se or support the proposed local improvement district. but such
~s~r~.i5~5h~lLnQlj.nY,f!h~hH~.._~,~j,~ti!:1Z.~lDJI?_GnmL~y._~iY..~.r.?i_.Q..Lr.~.m.QJ1~_tr._~.rLf~;..._(Ord 2837 S 1, 1999)
D, Modifications, At the hearing, the council may direct any modification of the improvement that it
deems appropriate, If the council modifies the scope of the improvement such that the local
improvement district would be enlarged, or, if estimated assessments have been made by the time of
the hearing, the assessment is likely to be increased by more than ten percent upon one or more lots,
then a new improvement resolution shall be adopted by the council, and new notices mailed to all of
the owners of properties within the local improvement district. No new publication regarding the
amended improvement need be made.(Ord 2731, 1994)
E. Creation of Local Improvement District. If the improvement is approved by the council, the council
shall by resolution create the local improvement district to be served by the improvement.
Page 3 of 10
~_...-
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
I F, Determination of Allocation. The council shall determine whether the property benefited shall bear
all or a portion of the cost. The council shall then direct the city recorder to prepare the estimated
assessment to the respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of
the city, The council shall then hear any objections that have been filed with the recorder concerning
the amount of the assessments, and may adopt, correct, modify or revise the estimated assessments,
SECTION 13.20.060 Method of Assessment.
A. Procedure for Assessment. When the estimated cost of an authorized local improvement has been
ascertained on the basis of the award of a contract or the departmental cost of the city or other
governmental agency to undertake the improvement, the city recorder, or such other person as the
council may direct, shall prepare the proposed assessments to the respective lots within the local
improvement district, shall file them in the office of the city recorder, and shall submit the proposed
assessments to the council. The submission may be in the form of a proposed resolution.
B. Determination of Assessment. The council shall determine the amount of the estimated assessment to
be charged against each lot within the local improvement district according to the special and peculiar
benefits accruing to the lot from the improvement, and shall spread the estimated assessments
accordingly, If the estimated cost, as ascertained under the preceding paragraph, is more than ten
percent above any estimated total assessment for the project the council may vote to discontinue the
project or'to find other sources of funds so that the actual assessment does not exceed the estimated
assessment by more than ten percent. In determining and spreading the assessment, the council may
use any just and reasonable method consistent with the benefits derived by the various affected lots. If
any actual assessment to be levied on an individual lot exceeds the original estimated assessment by
more than ten percent, the council shall review such increase at the public hearing described in
section 13.20,060,E. (Ord 2731, 1994)
C, Adoption of Proposed Assessment. Upon receiving the proposed assessment, the council shall, after
making any modifications, adopt a resolution directing that notice of the proposed assessments be
mailed or personally delivered to the owners of the lots to be assessed. The notice shall contain the
following information:
1, The name of the owner, a description of the property to be assessed, and the amount to be
assessed against the property.
2. A date and time by which written objections to the proposed assessment, stating specifically the
grounds for objection, must be received, and the date, place and time of a hearing at which the
council will consider any objections.
3, A statement that the assessment will be levied by the council after the hearing, will be charged
against the property, and will be immediately payable in full or in installments (if applicable)
following the levy,
D. Supplementary Notice, Supplementary notice of the proposed assessment and of the hearing
scheduled to consider the proposed assessment in form and content to be determined by the city
recorder may also be published or posted by the city recorder,
E. Hearing Regarding Proposed Assessments. The council shall hold a public hearing on the date and
time set in the notice to consider those objections filed in writing with respect to the proposed
assessments, The council may adopt, correct, modify or revise the proposed assessments and shall
determine the amount of the assessment to be charged against each lot within the local improvement
district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to it from the improvements, and shall
by resolution levy and spread the assessments and cause that notice of the assessments be delivered to
all of the owners of property within the local improvement district.
SECTION 13.20.070 Notice of Assessment.
Page 4 of 10
,"
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
A. Within ten days after the effective date of the resolution levying the assessments, the city recorder
shall send by first class mail to the owner of the assessed property, a notice of assessment. The notice
shall contain the following information:
1. The date of the resolution levying the assessment, the name of the owner of the property assessed,
the amount of the assessment, and a description of the property assessed;
2, A statement that the owner may file an application to pay the assessment in installments, as
provided in this chapter; and
3. A statement that the entire amount of the assessment, less any part for which application to pay in
installments is made, is due within 20 days ofthe date of the letter and, if unpaid on that date, will
accrue interest and subject the property to foreclosure.
B. Supplementary notices of assessment, in form and content to be determined by the city recorder, may
also be published or posted by the city recorder.
c. Failure to receive any notice of assessment shall not invalidate the proceedings nor affect the validity
of the assessment.
SECTION 13.20.080 Address To Which Notices Should Be Sent.
If a notice is required to be sent to the owner of a lot pursuant to this chapter, the notice shall be addressed
to the owner or the owner's agent, as such address is recorded in the county tax roll. If the address of the
owner or of the owner's agent is unknown to the recorder, the recorder shall mail the notice addressed to
the owner or the owner's agent at the address where the property is located, Any mistake, error, omission
or failure in respect to a good faith mailing shall not be jurisdictional or invalidate the assessment
proceeding, but there shall be no foreclosure or legal action to collect until notice has been given by
personal service upon the property owner, or, if personal service cannot be had, then by publication once
a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the city.
SECTION 13.20.090 Deficit Assessments or Refunds.
If the initial assessment has been made on the basis of estimated cost, and, upon completion of the work,
the cost is found to be greater than the estimated cost, the council may make a deficit assessment for the
additional cost, provided, however, the council may not make a deficit assessment for more than ten
percent of the initial assessment. Proposed assessments upon the respective lots within the special
improvement district for a proportionate share of the deficit shall be made, notices shall be sent,
opportunity for objections shall be given, any objections shall be considered, and a determination of the
assessment against each particular lot, block, or parcel of land shall be made in the same manner as in the
case ofthe initial assessment, and the deficit assessment shall be spread by resolution.
SECTION 13.20.100 Rebates and Credits.
If assessments have been made on the basis of estimated cost and upon completion of the improvement
project the cost is found to be less than the estimated cost, the council shall ascertain and declare the same
by resolution, and when so declared, the excess amounts shall be entered on the city lien record as a credit
upon the appropriate assessment. Thereafter, the person who paid the original assessment, or that
person's legal representative or successor, shall be entitled to repayment of the excess amount. If the
property owner has filed an application to pay the assessment by installment, the owner shall be entitled
to such refund only when such installments, together with interest thereon, are fully paid. If the property
owner has neither paid such assessment nor filed an application to pay in installments, the amount of the
refund shall be deducted from such assessment, and the remainder shall remain a lien on the property until
legally satisfied.
Page 5 of 10
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 13.20.110 Description of Real Property; Effect of Error In Name of Owner.
In levying, collecting and enforcing local assessments for local improvements, the following shall apply:
A. Real property may be described by giving the subdivision according to the United States survey
when coincident with the boundaries of the property, or by lots, blocks and addition or
subdivision names, or by metes and bounds or reference to the volume and page or document
number of any public record of Jackson County where the description may be found, or by
designation of tax lot number referring to a record kept by the Assessor of descriptions of real
property of Jackson County, which record shall constitute a public record, or in any other manner
as to cause the description to be capable of being made certain. Initial letters, abbreviations,
figures, fractions and exponents, to designate the township, range, section or part of a section,
where the number of any lot or block or part, or any distance, course, bearing or direction, may be
implied in any description of real property.
B. If the owner of any land is unknown, the land may be assessed to "unknown owner," or
"unknown owners." If the property is correctly described, no final assessment shall be
invalidated by a mistake in the name of the owner of the real property assessed or by the omission
of the name of the owner or the entry of a name other than that of the true owner. Where the
name of the true owner, or the owner of record, of a partial of real property is given, the final
assessment shall not be held invalid on account of any error or irregularity in the description if the
description would be sufficient in a deed of conveyance from the owner, or such that, in a suit to
enforce a contract to convey, employing such description a court of equity would hold it to be
good and sufficient.
C. Any description of real property that conforms substantially to the requirements of this section
shall be a sufficient description in all proceedings of assessment relating or leading to a final
assessment for a local improvement, foreclosure and sale of delinquent assessments, and in any
other proceeding related to or connected with levying, collecting and enforcing final assessment
for special benefits to the property.
SECTION 13.20.120 Lien Records and Foreclosure Proceedings.
A. Assessment Liens. After adoption of the assessment resolution by the council, the city recorder shall
enter in the city lien record and adopt a statement of the amount assessed upon each particular lot,
parcel of land or portion, together with a description of the improvement, the name of the owners, and
the date of the assessment resolution. The amounts entered in the lien record shall become a lien and
charge upon the respective lots, parcels of land or portions that have been assessed for such
improvement. All assessment liens of the city shall be superior and prior to all other interests, liens
and encumbrances on the assessed property insofar as the laws of the State of Oregon permit.
B. Interest, Interest shall be charged until paid on all amounts assessed but not paid within 20 days from
the date of the notice of assessment, at a rate to be determined by the council.
C. Foreclosure. After expiration of 20 days from the date of the notice of assessment, the city may
proceed to foreclose or enforce collection of the assessment liens in the manner provided by the
general law in the State of Oregon for the collection of such liens. The city may, at its option, bid the
amount of its lien for the property being offered at any foreclosure sale,
SECTION 13.20.130 Errors in Assessment Calculations.
Persons claiming errors in the calculation of assessments shall bring the alleged errors to the attention of
the city recorder. The city recorder shall determine whether there has been an error in fact. If the city
recorder finds that there has been an error in fact, the city recorder shall recommend to the council an
amendment to the assessment resolution to correct the error, Upon adoption of the correcting resolution,
Page 6 of 10
-------y-----
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
the city recorder shall cause the correction to be made in the city lien record and shall cause a corrected
notice of assessment to be sent by first class mail to the owners of all affected properties.
SECTION 13.20.140 Installment Payments of Assessments.
The Bancroft Bonding Act (ORS 223,205 to 223.295) shall apply to assessments levied in accordance
with this chapter, subject to the provisions of this chapter. Unless otherwise provided in a particular
assessment resolution, the owner of any property assessed for a local improvement in a sum of $100 or
more may, at any time within 20 days after the date of the assessment notice (or within such lesser time,
not to be less than ten days, as the council may from time to time establish), file with the city recorder a
written application to pay the whole of the assessment, or, if any part of the assessment has been paid, the
unpaid balance of the assessment, in 20 semi-annual installments, together with interest thereon at a rate
to be determined by the council, and an amount, to be determined by the council, sufficient to pay a
proportionate part of administering the bond assessment program and issuing the bonds. In addition, each
application shall state that the applicant waives all irregularities, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the
proceedings to cause the local improvement for which the final assessment is levied and in the
apportionment of the actual cost of the local improvement, and shall contain a description, by lots and
blocks, or other convenient method, of the property of the applicant assessed for the improvement.
SECTION 13.20.145 Deferral of Assessment Payments.
An owner may elect to defer payment of the amount of special assessment for a local improvement
assessed on potential units pursuant to this chapter. The election shall be made by filing a claim for
deferral with the city recorder. The effect of filing the claim shall be to defer payment of the amount of
special assessment for local improvement on potential units, Potential units are those lots identified as
such in the resolution fixing the final assessments for a local improvement district. Potential units are
determined by using the potential unit method which establishes the maximum number of potential units
on properties within a proposed local improvement district by taking into consideration the zoning,
densities, topography, transportation, utilities and such other factors as necessary to evaluate the
development potential of the properties. The claim for deferral shall be effective for the calendar year for
which it is filed and for each subsequent year until the occurrence of one or more of the events described
in this section.
A. In order to qualify for deferral of payment of special assessment for local improvement amounts
under this section, the owner must meet the following requirements at the time the claim for
deferral is filed and thereafter so long as payment of the amount of special assessment for local
improvement is deferred:
1. The owner filing the claim must own the fee simple estate or be purchasing the fee simple
estate under a recorded instrument of sale.
2, The property with respect to which the claim is filed must have an assessment levied upon it
for potential units, The deferment will only apply to the potential units, not lots or parcels
which exist as of the date final assessments are imposed,
B. A claim for deferral under this section shall be in writing on a form prescribed by the city
recorder and shall:
1. Describe the lot or parcel upon which the potential units exist.
2, Recite facts establishing the eligibility for the deferral under the provisions of this section.
3. Be verified by a written declaration of the applicant making the claim to the effect that the
statements contained in the claim are true,
4. Be filed within 30 days after notice of the assessment is received,
Page 7 of 10
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
C. The city recorder shall show by an entry in the assessment lien record which property specially
assessed is accorded deferral under this section.
D, Interest shall accrue on the amount of the deferred special assessment for local improvement at
the rate established in the resolution imposing final assessments,
E. The liens for deferred special assessment for local improvement shall have the same priority as
special assessment liens against real property,
F. All deferred special assessments for local improvement, including accrued interest, become
payable when:
1. The property with respect to which deferral of collection of special assessment for local
improvement is claimed is sold, or a contract to sell is entered into, or some person, other
than the owner who claimed the deferral or other than a surviving spouse of such owner who
elects to continue the deferral, becomes the owner of the property, The surviving spouse may
elect to continue the property in its deferred status if the election is filed in the same manner
as a claim for deferral is filed under section 13.20,145.8 within six months of the death of the
spouse who claimed the deferral. Thereupon, the property with respect to which the deferral
is claimed shall continue to be subject to special assessment deferral.
2. When any sale, contract to sell or any other transfer occurs and a surviving spouse does not
elect to continue the deferral, the amounts of deferred special assessment for local
improvement, including accrued interest, shall be due and payable on the sale or transfer
of the property.
3, If the amounts falling due as provided in this section are not paid on the indicated due date,
the amounts shall be deemed delinquent as of that date and the property shall become subject
to foreclosure.
(Ord 2837 S2, Added, 02/16/1999)
SECTION 13.20.150 Abandonment of Proceedings.
The council shall have full power and authority to abandon and rescind proceedings for local
improvements made under this chapter at any time prior to the final completion of such improvement. If
liens have been assessed upon any property under such procedure, they shall be canceled, and any
payments made on such assessments shall be refunded to the persons paying the same, their assigns or
successors,
SECTION 13.20.160 Manner of Doing Work.
Local improvements may be made in whole or in part by the city, by another governmental agency, by
contract, or by any combination of these. The city administrator, on behalf of the city, shall determine the
engineer for all work to be accepted by the city for public maintenance,
SECTION 13.20.170 Curative Provisions.
No improvement assessment shall be rendered invalid by reason of a failure to have all of the information
required to be in any engineer's or city recorder's report, the improvement resolution, the assessment
resolution, the lien docket or notices required to be published, mailed or posted; nor by the failure to list
the name of, or mail notice to, the owner of any property as required by this chapter; nor by reason of any
other error, mistake, delay, omission, irregularity, or other act, jurisdictional or otherwise, in any of the
proceedings or steps specified in this chapter, if such proceedings or steps were made in a good faith
Page 8 of 10
-------,----
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
effort to comply with the requirements of this chapter, unless it appears otherwise that the assessment is
unfair or unjust in its effect upon the person complaining, The council shall have the power and authority
to remedy and correct all such matters by suitable action and proceedings.
SECTION 13.20.180 Construction of Improvement: Bids.
A. Immediately after the effective date of the resolution establishing the local improvement district, the
engineer for the city shall cause necessary right-of-way and easements to be acquired and the
improvement to be made in accordance with the terms of the resolution if the work is to be performed
by the city or another governmental agency. If any part of the work of the improvement is to be done
under contract bids, the engineer for the city shall cause detailed plans and specifications to be
prepared and filed and notice calling for bids to be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the city not less than ten days prior to the opening of the bids,
B. The city administrator shall have the authority to sign all contracts on behalf of the city.
C. If the bid is more than ten percent above the engineer's estimate, the city administrator shall refer the
matter to the city council which may, in its discretion, provide for holding a special hearing to
consider objections to proceeding with the improvement on the basis of such bid.
SECTION 13.20.190 Reassessments.
A. Whenever all or part of any assessment for any local improvement has been or shall be declared void
or set aside for any reason or its enforcement refused by any court by reason of jurisdictional or other
defects in procedure, or whenever the council is in doubt as to the validity of all or any part of such
assessment, the council may make a new assessment or reassessment in the manner provided in ORS
223.405 through ORS 223.485, inclusive,
B. For purposes of this section, the term "assessment" includes deficit or supplemental assessments and
reassessments,
SECTION 13.20.200 Apportionment of Liens Upon Partition.
A. Whenever the ownership of any portion of a tract of real property less than the entire tract is or has
been transferred through partition or otherwise, any lien against said real property in favor of the city
shall, upon request of the owner, mortgagee or lien holder of any portion of the tract, be apportioned
as provided in this section and not otherwise; provided, that such transfer is in accordance with ORS
92.010 to 92.190, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance.
B. Applications for the apportionment of liens shall be made to the city recorder and shall be
accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the council. The application shall describe the tract
to be partitioned and the names of the owners of the respective tracts resulting from the partition, The
County Assessor shall furnish to the applicant a certificate showing the assessed valuation of the tract
prior to partition as of July 1 of the year in which the apportionment is requested, if available; or if
not available, as of July 1 of the preceding year.
C. The city recorder shall compute an apportionment of the lien against the real property upon the same
basis as the same was originally computed and apportioned. No apportionment shall be made unless
all parts of the original tract of land, taken together, after the apportionment will have a true cash
value as determined from the certificate of the assessor of at least the amount of the lien as to the
various tracts concerned.
D. Apportionment of a final assessment resulting from a partition under this section shall be done in
accordance with a resolution of the council. The resolution shall describe each parcel of real property
affected by the apportionment, the amount of the final assessment levied against each parcel, the
owner of each parcel and such additional information as is required to keep a permanent and complete
Page 9 of 10
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
record of the final assessments and payments. A copy of the resolution shall be delivered to the city
recorder for filing in the city lien docket.
E, No apportionment may be made under this section unless the deed, mortgage or other instrument
evidencing the applicant's interest in the parcel has been recorded by the County Clerk, or, if the same
has not been filed, the applicant files a true copy with the city recorder.
SECTION 13.20.210 Remedies I Rcyic\\' of Assessment.
Notwithstandinq any of the provisions of this ordinance or ORS 223.387 to 223.399. and
.gons~tent .with OBS 223.401....Qwners of any property against which an assessment lQr loca!
improvements has been imposed may seek a review thereof under the provisions of ORS
;}A.:_Q1QJ9_.~4~.1QQ~_...8l:lbjeet te theel:lrative previsieRsef this ehapteraRa the rights ef the" eity te reassess,
all ae-tieRs ef the eel:lReil takeR fH:lfSl:laRt te this ehapter are reviewable selely aRa eJtell:lsively by writ ef
reviey: iH aeeeraanee '.'/ith the flreeechues iR OR8 31.010 te 34.100.
SECTION 13.20.220 Severability.
Should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this chapter be declared for any reason to be invalid, it
is the intent of the city of Ashland that all other portions remain if effect. (Ord. 2705, 1993)
Page 10 of 10
/-------------------------------.-------------------------~,
i Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No '
! underline
'-___________._..__.._.__.._._________.___......__ .................. __n__.
1'_____._________________.._..___...______________________n__.______',
t.!~~~_i!~~_C!=-?~~~~~~~~~~~___._______________j
RESOLUTION NO. 99- O'f_
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
(LIDs) AND ESTABLISHING: THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN LIDs;
THE POTENTIAL UNIT METHOD TO DETERMINE ASSESSMENTS;
THE MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND
REQUIRED PROCESS TO INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOODS IN LID
PLANNING.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City Participation in LIDs.
A. Except as provided in paragraph B, the city shall contribute the following
amounts to reduce assessments in any local improvement district (LID) formed after
the date of this resolution to improve local streets serving a residential
neighborhood:
600k of the total costs for sidewalk improvements;
75% of the total costs for storm drain improvements;
20% of the total costs for street surface improvements; and
50%) of the total costs for engineering and administrative.
B. Unless the council so directs by further resolution, no contribution will be
made by the city under this section for LIDs formed after the date of this resolution if
the LI 0 improvements are required to be made by an owner or developer as a
condition of approval for a subdivision or partition.
SECTION 2. Potential Unit Method to Be Utilized. In determining the method to be
utilized for charging assessments against benefitted properties in LI Os formed after
the date of this resolution to improve local streets serving a residential
neighborhood, the potential unit method, rather than the frontage foot method, shall
be the preferred method. The potential unit method is that method which determines
the maximum number of potential units on properties within a proposed local
improvement district by taking into consideration the zoning, densities, topography,
transportation, utilities and such other factors as necessary to evaluate the
development potential of the properties. The planning department shall be
responsible for initially determining the potential units for each property within a
proposed LID.
SECTION 3. Maximum Assessment on Residential Properties.
A, The maximum amount any residentially zoned lot may be assessed as a
benefitted property within an LI D to improve local streets serving a residential
neighborhood and which is formed after the date of this resolution is $4,000 plus
$4,000 for each potential unit within such residentially zoned lot. This maximum
amount shall be increased to account for inflation annually on April 1 st based on the
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION
F:\U5ER\PAUL\ORD\lid reso n98.wpd
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR Index) for Seattle,
Washington. The current index is established at 5990.77.
B. There shall be no maximum amount, however, on lots owned by the city or
on lots where the LI D improvements are required to be made by an owner or
developer as a condition of approval for a subdivision or partition.
C. Prior to the adoption of the assessment resolution levying final
assessments as provided in AMC ~ 13.20.060.E:
1. Any owner may pay the estimated assessment on the lot and potential
units, plus ten percent, or
2. Any owner not subject to subsection B above, may pay the lesser of the
estimated assessment on the lot and potential units, plus ten percent, or the
maximum amount described in subsection A above.
Upon such payment, the assessment shall be deemed satisfied and the final
assessment resolution shall reflect that the assessment has been paid,
SECTION 4. Neighborhood Planning Process. Prior to the formation of an LID, city
staff shall notify the residents of the affected neighborhood of the possibility of the
LID formation. Residents shall be given the opportunity to comment and make
suggestions on initial street design and potential units. Minimum street standards
shall be maintained, however, unless the council by resolution specifically authorizes
specific changes for a particular project.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
A day of 1~ .1999.
S2~SS&::W
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this 3 day of
1~~
~~~
Catherine M, Shaw, Mayor
,1999.
J'a::J~f~ -
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 2-RESOLUTION
F:\USER\PAUL\ORD\lid reso n98.wpd