Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/04/1977 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA APRIL 4, 1977, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 1. ROLL CALL 2. DISCUSSION - Systems Development Charges 3. UNCLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION 4. DISCUSSION - Procedures for Conduct of Meetings 5. OTHER Note Park Board Meeting date changes Tuesday, April 5th, 7:30 P.M. - City Hall Thursday, April 14th, 7:30 P.M. - City Hall (tentative) Tuesday, April 26th, 7:30 P.M. - City Hall TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 1977, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH LECTURE ROOM 1. ROLL CALL: Present.: Mayor Wilbur A. Bishop; Councilmen John E. Cook, Alan W. Mickelson, Lynn R. Wakem; J. D. Bailey, Legal Counsel; Richard Bolen, Planning Di e ctor; Bruce P. Claris, City Adminisrator; Doris Hartig, City Recorder; Arline O'Leary, Administrative Aide 2• Mayor Bishop informed audience of new procedures requiring persons desiring to speak at Council meetings to register on sign up sheets which will be provided by city staff. 3. SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Discussion (a) City Administrator reviewed last two discussions on proposed charge. Administrator requested additional discussion on what projects funds will be specifically set aside for and clarification of "extra capacity streets (b) Mayor stated members from Metropolitan Home Builders Association, Planning Commission and the Park Board were present to participate in discussion. (c) The following persons offered input regarding the systems development charges: Robert McDouga.ld, Metropolitan Home Builders Association Joe Lipscomb, Developer. William McMonagle:, McMonagle & Associates J. A. Paterson, Realtor and Developer Mark Woods, Planning Commission Alan Popp, Planning Commission Dave Oringdulph, Metropolitan Home Builders Association Fred Cooper, Park Board Dale DeHarpport, Developer (d) Discussion by Council, staff and audience regarding; (1) potential in- flationary results of charge; (2) new home owners footing total cost; (3) evaluating need for fee; (4) distribution of funds; (5) effect of cost of off-site improvement requirements; (6) political aspects; (7) effects of new housing policies on cost cuts for the builders; (8) to include Park Develop- ment Charge; and (9) system to be used to arrive at charge. (e) Mayor stated Washington County was presently preparing an ordinance to implement system development charge. Mayor further stated charge was only part of a package which included a real estate transfer fee and going to the voters with proposed serial levy. Oringdulph urged Council to consider going to the voters with entire package rather than just the serial levy. RECESSED 9:35 P.M. RECONVENED 9:40 P.M. (f) Discussion by Council and staff regarding inclusion of Parks and bicycle/ pedestrian pathway development fee. Planning Director suggested consideration of what all types of development cost exist. Council further discussed need to compare development cost of parks and roads; possibility of Planning Commission and Park Board preparing economic impact statement; necessity of acting on real estate transfer fee and serial levy as soon as possible. (g) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PROPOSED ORDINANCE (1) Planning Director stressed the need for funds to be expended according to a plan. (2) Section 3 - Charge Council discussed method of setting fee and consensus was fee to be based on value of development - mobil home fee to be set at $150 per pad. (3) Section 4 - Collection To be rewritrrn. by City Administrator; to allow fee to be paid when occupancy permit is issued. (4) Section 5 - Exemption Council concurred to eliminate A and B of number 3 and replace with direct fee based upon value. (5) Section 6 Segregation and Use of Revenues Council concurred to add to the 4th line "Charge for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and welfare by imposing costs of extra capacity street facilities upon properties which create need for facilities, and. .. . . . . . . . . . .." and add to the 5th line "and bicycle/pede-strian pathway when part of street facility.. .... . . ." (6) City Recorder advised Council an account would need to be designated by name to handle funds, (7) Staff to have new draft of ordinance for Council's consideration at next regular meeting April 11, 1977. 4. PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT OF MEETINGS - Discussion (a) Councilman. Mickeison suggested a sign be prepared to post at meetings, explaining the need to sign in if desiring to speak or testify at meetings. (b) Motion by Ccuncil.r--an Mickelson, seconded by Councilman Wakem to adopt procedures as presented in City Administrator's memo. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. UNCLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION (a) Councilman Cook distributed results of polling Councilmen for their salary recommendations. Council discussed results of poll, City Administrator's recommendation and survey of salaries in other cities. Motion by Councilman Cook; seconded by Councilman Mickelson to adopt the following salaries: Building Official $15,000 Director of Public Works $21,000 Planning Director $20,000 Program Coordinator $15,000 Associate Planner $16,000 Head Librarian $13,700 Chief of Police $21,000 Finance Director $21,500 Police Lt. $18,000 Accountant $14,450 Eng. Tech. III $16,700 City Administrator $25,000 PAGE 2 - STUDY SESSION MINUTES, APRIL 4, 1977 i Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. OTHER: (a) Citv Administrator called attention to change of Park Board meeting dates. (b) Mayor urged Council to attend meeting of Washington County elected officials, Thursday, April 14, 1977, General Motors Training Center. - (c) City Administrator notified Council of scheduled budget meeting April 12, 1977, 7:30 P.M. at Fowler Junior High School. (d) Council and staff discussed status of State Revenue Sharing bill. City Administrator urged Council and other interested parities to contact State Legislature. 7. -Meeting adjourned 11:35 P.M. ATTEST: City Recorder Mayor T- PAGE 3 - STUDY SESSION MINUTES, APRIL 4, 1977 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the fn?lowing item: (please print or write clearly) Item description: PROPONENT (for) OPPONENT (against Name, address and affiliation Name, address and affiliation CITY OF TIGARD F. 0. Boz 23557 12420 S. W. Main Hamm Tigard. Oregon 97223 March 31, 1977 Wilbur Bishop, Mayor City of Tigard 12420 S .W. Alain Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Wilbur, At a special hearing held this Tuesday, the Planning Commission considered a plan for Open Space and Park Development in Tigard. Aside from a few minor changes, the Planning Commission is sending the policies portion of this document onto the City Council with an affirmative recommendation. However, the Commission has chosen to spend additional time considering the implementation reconvnendations of this plan and one policy (n16) , both of which propose a Systems Development Charge a portion of the funds needed for future park land acquisition and development . The Commission 's decision to give the subject Of Systems Development Charges further consideration should not be construed by the members of Council as a rejection of the concept of exacting such charges but rather a desire to ex- plore and publicly discuss the various potentials and ramifications of this type of fee. In particular, the Commission has been pre— sented a memorandum by Commissioner Alarc Wood which raises several questions concerning fees which are applied exclusively to new development. While the Commission feels that the issues identified by Mr. Wood do not invalidate the imposition of such charges they do feel these issues raise pertinent concerns which any financing system of this type must squarely- address. The Planning Commission discussion of this issue Tuesday night resulted in their request that the matter of System Development Charges be discussed in a study session where the members of the Council, Planning Commission and Park Board could exchange views on this subject . Dick Bolen has informed me that the Council will be discussing the Systems Charge proposed for street improvement at their April 4 study session. Because I do not have time between now and that meeting to discuss the appropriate time and place for the meeting proposed by the Planning Commission, I am taking t , of requesting the members of the Planning Commission and Park Board bertt to attend the Monday night Council study session to take part in the discussion. I am confident that this meeting will be productive and it will benefit the form that your proposed street improvement financ- ing plan will eventually take. { I Wilbur Bishop i!larch 31 , ].977 Page 2 T cr,.pliment your efforts in proposing a comprei�ensive pro- gram which has the potential of coming to grips with Tigard'-- street problems and mayself and my colleagues are looking forward to assisting you and the Council accomplish in these worthwhile objectives. Sincerely, Allan Popp, Chairman Tigard Planning Commission AP:sf r"y g 197$ CITY OF TICARD o. AA Policy and ®ts e mss®®ee5 Mqt►a ora WALM ®,®®M(LaJ��g_ Practice April 1975 No. 35 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IN OREGON CITIES Development of new residential, commercial and industrial properties ob- viously requires extension of new streets, sewers, water lines and other urban public facilities to serve the property being developed. It is perhaps slightly less obvious` that new development also creates addition- al demands upon existing urban facility systems. Additional traffic is generated through the street system and additional demands are placed up- on water intake and transmission systems, sewage interceptor and treatment facilities, and other in-place urban systems. Much' of the cost of service extensions to or in the immediate vicinity of newly developed properties are usually paid by the developers or purchas- ers of the property involved through local assessments and connection charges or by direct financing by the developer. Until recently, however, few cities have required new developments to •"buy into" existing general service systems. Rather, upon completion of development, they have merely been added to 'the general pool of taxpayers and service charge payers -- thus "assuming a share of responsibility for the cost of future additions to the general systems, but making no immediate investment for the use of existing systems. This report discusses recent ordinances of a few Oregon cities which impose "systems development charges"1 upon the developers of new proper- ties.2 The city ordinances reviewed are those of Corvallis, Dallas, Jack- sonville, LaGrande, Newport, Philomath and Stayton. The Corvallis ordi- nance was the first to be developed and it has served as a model for other cities. I.—Several cities in California ama a few in Oregon have adopted an"annexation charge." The major difference between annexation and systems development.charges is that the development charge is levied,against either existing city territory or newly annexed area at the time it is developed, v&ereas;the.anaicn charge applies to land area--developed or not--at the time it is annexed to a, city. 2. The systems development charges adopted in Oregon appear to have been designed primarily to securecity revenue, rather than to discourage, guide or control the location of new develop- menta r. - SDC's Distinguished from other Charges In general, systems development charges are levied inaddition to other charges commonly associated with street, sewer and water systems such as connection charges, special assessments or user fees which help to defray the cost of improvements: The initial expense in p providing extra capacity OEM o,. to ,oast future demar_ds e a system'usually is financed from various reve- nue sources with the specific combination of sources varying from city to city." Connection Charges.--A connection charge may have the same purpose and effect as a systems development charge in that the initial connection charge for sewer or water hookups may be high enough to provide revenue over and above the actual cost of hookup and inspection, and this revenue may be utilized for extra capacity systems development. Recent Bureau studies have-in fact observed a general trend in 'the direction of raising ; ,waterrand "sewer 'connection charges to levels. which will reimburse citiesJor' previous general system expenditures. However, most cities still limit the chargeso amounts necessary to pay for the immediate service connection itself. Special Assessment Financing --The most common method of spreading the cost of street projects, sewer laterals, and other systems improvement is by special assessments against directly benefited land. If the benefited land is ,in a new subdivision, the subdivider-may be required to install it as a condition of subdivision approval"a requirement having the same effect as. a special assessment. User Fees.--Serer and .water'user fees may be sufficient to permit earmark- ing of part of the revenue derived from this source for future systems improvement. 'As with the connection charge; user fees help to spread the coat of expanding existing systems to serve ;both present and future users. A systems development charge is simply another method of distributing some of the cost of facilities among benefited properties. The principal difference is that the charge is made at :the time building-construction begins. Computation of Systems'Development Charges Although the rates and combinations of charges may vary from city to city, the most common formula is that utilized in Corvallis. The charges - are based on a combination of location, :land area, building size and build- ing construction cost Under the Corvallis formula, three separate fees ,are calculated:in'determining the "total systems development charge: a systems building fee, a systems structure fee', and a systems area fee. 1; 'S,jee`Burean of Governwntal-Research and Servicaj:Policy and Practice No..32 Ganges in Water Service end CcMection Charges Oregon Cities and Water Districts as reported in 1974, and No. 33,Qanges in Sewer Service ani Co-mectiea Charges for Oreacm Cities, Sanitary Districts mrd Conety Service Districts as reported in 19749 -2- The formula and 'the amount-of ;the charges in Corvallis are described 67 below: Systems Building Fee.--An amount equal to the building permit fee current at the time of computation. The .charge increases as the estimated cost of constructing the building which will occupy the e� property increases (in the same manner as a building permit fee). Systems Structure Fee: A fee based on the square footage of the building. = The minimum charge is $300 for any building not exceed- ing 1;800 'square feet in size.` Additional charges- are computed on the basis of .17• cents per square foot over 1,800 square feet. Systems Ar6a Fee: This fee,is based on land area and property elevation with charges determined separately for streets, sewers and water systems. Both street and sewer charges are calculated on the basis of one-half cent per square foot of land area. The water charge is levied according to the land elevation with the charge increasing in relation to the increased cost of. pumping water to a' higher elevation. All property in and around the city is classified in one of four different levels. The charge for level one is one cent per square foot of land area; 3evel two, 1.5 cents; level three, 2 1/4 'cents; and level four, 2 3/4 cents. Another. formula'for a systems development charge is illustrated by the Dallas ordinance.' The city of Dallas utilizes a flat rate method, charg- ing $400 for a single family residence; $200 for each living unit over one in a duplex or apartment house; $150 for Each mobile home court space; and $10 for each hundred square feet of a commercial or industrial build- ing. In Newport, the charge is based on the number and type'of plumbing 'fixtures, with fixture unit values being those specified in the state build- ing regulations. Time and Method of Payment Charges are generally due and payable prior to issuance ofa building per- mit or connection to the water and sewer systems. If water and sewer 'service are not.available when the property is :developed, charges.related to these-fadilities are deferred until-the services become available but •s.must 'be paid prior-to connection to the system. Five of the cities studie permit deferral-of payment by'allowing for payment over a ten-year. period. Three of the five cities allow.a three per cent discount for payment In full when the charges are levied. When a developer is building a house or housing project, deferral of pay- ment will avoid having the systems development charges become an immediate cash requirement during .coastruction, but any payments deferred constitute a_.li'en againsV.the:.property to be cleared at..the time of sale. A developer 1. The usual practice is;to provide for,twm�ty,semi-a=nt installm=ts with interest at neva n to ten'per oent. _ -3- MEN will include the-costs !involved when determining the selling,price of the property. For a.:consumer-4�iilder;, deferral of systems development charges can re- place::other. financing. sources Exemptions and Differentials Most :of+ the caries ithaV impose 'systems..development charges allow some speciate..considerations in:aevying the charges against certain types of propertyr For--iexample,l five of the-cities studied exempt additions or alterations to existing properties if the addition or alteration does not constitute,an: additional living unit.l ,One city,exempts alterations which do not' include -plumbing fixtures or do not increase parking requirements. Anothdr city exempts .alterations which do not increase habitable space. Two cities -levy a lesser -charge,-on mobile homes than on conventional homes. In cities where the systems development charge is based in part on build- ing size; warehousea.may be allowed a partial exemption. . In Corvallis, Jacksonville" and,La-.Grande, -building area in- excess of 5,000 square feet is exempt.-° Generally, the partial exemption allowed warehouses is in recognition .of the fact that they place ;no;undue burden on water and sewer systems. 'Stayton, -for example, allows some exemption for warehouses that are not connected to the water and sewer systems. In La Grande, industrial.buildifig'.,area in excess of 5,000 square feet is exempt provided water used and .sesaage 'discharged do not exceed 10,000 gallons per day. Use bfSDC Revenues Revenues'.derived from systems. development charges are generally regated from other city funds and utilized in various ways by individuals cities. The ordinances of some cities simply state how the revenues will be utilized in a general statement of purpose and provide for grouping the funds into one account for all systems development purposes. Other city ordinances go into detail as to the purpose of the sources of revenue and categorically allocate portions of£'the.<funds into separate-accounts. sFecifiLc*percentages of total revenue from eystems• developm+ent charges are sometinie's. •reserved ,for :extra capacity facilities necessitated by new ! development; 'Most .cities utilize such-reserves for: street,-sewer, and-water facilities',only, :but;-3n::s'bme=cities the 7_fsinds are used for!other purposes including'.storm'drains,' cemeteries and parks. _ Imtsact of the Sys tema 'nevelopment Charge< t s r As presently constituted, `systems develo .` ' coder all: extra• ca acct pmentcharges`are- -not intended to capacity systems rdevelepmeht,_costs,;•.but-rather are viewed 1. "�1'Iiviag urii£`zg"ciePiried as`coonsstiing o4'at ieasti'`a ldt clan, be3roem and batFirooti 0 as one of several sources of revenue available to cities to aid in financ- ing extensions of services. In areas. of rapid growth and resulting sub- stantial demand for municipal services, systems development charges provide a substantial fund for future capital improvements and thereby ease the tax and -azar charge burdens to-Vied on existing properties_ gn areas or slower, � more stable growth, less revenue would be produced but it would offset a proportionate share of costs for the basic system otherwise paid from taxes or user charges. While not a complete solution to the problem of financing expansion of city services, experience to date in cities that have imposed systems development charges appears generally satisfactory. As with such other charges as special assessments, developer-financed improvements, and con- nection charges, the systems development charge becomes a part of the build- ing project cost and could influence the property sales price. Systems development charge provisions in selected cities in Oregon are presented in the accompanying table. Sample SDC ordinances are provided in Appendix A, and an example of a work sheet used to determine systems development charges is included as Appendix B. t —5 N N • .2 m 1 y ti NJ7 � yd v�� rl .0•S .mss -� -i>'+a � t1 R r•1 •�4"� �_ ' .� U) P4 w W N+. � � i� S•d G P N W ++ q H n�i fn H r-�i N d4..6H po �s 1p� a yp. •N V G7 GO N} p � N AH N�yU riF'i H'F'"1 vvV G��y :v .N 41.+a.Ga m o b: � w N u vj •♦� � N.rl fa � � ? 47 � �� to ',I q�7 4114 �i iJ u.•� W • ,,.� • �i++ d In d N g H d w 4. N N W'Z p+ p C y� N-V O r•1 �+ d w N 01•ipi d N W+� •© �_ �lH • S O N N q U O •rF�7' O vl.O• nH� ��r-1 r-1 r-G N y � w'H, m �'ia�•}�?.0 +p��N CC) $V t•�i W 4' ci+�."� F�.rNi.ki k�/ C'r�1 nOj n�i O $ `.'� +' •t7 7 .-/ @G7 N k+ -y iC6}�P k Ng} �.im 5w � 8m • m9 CH fn v 60 m a+ m N N m �d U �f Go.14 O N p' P O w.bi O 0t� N CC Pr .i.-f oyf W m a�D w � it d • W C.sa - O O N m m O m .� C01..� O W m ~� U Q3� �� qm �j.�' - .... O�.d o ¢�i • e,pG ., �� ..� U �W J O � III-Emit-so-ol •H) to PERM 14 m �• 41 w � m H : rrm� m��Q❑y v of -V94{O�4i aFif 'd ri y"V $ pggp id 0144 -lo. T Nip. ►9 la W W0 T4 W ro 0 d v A 0 y p�4 . ..Ni �i.14 �+ P O Hip P'o N? N 6 . 0 S.., � ID � q� 0 'N .V N t .r/ A V rl p0 W r N '•' ,, ❑ N q 7 N .14 P4 h tia m� N H O ID Fi t(dj� a�iQQ}� •� �•© A A N44 cr • N = �O •i 44 4-4 d CfJy • 6 ++a N N m ya �� rl 7� N O • � � ,.� .,,q to ' " ►7 H V3 m flnmo 41 � � ' .� U � ri C4 ca a ' -8— APPENDIX A SAMPLE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT cw.RGE O^.Da-MANiCES I. Jacksonville Ordinance No. 176' AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IN THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE. Section 1. Piirpose. The city council of the city of Jacksonville has determined that it is reasonable and in the public interest to enact, and impose, a Systems Development Charge for the purpose of recovering a fair'share of the rost ofadditional capacity street, sewer and water facilities from thise properties which, as part of their development and use, create needs for those facilities. The' Council finds that the pub- lic would benefit from a logical long--range approach to the financing of necessary central facilities. Experience has demonstrated that the lack of such provision casts an unfair and unexpected burden on taxpayers and residents in the form of taxes, bond interest costs and assessments when core or central facilities become inadequate causing a crisis. Operating from crisis to crisis is wasteful; unsafe and no longer •an acceptable method of local government; and debt financing should be minimized where- ever possible. The System Development Charge herein prescribed is de- signed and calculated to be of such amount as will eventually create reasonable reserves to pay the public's fair share of basic and essen- tial service facilities as the needs arise. Section 2. Definitions. As used in this ordinance,' unless the con- text otherwise requires: Building area means the gross floor area of a building, or. the land area occupied by a structure other than a building; as the terms "building," and "structure" are defined in the Uniform Building Code, 1970 edition. Additional capacity facilities are public facilities, or the capa- city provided for therein, which include, but are not limited to: For water: participation in water mains over 4 inches in diameter; water pump stations; wate.r, reservoirs; and all additions to, or expan- sions of the city's water treatment and distribution system, except service laterals 4`.inches or less in diameter. For sewers: participation in se*aer mains over 6 inches in diameter; public storm"drains; sewerage lift stations and all expansions or addi- tions to the sewage and sewerage collection and treatment system except service laterals 4 inches in diameter. For streets:_ signalization; channelization; participation in arterial, collector and over width streets; street widening and right-of-way acquisition: • This oaiinm=e is snbstantiai3y the same as the Corvallis onii=mcs kept for certain special geographic cmditi=s• —9 First level, second level, third level, fourth level areas, respect- ively, mean an area of, the city situated within a particular range of surface elevation's, so Classified In accordance with the differing and substantial additional pumping and storage facilities necessary in order to provide adequate mater service (as defined by state lww) for such range of elevations. The said areas, so classified, are portrayed on a map of the city 6hich is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof for,all purposes. . Land area means all surface area of any parcel, including building area,- excepting any portion-of the parcel within a recorded right-of-way or.. easement.for public street or alley. Parcel of land, or "parcel" means a platted lot or any other tract of land which is .or may be lawfully occupied by a structure or structures or other uses including the yards and other open spaces required under the.zoning ordinance or. reasonably attributable to an existing or pro- posed use. f Section.3..... Systems Development Charge Imposed; Rates; Review. (1) _ A System Development Charge is imposed upon all parcels of land in the city, except those parcels exempted under this ordinance at the following rates: Systems Building Fee An amount equal to the building permit fee current at the time of computation.. Systems Connection Fee $300 for.the First 1,800 square feet of building area plus 17 cents per square foot of building.area in excess of 1,800 square feet. The minimum charge shall be $300. Systems Area Fee' Streets: . i/2,cent per,square foot of land area; Sewers: 1/2 cent per square foot of land area; *Waters; First level l cent per square foot of .land area; Second level 1 1/2 cents .per square foot of land area; Third level 2-1/4 cents per square foot of land area; .Fourth: level...2-3/4 cents per square, foot of"land area. * As part„of a water system,improvement plan, the city was 'divided into four levels requiriLng different reservoir storage Lelevation First level, 1,480 to 1,595 ft. elevation; second level, 1,595 to 1,710 feet; third level, 1,710 to 1,825 feet; and.fourth level,' above 1,825 feet. (See Sec. 2, "Definitions.") gj Systems Area Fee for large parcels shall"be computed at the maxi- mum of 10,000 square feet, balance of any such parcel shall be charged as when it is further partitioned. Sect-! !• Due Date and Collectio:z. (1) The Systems Development Charge is immediately due and payable upon, and concurrently with,- the issuance of a valid building permit or of a valid permit for connection *to the sewer or water system of the city, whichever occurs first. If the full Systems Development Charge is paid in cash at the time of application for a building permit or at the time of application for a connection, whichever occurs first, the net Systems Development Charge will be discounted three (3) percent. If building construction is commenced, or a connection is made to the sewer or water system, without the permit prescribed by ordinance, the Systems Development Charge on the parcel is immediately due and payable as of the earliest date that any such permit was required under the applicable ordinance. The city administrator shall collect the Systems Development Charge before issuing any building permit or before permitting any con- nection to the water or sewer system of the city, and shall decline to issue such permit or to permit such connection until that charge has been paid in full. Menever the full and correct Systems Development Charge has not been paid or collected for any reason, the city adminis- trator shall report to the council the amount of the uncollected charge, the description of the real property to which the charge is attributable, the date upon which the charge was due, and the name or names of the owner or owners according to the records of the Jackson County Tax Assessor and of the purchaser or, purchasers under a recorded sales agree- ment of the described land if such purchaser is in possession or is dis- closed by the tax assessor's public records. The city council by motion shall then set a public hearing and direct the city administrator to give notice of that hearing to each such o-aner or contract purchaser, together with a'copy of the administrator's report concerning the unpaid charge, said notice to'be mailed by certified mail to the address for said parcel appearing on the assessor's records at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Upon public hearing, the council may accept, reject or modify the administrator's report and, if it finds that any charge is unpaid and uncollected, the council, by motion, may direct the city recorder to docket the unpaid and uncollected charge in his record of liens and upon completion of the docketing the city shall have a lien against the des- cribed land for the full amount of unpaid charge, interest and the city's actual costs of serving notice upon the owners or contract purchasers. That lien shall be enforced in the manner provided in ORS Chapter 223. " (2) ' Whenever a Systema Development Charge of $100 or more would otherwise be due''and collectible, the owner or owners of the parcel of land shall have the right to apply, upon for, provided by thecity, for the voluntary imposition upon the parcel of a lien for the full amount of the Systems Development Charge and the payment of that lien in twenty (20) semi-annual installments plus interest at eight (8) percent per annum on unpaid b4l.ences, over a period of ten (10) years from the due date. The burden of showing the identity of the owner or owners of -11- record. or of the parcel shall be upon the applicant. In the application, the`owner 'shall expressly_waive any, claim concerning the validity'of the said Ohara its correctness and any defect, jurisdiction,• or otherwise, in the proceeding for the imposition of the lien. Upon receipt of such ® an application the City Administrator shall compute the amountof the Systems Development Charge and shall report to the City Recorder the amount of the.Systems Development•Charge, the date upon :,-._i.... - charge +is due, the name or names.of the owner or owners of record or the purchaser or.,purchasers or record,. and the description of the property, and upon receiving that report the city recorder shall docket the lien in his docket :of liens, .and from the time that docketinc is' completed , the city-shall have a lien upon: that .described land for .the amount of the charge.and interest upon that charge at the rate of ten (10) percent per annum, which interest shall be the full and only compensation to the city for its administrative costs. The lien shall be enforced in the man- ner provided in ORS Chapter 223. Section 5. Exemptions. (1) Full exemption_. Any parcel of land which on the effective date ofthis ordinance has established use: ­(a) of streets by an existing structure or a valid building permit isdiued for the property; and (b) of water by an existing connection to the city water system or a water -tap order issued for .the property; and. (c) of sewers by an existing connection to the city sewer system or a,valid sewer connection permit issued for the property on or before the effective-date of this ordinance, is exempt from the Systems Devulopment Charge to the extent of the structure then existing on the land or covered by the building perrdt issued for the land on or before the effective date of the ordinance and.to the extent of the parcel of land-under single ownership and without further improvement, as it is constituted on that date. i, ..(2) Temporary exemption. Any parcel of land located within the city on the.effective date of this ordinance, for which a valid and com- plete building permit was issued and .for which both a valid water tap order'and sewer connection permit are -issued before the effective date of• this•ordinance shall be exempt from Systems Development:Charge to the -extent of the.structure covered by that building permit and the land as it was constituted on the effective date of this ordinance. Issuance of the water tap orders and sewer connection permits are subject to the availability of.the respective services under current city policy, and, thus, in•no case is it intended-that this ordinance alter limitations or requirements-otberwise imposed Jor issuance of these tap orders or connection perrAts. :;By this exemption. it intended to allow any structure.under:coastruction and having valid pertgits. to be completed without any-additional cost-for Systems;Development Chaige. In addition, any such existing structure which has not.previously.:hooked up to-avail? able water,or sewer-mains may do.so within thirty _(30), flays without -12=-- b payment of the Systems Development Charge, if 'and io the extent that such connectiona?are-available:within :that time. After the thirty-' day period that portion of the Systems 'Development Charge consisting of the Systems' Connection Fee and the Systems Area Fee, proportioned to the services` t(> which' connection is subsequently made, shall be- come` due 'and payable, on issuance of the subject permits. l3) systems Area nxemvtion. Any pi=eel of mind now located -with- in the Citi .Viewer Assbs am--nt Area-, is e::empt from the Systems Area Fee portioii 'of; the' Systems Development Charge. (4) Exemption' for Certain Additions and Alterations. Alterations which do'not increase the floor space of a structure or= it Section 6. _ „ S�►stems Develop©ent Charge Applicable to Properties exempt :from buildink permit. . A. parcel of land that is exempt from applying;fo;r;,or.�;paying ,a, fee, for a:building permit is,not,, thereby exempt, from paying_Any part; of.. .Systems DPvelopment� Charge, •, Prior, to the commencement of any construction upon such a ;parcel the ,owner or;builder shall notify the city than such construction is imminent. The City Admin- istra_ox,st�.a11 thereupon,. or--as--.800n,as he otherwise learns that construe- MRW riv»=wee _., 4;"cuiate; cne.. which shall become i ee Systems Development, Charge, if any, mm.diat2ly due-and payable; but the.owner may apply to subject the property to a city lien and to pay that lien in install- ments. as, otherwise.,provided in this ordinance.. No connection to the sewer-;or :water.jacilit3es:oft the city,may be.made"unless the appropriate Systems,Development;;, harge has been :paid or-the lien and installment payment.method ;has -,been..:app:. ed r.for.:. Sectian, .Segre i tion and Use of Revenues. All .funds derived from the, Syptems,Development Charge .are to be segregated by accounting practices:,-from- all'.;other funds,.of:,the' ,.city, and, that portion of the Systems.Development,'Charge, calculated and collected on account of street facilities shall•,b'e used for-no purpose other than-for additional capacity street facilities;.-that,portion of.,the .,Systems Development Charge calcu- lated and collected on account of sewers shall be used for no other pur- pose;.thanjor_;additional capacity sewerage facilities; and that portion Of the:--Systems Development Charge calculated and collected, on account of water,'shall+be used. for,no other purpose .than for additional capacity water' facilities;; for. the residents andinhabitants of Jacksonville. Funds collected under the, Systema Building Fee portion of the , Systems-Development Charge are to be-segregated on the..basis of twenty- five (25) percent each for sewers and streets and fifty (50) percent; water.:°.:Funds collected under. the Systems,Connection Fee.portion of. the Systems:,Development Charge.are to be segregated on the basis of taenty- five (25) percent each for sewers and streets and fifty (50), percent water. Funds collected under the Systems Area Fee are to be segregated on the,.basis..for which!the.charge,was made as outlined- in.Section 3(1) of this, ordinance..+:, Section 8,, i-A gals: Any person who, is aggrieved,by- any decision required i to'-be made:by.,the City Administrator, under this,ordinance may . appeal,.thar decision to the�City Council by filing- a written request. with the city recorder within 10 days after said decision, describing with particularity the decision of the City Administrator from which the Person,-appeals-.r,-„The; council -shall~at ,its next regular meeting hear and-.consider,the appeal. 14, detiermining the appeal, the Council shall determine whether-:the Ci „ ty Administrator's decision isocorrect and may:affirm,-.,modify, extend.,or overrule-.that decision. (1) Scope. The Systems Development Charge provided in this o=din-_ ance is separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, charge or fee otherwise provided by law. 1'w (2) Construction: The rules of statutory construction provided �- in ORS 174.010-174.110 are adopted and by this reference made a part of this ordinance. Section 10. Emergency`Clause." '-rhe earliest imYvsition of the provisions of this ordinance is necessary to derive necessary revenues, to promote fairness by imposing costs upon properties which cause Emma expenses,.to be*1 'iand;tp,Preserve..the-peace'. healthand safety of •the ntbblic. Accordingly;'=.aft emergeney is!declared and this-ordin- ance will take effect immediately upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED.by the-Xity Council:on October 2, 1973. =:APPROVED:by.:thwjftyor.on October 2,01973. �.. t .'.. ./S/'Johne L. Sullivan Mayor A f: Z"(10 ATTEST: ­j. /S/ . Doris-,E. Crdfoot City Recorder ,..-.. :.J 1'fir" � `.. ..::" ...h•.•!'".J is_... ... ��.. _i r , :1?'_. ...hyo: {; :ta j;f✓�k?. 7.,^, �� .. • .. ... .... ., . . ,. .. _ a _..':3._?'_ ..-. _.. • —15-•t rµ . II. Stayton Ordinance No. 418 AN ORDINANCE-ESTABLISHING A UTILITY. SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AND PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR,THE IMPOSITION AND PAYY'ERNT THEREOF Section 1. Purpose. After appropriate and lengthy review and study, the City Council has determined that it is reasonable.- and'neces- sary to enact and impose a utility systems development charge for the purpose of financing the operation, repair, and expansion of municipal utilities, primarily the sanitary sewer and water systems. Section 2. Imposition of Charge. A utility systems development charge is imposed on all lands -in-the city at the following cumulative rates: (a) Utility systems connection fee: 10 cents per square foot of gross building floor area, but not less than $200. (b) Utility systems area fee: One-half cent per square foot of land area. Section 3. Collection. The utility systems development charge is due and payable prior to issuance of a building permit or a permit to locate a mobile home, or upon an application for connection to the muni- cipal sewer or water system. No building permit shall be issued nor shall municipal sewer or water facilities be used until the charge has been paid in full. Section 4. Exemptions'. (a) Any parcel of land which, on the effective date of this ordin- ance has an existing structure or permit therefore, shall be exempt from the utility systems development charge to the extent of the structure then existing or covered by the building permit, provided that any sucIL existing structures are connected to the city water and sewer systems. (b) Any parcel of land which, on the effective date of this ordin- ance has an existing structure not then connected to the city sanitary sewer or water systems, may do so within sixty (60) days of the effect- ive date of this ordinance without payment of the utility systems dev- elopment charge. Thereafter, such existing structure shall be exempt from the utility systems area fee. (c) Alterations which do not increase the floor area of a structure and any additions to single family residential dwellings which do not con- stitute the addition of a living unit as defined by the building code are exempt from payment of the utility systems development charge. :.(d)„ Each mobile'.-home: space or'trailer'site existing in a mobile home park or trailer court on-the effective date of this ordinance which has..a�connection to the'city sanitary sewer or water systems shall be exempt-r from Dayment of the utility.syste rs develop.wnt chart—,_,. but I� anysuch.:sites constructed or connectea to the city sanitary se*.�er or water lines after said date shall pay s separate utility systems devel- opment charge. (e) . Any parcel of land or'portion thereof having paid th.e'utility systems--development charge shall receive=credit 'for such amount in the event of`-an-improvement being constructed or a change in use of the prop- erty.-at-a-future date. -However, no refund' shall be made on account of such credit--in the event the,new utility systems development charge is less than that• ilready paid: • (f) Any structure located on a parcel of land annexed to the city after the effective date'of this ordinance shall-*be 'ex:em'pt from the utility systems development charge ''to the extent of the structure ex- isting 'atsthe time of annexation, until such time as it may be ,connected to the ,municipah sewer or water systems. Upon such connection, tae utility systems connection fee shall be paid, but such existing struc- ture shall be exempt frori the utilitq systems area fee. (g} 'Any warehouse or' other structure constructed for use solely for the purpose of'storing goods, wares or merchandise shall be exempt from the utility systems connection fee if said structure is not con- nected 'to'the municipal sewer'or water systems. If said structure is connected 'to either the municipal water or sewer system, but not both, the structure shall be exempt from one-half of the utility systems connection fee. "(h) Any.person 'aggrieved by the imposition of the'utility systems development'-charge may-request A°hearing before the city council by filing a''written"request therefore Ath`the city recorder, 'setting -forth such unusual or exceptional circumstances as may exist. The 'council may, in its discretion, alter the charge or .the manner of payment thereof if unusual and exceptional'circumstances justifysuchalteration. Section 5. Installment Payment. Whenever a utility systems develop- ment charge of more than $100 is due the owner of the parcel involved may apply on forms provided by the city for the voluntary imposition of a lien..on.the__parcel�.`..and the payment thereof in twenty semi-annual in- stallments, plus interest at the rate of eight percent (8) per annum. Such lien shall be entered on the city lien docket and enforced as any other city lien. Section 6. Area. The utility systems area fee shall be calculated by the city recorder or his delegate, and he may require the applicant to furnish the gross land area of the lot or parcel involved, certified as correct by a registered surveyor. The_fee.sball Vo-_paid'on the entire {� lot or parcel of land in any case involving 10,000 square feet or less, -17 but in the event:applicant: owns•,a',larger parcel of_`land; and is build- ing on only_,;a, portian thereof,_.t�+e.applicant. ulay elect..to defer payment o€-the area fee.;-on...,the.balance:­ofthe parcel, provided.-that sufficient- .. .- r �_.� TL... ;...v .7 srdo utilizable -area xemalu3 zOr .Y,u _Uye.,co-116tvjetLvu. sac. C1 r rc de 0� author'�.::ed to.promulgate,rules anc� ;standards for allowance of �{. Fn,....,70 $::bi8^.t tom,nm.nn•f 7-.rcvicaay • . Section 7. Segregation and Use of Funds. All funds received from the,utility-systems;developnment 'charge, shall be placed_in a separate fund,.-and shall;..be;used for,-.no other,purposeithan-:the operation,111repair, and expansion-;,of Municipal utilities,•including-:repayment-of bonded in- debtedness.-,,.Not more than;twenty,_percent,of the :funds collected .ins any one;-year.-may bec.used.-for utilities. other than-:the.:,sanitary sewertand municipal water systems. In the discretion of ,the Council, funds may, be accumulated in unlimited amounts for expected future expansion costs. Section.--,8.,-. Enforcement. In ,the;.event .the utility systems develop- ment.eharge-,is_uot;paid when .due„the City.Recorder.shall givewritten notice.-to_;thefowner"or person in possession of the-l-t or :parcel ;of- ground �.involved..of the failureto,pay such .charge'L If L the charge is not-paid.within ,ten• (10) .days from-.the date.of said notice, the unpaid charge shall be entered upon thercity lien docket, and constitute a:lien on the lot or parcel of land involved. Such lien may be foreclosed as any other.;lien of:the city.,: ;The zunpaid balance of the lien shall bear interest :at eight percent per annum--from the date-,of docketing until paid. .Section:.9.. Severability• Should any portion of this ordinance be held.to,be:Invalid,or unenforceable, it shall not affect. the validity of the ordinance-as a.whole or of any other portion thereof. Section 10. Emergency. This ordinance being necessary to provide the-necessary funds for .the 'mimicipal UtilityL systems ,for the-;protection of the public•health -and safety,; aa: emergency is hereby declared ,to, - exist and,:thia. ordinance shall;,take, effect• immediately upon its: passage by; the Council-.and approval by,the.-Mayor. PASSED by, the,.Counci1 thief. 20th-day March, 1972. . APPROVED by�the_Mayor this L 28th day of Harch,,. 1972. A t /S/ - H. Van�(Driesche -- Mayor": a John•3.,~Schroeder, r... .. City,RecorderY T.•_ -1$w: No. _ Approved By: APPENDIX B Building Div. Engineering Div.�— Utilities Div. Sample Systems Development Charge Worksheet City of Corvallis GEN ER AL Address ega!L'e:c: Owner CO3�tredar _ Type of 51ruciure New Construction___ —_. Remodel __Replar_ment_____ _Other Bldg. Permit App. No. _—_ Dated Sewer Permit No. ___.___ __.—._Dated Bldg. Permit No. _ —__.Dated_ Water Tap Order No. —__-__Dated FEES 3k�Id�„� ✓arwc, �zsaco Lot IC0'Y/Sb' ar Levcl Ont. SYSTEMS BUILDING FEE Exempt: Yes_._— No_-'S—_.— Partial (Amount a val to the Building permit Fee) $ //27'o a SYSTEMS STRUCTURE FEE E-tempt: Yes No_ — _ Partial Building Area 1a7c-0 sq.ft. Previously Served Bldg. Area _00 sq.ft. Bldg. Area to be Charged /, 70o sq.ft. Minimum Charge (for first 1800 square feet) s 300.00 Unit Charge sq. ft. at $0.17/sq. ft.) Total Systems Connection Fee $ ,foo.�' SYSTEMS AREA FEE Exempt: Yes __. No---X— Partial lend Area _1 an .sq.ft. Previously Served lend Area '0— sq.ft. Land Area to be Charged MEA 100 sq. ft. Streets: LZ pro sq.ft.at$0.005 per sq.ft. co Sewer: sq.ft.at$0.005 per sq.ft. j 7_f ae Water: (1): /!C--0 sq.ft.at$0.01 per sq.ft. $ /s° - /•z A''� (2):—&X, _sq,ft.at$0.015 per sq.ft. $z:r'oc (3): sq.ft.at$0.0225 per sq.ft. $_ (4): sq.ft.at$0.0275 per sq.fl. $ Total Systems Area Fee $ 3"°'on TOTAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE $-1/I_ a o Standard Exemption $ 50.00 Net Due-116n Option $ Net Due—Cash Option(3 percent discount) $l w zti-_ ALLOCATION OF FEES System Total Charge Sid. Exemption Lien Option Cash Option Street $ 1:2,9,O0 $12.50 $ $ /,4/o..S3 Sewer $—!"P. 0 $12.50 $ i/t j iGe..S Water $ �5�• ce $25.00 $ .134 ao $_3a L. o._ Totes $—?12 °o $50.00 $ 9CA-00 Remarks: Calculated By Date _ OPTION EXERCISED Lien _lien File Number Date Cash_ Cash Receipt No. Copy Redd. By COPIES,. WHITE—FINANCE M. 1.0*—AUDIT FEE VALIDATIONI rm-pustit WORKS GREEN-CASHIER'S COPY /tUE-WILDING GrADENROD—AFWCANT March 25, 1977 Memorandum to Tigard Planning Commissioners From: Marcus A. Wood Subject: System Developmemt Charges on New Construction I must be out of the state for the March 29, 1977, Planning Commission meeting. However, because I do want the opportunity to express my present thoughts on the System Development Charges which will be reviewed at the meeting, I ask that this memorandum be given due consideration. System Development Charges have been proposed to pay for the cost of collector street construction and improvements, area- wide parks, and the Tigard bike path system. These charges would be imposed only on new construction. The Planning Commission is considering only park and bike path charges and the City Council is considering the collector street charges . My present belief is that these charges are inequitable, in that they unfairly dis- criminate against new construction. I would propose the following two principles of equitable cost assessment. 1. Improvements which are designed entirely or predomi- nantly for the use of a limited group of people should be paid for by that group. Such improvements would include local streets and open space within a development. The improvements also might include portions of the Tigard bicycle pathway that run through developments. The bike path system probably will not be completed -1- for many years, and probably for a number of years the paths will be used primarily by those people residing in the contigu- ous development. Indeed, in many cases, such as in Englewood, the residents in the development may always be the predominant users of the bicycle paths . 2. Improvements which provide area-wide or city-wide benefit should be financed through taxation or assessments im- posed area-wide or city-wide. Such expenditures would include the cost of arterial and collector streets, schools, area-wide parks and portions of the Tigard bicycle path system not con- tained within proposed developments. The proposed principles would assure that those people who benefit from development pay for the development. Two major reasons have been given for imposing charges for projects of city-wide benefit exclusively or primarily on new development. I question whether either reason can withstand close examination. As I understand the reasons, they are: A. Existing facilities (parks and streets) were paid for by existing residents. New residents should pay their fair share of the cost of these systems as a "buy in" charge. Responses to this assertion would include: 1) Except in some of the newest developments, exist- ing residents have not paid for the bike path system. -2- `4.�. 2) City taxes have supported little or none of the cost of constructing (as opposed to maintaining) existing collector streets. 3) Existing parks were purchased at a very low cost and have been enjoyed by existing residents for many years. 4) Much of the cost of park expansion will be to re- place the benefits presently derived from vacant land which has been used in many cases for open space without compensation to the owner. This use has been reasonable, but its loss should not be compensated by the new occu- pants of the previously vacant land. 5) The majority of today's Tigard residents moved here since after 1970 and have paid little or none of the cost of existing streets and parks. 6) The new people moving to Tigard have paid for streets and parks located in Wither communities. B. The need for new parks, streets and bicycle paths arises because of the increased demand Produced by new developments. Therefore, the new developments should pay for the improvements. Responses would be: 1) The ,desirability of the bicycle pathway is largely independent ofthe expected-increase-in the .present' Tigard -' population. 2) New residents, through their taxes, will be paying a reasonable share of the cost of new facilities. -3- lam 3� In the lastseveral years the net effect of the to Tigard has been a dramatic lower population increase - ing of the tax rates for existing residents. 4) Need for new housing in Tigard is the product of the net influx of families to Tigard minus the net outflow. It matters not whether a person moves into a used home, making that home unavailable for some other family who wants to live in Tigard, or whether that person has con- structed a new home, leaving the used home available for another family . Both persons pose a similar new burden on Tigard and create similar pressure for expansion of new housing. Both new residents should bear similar bur- dens for city-wide improvements. 5) People who move to a new community first do not have a right to be protected forever against the costs of urbanization. The "early birds" do not have special rights to impose special burdens on later development. In other words, while it is true that Tigard is becoming urbanized because new housing is being added to the present ue that the existing residents con housing, it also is tr - tribute equally to the resulting population of the city. Neither the old nor the new residents will be exclusively responsible lation and need for for Tigard's resulting popu urban services. -4- o} A «a-'=i y of Tigard residents moved there after 1970. We who occupied Englewood in 1976 , for example, hardly should be allowed to force the people who move here in 1977 to pay for the parks and collector streets we want to use. SUMMARY The System Development Charge proposals appear to be based on economic analysis that is at best questionable. The question of who should pay for which city improvements is a difficult one, and should not be decided without a more careful consideration than the Commission has yet had the opportunity to give. I would suggest to my fellow Commissioners that we set aside these charges for more detailed study. Also, we might consider requesting that the City Council defer action on the collector street charges until the Commission completes an ex- peditious analysis. We all know of the need for the proposed improvements and we also know that cost responsibility is not the only prin- ciple to be considered in imposing tax burdens. However, the pro- posed charges raise major economic and policy issues which we should take the time to face squarely. -5- 6+ d+ f.. ,t°,-4 ad-ilan.. "..Y-,va'.r ..d _ .� e v, Y ii,^c h•,.,.,V- ,z' MEMO Aoril 4. 1977 _ TO: City Council FROM: City Administrator SUBJECT: Revised Public Hearing procedures The following procedures are proposed to the Council in recognition of a -need to provide ample opportunity for the public to be heard on matters of public interest and the competing,.Eo conduct the public's business in an expeditious manner so that those persons wishing to testify on other matters do not have to wait several hours to do so while irrelevant or repititious continents are made by a few members of the audience. It is the observation of this office that currently, the purpose of the meeting (the making of decisions by the Council) is being unduly subverted to a secondary role by testimony from the audience that is often irrelevant to the matter at hand or repetitious to the extent that some people are heard several times on a given subject. For these reasons, the following procedurl recommendations are proposed for consideration by the Council: 1. For each public hearing item listed on the agenda, staff will prepare a synopsis of relevant facts which exist (such as the zoning on a parcel of land, the appropriate code standards, etc.) and a statement of relevant issues which the Council must weigh in reaching its decision (i.e. Fasano requirements, etc.) This statement will be read by the Mayor prior to taking public testimony. The audience will then be requested to limit its testimony to the issue before the Council. The advantage of this procedure is that the audience will know what testimony is relevant and upon what considerations council will base its decision. This should also lessen misunderstandings and mis- apprehensions the public seems to feel about Council decisions lately. "s a L ys, n NFMII Council Memo April 4, 1977 Page 2 WON 2. The second part of the proposal has been recommended by the Mayor and is probably the most effective of the two proposals. . A lectern will be placed in the front of the room from which all public testimony will be made. A sign up sheet for each public hearing item will be made available before each hearing (copy attached) and each individual wishing to testify will be required to sign in advance. The Mayor will call each person to testify and each person will be allowed to present his or her views when called by the Mayor acting as presiding officer of the meeting. The implementation of these two proposals should expedite hearings while protecting the citizen's right to be heard on public hearijig matters. i