MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 3, 2006 at 5:15 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 East Main Street
Mayor John Morrison called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
Councilors Hardesty, Amarotico, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Jackson was absent.
I. Water and Wastewater System Development Charges Study
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report and the draft report submitted by consultant Shaun Pigott. He explained that the purpose of this study session was to afford the Council the opportunity to educate themselves on state requirements for setting System Development Charges (SDC's) and what approach should be taken.
Mr. Tuneberg explained that the reports provide history of SDC's for water and wastewater and the methodology for both systems. The last revision of SDC's was in 2000 where the methodology changed from fixture counts to a habitable square footage basis. He stated that a public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for April 18, 2006.
Mr. Pigott proceeded with a power point presentation on material that was submitted previously to the Council in the packet information. His presentation included the following tables:
|•||Reimbursement and Improvement Fee Methodology for Water and Sewer SDC's|
|•||Analysis of existing Meters and Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)|
|•||Habitable Square Footage for Estimate on Total Square Footage over Planning Period|
|•||Fixture Count Conversion from Meter Equivalents|
|•||Master Plan Population Growth Rate Forecast|
|•||Non-Residential Forecast of Fixture Units|
Further calculation on water and sewer SDC's for reimbursement and improvement fee derivations were provided. It was noted that the wastewater treatment plant is not included in the calculations due to how it relates to the Food & Beverage tax receipts.
In summary, based on 2,000 square feet for single family residence, water SDC's would be $4,341 and sewer SDC's would be $1,237. For non-single family residence water SDC's would be $4,116 and sewer SDC's would be $95.19 per fixture or $1,523 at 16 fixture units. Current water SDC's based on 2,000 square feet is $3,667 and sewer is $2,707.
Staff requested direction on methodology and the proposed SDC's. Mr. Pigott explained that the calculation does not include "held" water in hot tubs and swimming pools. He stated that through ordinance the City could provide for a demand cost associated with "held" water and would need to be based on a case-by-case scenario.
Further clarification was provided on how the reimbursement fee is calculated and how it relates to the Food & Beverage tax that is collected for the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Pigott feels that under the proposed methodology it is a fair calculation to rate payers. The calculations are based on existing conditions.
Mr. Pigott explained that the committee felt that Hostler Dam was built to serve existing customers at that time and because of this decided not to include it in the SDC calculations. He stated that the methodology being presented is fair and is understood and supported by the committee.
Staff reported that they would bring this back for a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance.
Councilor Hartzell suggested that: 1) the draft ordinance not accept the exclusion of the value of Hosler Dam, and 2) that CIP's include the financial assessment of staff cost for each project and that this be factored into SDC's starting in 2007. If the committee is going to convene annually, she suggested a change in its composition and requested that it be treated like the other City commissions and committee. Councilor Hartzell also requested that staff look at an assessment for SDC's on pools as an automatic calculation of additional SDC cost. She clarified for staff that she would like the draft ordinance brought forward in such a way that it contains information that provides Council with the pros and cons of these additional items being recommended.
II. Review of Boards and Commissions
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer presented the staff report. She explained that this report was identified in the 2005 Council Goal Setting.
Ms. Seltzer stated that over the years, inconsistencies in the various ordinances and resolutions establishing City commissions, committees and boards (CCB's) have been brought to the attention of Council. One of these inconsistencies includes Council liaisons as voting members on some commissions and not on others, or designates the Council liaison as the commission chairperson on some but not on others.
The establishment of each CCB developed differently, some by ordinance or resolution and each were developed based on a specific need at that time. Mr. Seltzer gave various examples. She also noted that there is concern that the growing demands placed on staff by some CCB's may not be an efficient use of staff time.
Ms. Seltzer provided several possible approaches in assessing CCB's using an objective, strategy and action. She also posed several questions that the Council could consider for discussion.
Council commented that it would be nice if there was uniformity on the CCB's, establish these by either resolution or ordinance, and that budgets be identified. It was suggested that surveys may or may not be helpful, that criteria be established for forming CCB's, that an evaluation of staff time be conducted, and for youth representatives to be identified. Comments were made in regards to inconsistency on the number of voting members for CCB's and request for further discussion on the structure of the Transportation Commission.
Formalization on the responsibility of the liaison was requested.
It was suggested that Council be allowed to further study the information provided and talk to various committee members and liaisons for further discussion at another council meeting. Councilor Hartzell suggested forming a small work group amongst the Council and staff. Councilor Hartzell and Hardesty agreed to work on this sub-committee.
Tree Commissioner Bryan Holley spoke in regards to citizen participation in the public process and the need to honor the volunteer work that has been done on behalf of the City as they move forward. He commented briefly on: staff time, goals, council liaison activity, consistency, and public records and public meetings law training; and shared an experience with a previous staff member who had suggested the Tree Commission vote on a planning action when it was not their practice to do so.
Meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder