ASHLAND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) REVIEW COMMITTEE

MINUTES

October 7, 2014

 

CALL TO ORDER: Carlos Reichenshammer called the meeting to order at 1:29 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way.
 
Committee Members Present: Russ Silbiger, Carlos Reichenshammer, Allen Douma, Dan Jovick, Jac Nickels (non participating due to having a project on the SDC list) 
Committee Members Absent: Troy Brown Jr.
Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Tami De Mille-Campos
Consultant Present via phone: Ray Bartlett (Financial Analyst)
Council Liaison Present: Rich Rosenthal
 
TRANSPORTATION SDC
Douma asked about the memo dated 10/6/14. He thinks there may be a mistake in the calculations shown. The cost basis on both of the lines is almost equal to each other but the calculated SDC is quite a bit different between the two. It is also missing the current cost basis. Bartlett stated he will go through the calculations and make sure everything is calculating correctly. There were several projects listed at 100% when calculating the $2,455 SDC. The last time we looked at this list the SDC was actually $2,196 which is almost the same as the SDC being proposed. He stated he will go back through and verify these numbers.
 
Faught pointed out that since the committee last visited the SDC list in March he went through the list of projects and asked himself if each of them could arguably be completed within the next 20 years. He proposed eliminating some of the projects and then that list was taken to the Transportation Commission for their approval. The Transportation Commission approved the list at the September meeting. The projects are still active projects in the Transportation System Plan (TSP); they have just been eliminated from the SDC list. Also, project R17 has been updated to reflect the accurate estimated project cost. He then went down the list of excluded projects.
 
Douma asked what the role of the SDC committee is. Faught stated he is looking for Douma and Silbiger to be representative of those that have to pay the SDC fees and then Reichenshammer and Jovick represent the opposite side. As a developer they get to collect the listed SDC as a reimbursement. The SDC’s haven’t been adjusted since 2006. Given that, he asked the committee to consider if a 7.2% increase is justifiable. Faught stated you generally update your master plan first and then you update the SDC. Silbiger added staff is to present a set of projects that they think will have a reasonable chance of being built and then their job is to determine if the set of projects and associated percentage allocated to growth is reasonable. Douma said it kind of feels like the numbers are etched in stone before it even comes to the SDC committee. Silbiger answered that isn’t really the case because when they first met the numbers were much higher and changes have been made, so the committee effected the change.
 
Molnar stated the committee could also look at the percentage allocated to growth & recommend changes. He feels there are a few projects that are more developer driven. He is concerned with the projects listed at 100% SDC eligible. The committee went down the list of the 100% projects and Faught/Molnar agreed to meet up after the meeting to further discuss them and recommend any further changes to the SDC list. Ray noted if they make changes, it will lower the total proposed SDC.
 
Douma asked if they have the total current cost basis available for comparison. It is not immediately available but staff will try to locate the information.
 
Next meeting date will be determined and emailed to the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:14 pm
Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant