Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1996-02063-Resolution No. 96-011 Recorded 1/18/1996
r i REVIEWED 9F-02053 L COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTL, A Resolution Adopting the Proposed Park System Development Charge and Methodology for the Redmond Park Benefit Area. RESOLUTION NO. 96-01101 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon has proposed the establishment of the Redmond Park Benefit Area, the unincorporated area of Deschutes County, Oregon within the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS, on January 3, 1996, the County mailed notice of a hearing to be held on February 21, 1996, to consider imposing a park system development charge within the Redmond Park Benefit Area; and WHEREAS, the Board has considered a methodology and park system development charge amount for the Redmond Park Benefit Area, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows: Section 1. That the methodology and the amount of the proposed park system development charges set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, are hereby adopted for the proposed Redmond Park Benefit Area. Section 2. That this proposed system development charge and methodology shall only become effective after hearing, upon adoption of the Redmond Park Benefit Area and final adoption of the methodology and system development charge. DATED this 17th day of February, 1996. '6A Y OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHUTF,8—S.pUNTY, REGON ATT T : BARRY: %Fi . SLAUGHTgE/� Recording Secre ary R06ERT L. NIPPER, PAGE 1 - RESOLUTION 96-011 (1-17-96) , Chair � v✓ Commissioner ommissioner i1"iCr OFi:MED JAN 2 4 o r ]� L --_ - EXHIBIT_____ r PcrRcArn&'AL a.. aun PARK � PARK PROJECTS � e 0i ( , ►� 1 REDMOND URBAN GROWTH AREA PROJECT LISTING PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN 1986 DOLLARS JANUARY 1987 SERVING TOTAL NEW OR APPROX. ESTIMATED EXISTING CITY APPROX. PROJECT SIZE COST AREAS POPULATION YEAR Mini park 1 acre 5142,000 Existing 6,675 1986 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 Existing 6,675 1986 Community park 25 acres $2,550,000 Existing 6,675 1986 SUBTOTAL $31010,000 Mini park 1/2 acre $90,000 Existing B4O00 1995 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 Existing 8,000 1995 Community park 25 acres S1,550,000 Existing 8,000 1945 SUBTOTAL $2,958,000 Mini park 1/1 acre $90,000 New 9,000 1998 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 Existing 9,000 1998 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 Existing 9,000 1998 Community park 20 acres 52,051,000 New 9,000 1998 SUBTOTAL $2,777,000 Mini park 1/2 acre $90,000 New 10,000 2001 Mini park 1 acre $142,000 Existing 101000 2001 Mini park 1 acre $142,000 Existing 10,000 2001 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 Existing 10,000 2001 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 Existing ` 10,000 2001 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 Existing 10,000 2001 Neighborhood park 4 acres $394,000 New 10,000 1001 Neighborhood park 4 acres $394,000 New 10,000 2001 SUBTOTAL $2,116,000 Mini park 1/2 acre $90,000 New 11,000 2006 Mini park 1/2 acre $901000 New 11,000 1006 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 New 12,000 2006 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 New 12,000 2006 Community park r 20 acres $1 051 000 , .ew "' 000 . �. ''�^6 v SUBTOTAL $2.067, AAA W: Mini park 21 1.� acre t.9^ 0a v. 0, r New .1 !4;OLL 7 .0l0 Mini park 112 acre :90,00 Nzw 1;;0Q0 ?Q!Q Neiahborhood park 4 acres $394,;;00 New !4,000 2010 Neighborhood park acres 4394;000 New 14,000 2010 a k Community parte f .5 acres •• 2 ii i1,�v_,;,,TO New 14.G00 20 0 •,!J SUBTOTAL $2.470,000 • � C J C r (`RF, r� TOTAL :cam OR APPROX. ESTIMATED EXISTING CITY APPROX. PROJECT SIT E COST AREAS POPULATION YEAR Mini park 1/2 acre $90,000 New 16,000 2014 Mini park 1/2 acre $90,000 New 16,000 2014 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 New 16,000 2014 Neighborhood park 3 ages $3137000 New 16,000 2014 Coamunity park 15 acres $1,602,000 New 16,000 2014 SUBTOTAL 12,418,000 Mini park 1,12 acre $901000 New 18,000 2018 Mini park 1/2 acre $901000 New 18,000 2018 Neighborhood park 4 acres $3941000 New 18,000 2018 Neighborhood park 4 acres $394,000 New 18,000 2018 Community park 15 acres $1,602,000 New 18,000 2018 SUBTOTAL $2,570,000 Mini park 1/2 acre $90,000 New 20,000 2021 Mini park 102 acre $902000 New 20,000 2021 Neighborhood park 3 acres $319,000 New 20,000 2021 Neighborhood park 3 acres $3181000 New 20,000 2021 Community park 15 acres $11602,000 New 20,000 2021 SUBTOTAL $21418,000 Mini park 1/2 acre $901000 New 22,000 2023 Mini park 1/2 acre $901000 New 22,000 2023 f Neighborhood park 4 acres $394,000 New 22,000 2023 Neighborhood park 4 acres $3941000 New 22,000 2023 Community park 15 acres $1,602,000 New 22,000 2023 SUBTOTAL $2,570,000 Mini park 1/2 acre $90,000 New 24,000 2026 Mini park 1/2 acre $90,000 New 24,000 2026 Neighborhood park 3 acres $313,000 New 24,000 2026 Neighborhood park 3 acres $318,000 New 24,500 2026 Community park 15 acres $1,6021000 New 24,000 2026 # SUBTOTAL $2,418,000 TOTAL :Lu, v92, 1�iv 4 2 ,g May '(4 19 91 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Joe Hannan, City Manager FROM: David Reeves, Finance Director RE: H.B. 3224 Requirements for System Development Charges **** SDC's **** A review process is required to verify and support System Development Charges made after July 1, 1991. The process will take a lot of effort on the part of the City Council and staff. More than one public hearing will be scheduled in order to get as much input from all sources as possible. It is anticipated that this will be an emotional process, due to the many groups that will be affected. House Bill 3224 provides for a uniform framework for the imposition of System Development Charges by local governments for specified purposes and to establish that such fees may be used for only capital improvements. A resolution needs to be set forth establishing a methodology to which the fee is related. A System Development Charge is a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increase usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit or connection to the capital improvement. System Development Charge includes that portion of a sewer or water system connection charge that is greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the unit of local government for its average cost of inspecting and installing connections with water and sewer facilities. Development impact fees are permissible provided that: 1) There is a reasonable connection between the need for additional facilities and the growth resulting from new development; 2) The fees charged do not exceed a proportionate share of the cost incurred or to be incurred in accommodating the development paying the fee; and 3) There must be a reasonable connection between the expenditure of the fees collected and the benefits received by the development paying the fees. Communities with the following characteristics are likely to adopt development impact fees: Moderate to rapid growth rate; relatively high property taxes; relatively large capital investments to maintain and planning and coordination capacity (implying ability to prepare comprehensive land use plans, capital improvement programs, and coordinate the planning and implementation process among local government and extra - jurisdictional agencies); and popular support to shift new facility financing burdens. In the compiling of any long-term study, a certain degree of flexibility must be built into the final plan. This is very important in Redmond's case because of the extreme fluctuations in growth rate over the past two decades. The Redmond Urban Area Comprehensive Plan has predicted that the existing Redmond Urban Growth Area can accommodate 24,000 persons under present zoning conditions, however various systems within the City of Redmond are not adequate to handle this impact. The Redmond Water System, within the Urban Growth Boundary, is estimated to accommodate 7,000 persons. Expansion requirements for the sewer treatment facilities are based on population and flow projections. Current sewer plant expansion is underway with engineering services being provided by K.C.M. Significant costs are involved in the expansion project. Development of park and recreation facilities has become increasingly important to us in recent years. It has been projected that by the end of the planning period, a total of 180 acres or 10 community parks will be necessary to withstand the increase in population, as predicted. Other impacted areas include: Transportation systems, storm drains, arterials, collectors, maintenance of existing street system, bridges, bicycle lanes and airport facilities. It becomes immediately apparent that this type of upkeep involves major monetary commitments. There are various sources of funding available to the City for the financing of capital projects. The type of funding often depends on the type of project contemplated. However, as an ongoing source of funds for future expansions, the City will need to rely a great deal on System Development Charges. Currently, System Development Charges are levied for water, sewer and streets. 1LA-J The proposed schedule of hearings to accomplish this tremendously important task is as follows: May 14 SDC Review and Planning - Updating the Public Facilities Plan. (List of improvements) May 28 Costs, Priorities/Timing - Review of methodology used to estimate costs of projected capital improvements identified in the Public Facilities Plan. (List of estimated costs and timing of each project) June 11 Mathematical Methodology - Work on allocating costs to user groups and setting fee schedules. (Establish who pays what portion of the bill $) June 25 Adopt Resolution on SDC's There will be some aspects of the SDC development that will become better defined as time goes on. A review period should be established and followed. Interim adjustments to the system development structure can still be made as necessary, such as when the Parks Commission completes phases of the parks development plan. This oppertunity to review our development charges is not only required by HB 3224 but will be good for City in many ways. System Development Charges Must Comply with HB 3224 by July 1, 1991 By Randy Young, Senior Partner and Don Ganer, Associate Partner Henderson, Young & Company Beaverton, Oregon Oregon is often cited as a pioneer in land -use planning, primarily because of the innovative land -use laws enacted by the State during the early 1970's. Oregon is also recognized as one of the pioneers in the use of system development charges (SDC's) to finance infrastructure needs. Oregon's reputation as a pioneer in SDC's was earned because, in the middle 1970's, local governments in Oregon began implementing SDC's, primarily for water and sewer, but also for roads, parks and drainage. Some of the early SDC's were based on technical studies and formal methodologies, but others did not have outlined methodologies and appeared to be based on "whatever the market will bear". The development community challenged the latter approach and, in 1987, HB 2785 was intoduced at the request of the Oregon State Home Builders Association. At the urging of the League of Oregon Cities and the cities of Portland, Eugene and Salem, HB 2785 was vetoed and, following year-long negotiations, the League and the Home Builders Association agreed on language and provisions to be included in HB 3224 (Oregon Systems Develop- ment Charges Act of 19 8 9) . When HB 3224 was passed and signed into law, Oregon became one of only eight states (including also Arizona, California, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Texas, and Vermont) who had enacted legislation authorizing local governments to assess and collect SDC's (which are also known as impact fees). In 1990, the State of Washing- ton joined these ranks with a detailed and somewhat restrictive approach to impact fees included in their Growth Management Act (ESHB 2 9 2 9) . PROVISIONS OF THE ACT The provisions of the Oregon SDC Act apply to all local government SDC's in place on or after July 1, 1991. The law provides a "...framework for the imposition of system development charges by local governments for specified purposes..." and establishes that SDC's "...may be used only for capital improve- ments." [ORS 223.2971 Key requirements include: (1) SDC's must be "...established by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology..." used to establish the rate -making principles for each SDC. [ORS 323.3041 (2) Local governments using SDC's must "...prepare a capital improvement plan ... which lists the improvements that may be funded..." by SDC's. [ORS 223.309(1)] (3) SDC revenues must be depositied "...in accounts designated for such moneys..." and local governments must "...provide an annual accounting..." which reflects the total "...revenues collected for each system and the projects that were funded." [ORS 223.3111 (4) "Local governments shall adopt... procedures by which any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure... within two years of the expenditure..." [ORS 223.302(2)] The Oregon SDC Act also restricts the use of SDC's to five types of capital improvements: (1) Water supply, treatment and distribution; (2) Waste water collection, transmission, treatment and disposal; (3) Drainage and flood control; (4) Transportation; a n d (5) Parks andrecreation. Local government SDC's cannot be used to finance "...administrative office facilities that are more than an incidental part of other capital improvements..."[ORS 223.307(3)], and there are no provisions for the use of SDC's to help finance police or fire stations, corrections faclilities, schools, libraries or other government facil- ities. When compared with states like Florida, where there are no restrictions on Henderson, the types of capital improve- Young & Company ments that can be funded using SDC's, Oregon's law may be considered very conservative in that it provides for the use of SDC's only for those projects which have the most obvious and direct ties to g r o w t h. SDC DESIGN ISSUES (1) Connection Fees or SDC's? Local governments and service districts who currently charge sewer or water system connection fees need to review these fees to determine whether or not a portion of the fees are SDC's. According to the new law, SDC's include the "...portion of a sewer or water system connection charge that is greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the unit of local government for its average cost of inspecting and installing connections with water and sewer facilities." [ORS 223.299(4)(a)J (italics ours). For example, if a connection fee of $750 is charged, and the average inspection and installation cost is $150, the SDC portion of the connection fee is $600, and the SDC must be brought into compliance with the methodology and other requirements of the Oregon SDC A c t. (2) Impacts of Ballot Measure # 5 Local governments who adopted or revised SDC's before the passage of Ballot Measure # 5 need to review these, because an improperly structured SDC may be considered to be a property tax subject to the limitations imposed by that measure. Any charge that is levied based on the ownership of property may be considered to be a property tax, so SDC ordinances and resolutions should be drafted with this in in in d. (3) Improvements -driven v. Standards -driven SDC's SDC's are developed using either the improvements - driven approach or the standards -driven approach, and the choice of which to use depends on local circumstances. Improvements -driven SDC's are based on a specific list of planned improvements, and the amount of the SDC is determined by allocating that portion of the cost of the planned improvements that can be attributed to growth among the projected developments that will be paying SDC's. Improvements -driven SDC's work best when individual public facilities can be allocated between current and future users on the basis of objective data. Standards -driven SDC's work best when public facilities are provided to all actual and potential beneficiaries on the basis of uniform standards for levels of service. These standards are then used to define the type, number and size of required facilities. The amounts of the SDC's are determined by multiplying the standard per capita (or similar unit of measure) by the estimated cost per unit (square foot, or similar measure) of facility. A local government using the standards -driven approach must maintain the standards for levels of service for existing development in order to be able to charge new develop- ment for the same standards, and to assure new develop- ment that SDCs are not used to pay for deficiencies in the actual levels of service compared to the standards. COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES During March and April, 1991, Henderson, Young and Company conducted a spot survey of local governments to find out which SDC's they have in place, and what their plans are for meeting the July 1 deadline. We found that the most common SDC's in use are for wastewater (95%) and water (76%), followed by transportation (62%), and drainage and flood control (57%). SDC's for parks and recreation were the least common (48%), but an additional 14% or our sample reported plans to adopt parks SDC's as a part of comprehensive revisions to existing SDC's. Virtually all of the governments in our survey said they plan to meet the July 1 deadline, although none had yet finalized their revisions. Besides relying on internal expertise, governments reported that they had attended workshops (such as the one sponsored by the. League in 1989), hired consultants, or received assistance from their council of governments in order to revise their SDC's. Nearly 10% of our sample said they will not be revising their SDC's in order comply with the new law. Instead, they plan to discontinue using SDC's after July 1, even though the Act allows for the expenditure of SDC revenues for the costs of developing methodologies and for other direct costs. In these cases, the expected level of new development was so low that the cost of making revisions was thought to exceed the revenue generating capacities of the S D C's . CONCLUSION Since the middle 1970's, Oregon's cities and other local governments have designed SDC's using local guidelines. The Oregon SDC Act now serves as a source of author- ization for SDC's and also provides State guidelines for developing SDC's. While SDC's cannot be used to fill gaps in operating revenues stemming from Ballot Meas- ure # 5, dwindling timber revenues, or other losses; the use of SDC's for capital projects will continue to gain popularity in cities and counties facing growth pressures. ©1991 Henderson, Young & Company, Beaverton, Oregon. Phone (503) 690-8981. This article also appears in League of Oregon Cities Newsletter (May, 1991). July 9, 1991 MEMORANDUM N TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Joe Hannan, City Manager FROM: David Reeves, Finance Director RE: Systems Development Charges (SDC) - Methodology Report in Brief: 1. State legislation requires that the City establish by either resolution or ordinance the methodology used in establishing System Development Charge rates. 2. Staff has collected information and projects identified in prior public hearings and reports to provide a basis for establishing new and revised SDCs for Water, Sewer, Streets, and Parks. Background: The general philosophy used by staff in recommending rates is: 1. Establish general guidelines for the kinds and types of projects to be funded through systems development charges. 2. Identify all capital projects required as a result of growth that are within the guidelines. 3. Prepare a ten year plan for the construction of the capital improvements. 4. Using current costs and an inflation factor for projects to be constructed in future years, identify the total cost of improvements to be funded within the particular system. 5. Identify from the comprehensive plan and other available sources the number of new measure units that will be served (for example Equivalent Dwelling Units {EDUs} are used in water sewer and parks). 6. Calculate the cost per unit by dividing the total costs by the number of units. The resolution establishing methodology and proposed rates for SDCs will be prepared for your review and action at a future meeting. It is important to recognize that the process of establishing the projects list and associated costs is dynamic and should appropriately be reviewed annually. It is recommended that the City Council confirm its philosophy as to what each charge should be used for; examine each system development charge one by one and then establish a maximum rate to be levied at the time of development. It is important to note that all of the SDCs are charges on the activity of development to cover the actual costs of providing infrastructure to support the increased development. Identification of needed projects, estimated construction costs and a rationale for the existing System Development Charge schedule was provided through the Public facilities plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan. In reviewing the documents for the current justification, staff discovered some major differences in underlying assumptions that the SDC's were based upon. Specifically, -the current anticipated increase in equivalent dwelling units is much less than was predicted just 3 years ago. As a result the current amount of system development charges is not sufficient to build all of the projects listed in the 10 year facilities plan. WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 1. General Use of Water SDC Water SDC are designed to finance system -wide capacity needs such as reservoirs, wells, booster pumps, trunk lines (that connect areas of the City), water plant improvements and emergency generators. The SDC's are not intended for indidivudal services or grid distribution projects. 2. Capital Projects The estimated total cost identified from the modified projects list is $ 3,438,300. See "Exhibit A" for detailed list. 3. Estimated Equivalent Dwelling Units The estimated Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) anticipated within ten year period total approximately 5350. This estimate is based on three areas: Residential EDUs; Commercial EDUs; and Industrial EDUs. This estimate anticipates an immense increase in the rate of development. In the highest growth year ever, 1990-91, we added only 250 equivalent dwelling units in all areas combined. The Redmond comprehensive plan estimates that when we have filled the urban growth area, the City will have a population of 24,000 citizens. We currently have 7191 people living within the City according the Center of Population Research at Portland State University. Total growth through the year 2010 will be about 16,819 people. Assuming somewhat steady growth over the next ten �years we could expect about 8,400 additional persons to be utilizing the water and sewer systems as residences. Current statistics suggest each household (equivalent dwelling unit) has 2.2 persons. As our population doubles over the next 10 years we can expect to add around 3,820 additional EDUs for residential uses. The expected additional EDUs for commercial and industrial uses is much more difficult to ascertain. The comprehensive plan suggest that there is a correlation between developed acreage in that use and the number of employees involved in that function. The kinds of uses and the trends of growth and industry in the area will have significant impact on the actual EDU usage. Our current methods of determining EDUs recognizes the actual differences in uses, but as a generalization many of the uses fall into the category of using the number of employees to determine EDUs. Assuming the average of nine employees per EDUs across the board will approximate actual conditions. The comprehensive plan suggests that by the year 2010 there will be 1669 acres of land in industrial uses with approximately 7.5 employees per acre, or 1669 x 7.5 = 12,518 employees. Many of these employees are already working in Redmond. Using a higher number of new employees will serve to increase the total EDUs and reduce the rate to be paid by development. Over the next ten years an estimate of 6,000 new employees has been assumed. At nine employees per EDU that calculates out to approximately 670 EDUs for Industrial uses. The comprehensive plan suggest that there will be 1031 acres of commercially developed property with approximately 15 employees per acre, or a total of 15,465 employees. That is a total job force estimate of nearly 28,000 people. Assuming all the jobs are new and half will be in place within the next ten years, we will see about 7,740 new jobs in this time period. Estimating nine employees per EDU, we would have 860 EDUs for Commercial uses. Dividing the total project costs by 5,350 gives the conservative cost per equivalent dwelling unit for Water SDCs of $ 642.67. - 3 - 01 gJ-02, 6, `1 SEWER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 1. General Use of Sewer SDC Sewer SDC are designed to finance plant expansions or system wide improvements that may inlcude plant modifications, disposal site expansions or improvements and purchase ofemergency generators. 2. Capital projects The estimated total cost identified from the sewer projects list is $ 11,700,000. See "Exhibit B". 3. Equivalent Dwelling Units The estimated Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) anticipated within the same ten year period are estimated the same as water 5350. There is a basic correlation between the two services. The expansion will, however, continue to serve additional development through the comprehensive plan period. It can be roughly estimated that the total EDUs to be serviced by the new expansion will be 10,700. Until better cost estimates can be determined through the engineering study, the best estimate of the cost per equivalent dwelling unit is $ 1,093.46. STREETS SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 1. General Use of Street SDC Street SDCs are designed to pay for the oversizing of arterials and collectors. The development of a manageable and fair street systems development charge is the most challenging and time consuming of any charge. A recent survey performed by the Government Finance Research Center of the GFOA shows that roads SDCs are one of the most used and has one of the widest ranges of fees charged. The range was $298.20 to $5,300 per residential equivalent dwelling unit for streets only. The difficulty in determining the "fair" charge is caused by the complicated task of identifying who is responsible for the impact caused by growth. Every time a new house is added, there is going to be new traffic generated on the street system. The traffic generated, however, is going to a destination. The destination; the store, school, work, recreation, or whatever is also benefiting from the traffic. The volume of traffic generated is the essence of the need for road improvements. - 4 - JL There are sophisticated computer programs that take into account the peak hours of traffic, traffic models, business classifications, and more, in order to closely approximate the actual impact associated with any new development and set the fee. Because we lack the time and resources to set up an elaborate system, it is recommended that required parking spaces by use classification continue to used. 2. Capital Costs The costs of capital road improvements are listed by project in exhibit C. The identification of costs has been done. It is the spread of these costs that presents the difficult task. The costs of development related street improvements is currently estimated at $1,21090. 3. Equivalent Dwelling Units Over the next 10 years an estimated 3,820 residential EDUs or, for streets, spaces will be added. Assuming the new trips generated arrive at new destinations, approximately half of the total impact and its associated costs can be attributed to residential units. Dividing on half of the total cost by the expected 3,820 spaces, means that the residential systems development charge for streets should be approximately $158 per space. PARKS SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 1. General Use of Park SDC The use of parks systems development charges is new for the City of Redmond. In the past all activities associated with parks were funded by a small continuing levy of 11 mils times our modifying factor of 0.43. The tax doesn't generate enough revenue to keep up with maintenance and operations. Without additional revenues the quantity and quality of Redmond's parks would continue to diminish as the City grows. The parks SDC will be used to develop capital improvements in the parks within the City. Particular emphasis will be place in the development of new parks to serve the expanding population. 2. Capital Costs Based on the Parks 10 year plan (Exhibit D) there are $ 4,400,000 in parks improvement projects needed. - 5 - 1jj -t 3. Equivalent Dwelling Units Assuming that there is a continued correlation in the use and need of parks for commercial and industrial uses, and that the use can be approximated at a rate of one equivalent dwelling unit per nine employees, approximately the same number of parks EDUs would be generated in the next ten years as Water and Sewer EDUs, or around 5350 total for all development uses. Assuming that twenty five percent of the parks capital improvements do not benefit the new developments but improve the quality or level of service of the existing parks, there is still a need to generate $ 3,300,000 in Systems development charges in the next 10 years. The parks SDC per unit calculates out at $ 616.82 . Again this fee is for development of parks and parks property. In addition, a "parks dedication or in -lieu -of parks fee, is used to acquire land. Fiscal Impact: The proposed increases in SDCs will generate the following funds: Water $3,438,00 Wastewater $11,700,000 Streets $1,210,790 Parks $3,300,00 There will be an increase in development costs which may slow activity. The charges do benefit new development in providing resources for the capital construction of needed public improvements. Without many of these improvements, the City will be unable to support new growth. h The following table demonstrates the individual SDC impact: * Estimate only for residential impact Alternatives: It is the City Council's decision as to which community improvements are constructed and also how various improvements will be funded. Systems development charges are one way of reducing tax burden and/or user fees. The use of SDCs also directly benefits and charges the group creating the impacts. The fees may be set any where from $ -0- to the maximum figure determined by the methodology adopted by the Council. By applying the conservative approach used in estimating the impact and associated charges, the maximum fees are justifiable. Decisions regarding systems development charges are policy decisions of how needed improvements will be financed. The questions are not necessarily whether improvements will be made, but rather who should pay and what combination of taxation/ assessment/ user fee/ impact fee is best suited to the fund raising task. Recommendation: Continue the public hearing, distribute additional information to the media and gain additional public comment with the intent of acting on new System Development Charges within 30 days. avid Reeves Finance Director - 7 - Current SDC Charge Maximum Charge Recommended Charge Increased Amount Water $ 450/EDU $ 642.67/EDU $ 600/EDU $ 150 Sewer 550/EDU 1,093.46/EDU 900/EDU 350 Streets* 50/Space 158/Space' 100/Space 50 Parks -0- 616.82/EDU 500/EDU 500 TOTAL $1,050 $2,452.95 $2,100 $1,050 * Estimate only for residential impact Alternatives: It is the City Council's decision as to which community improvements are constructed and also how various improvements will be funded. Systems development charges are one way of reducing tax burden and/or user fees. The use of SDCs also directly benefits and charges the group creating the impacts. The fees may be set any where from $ -0- to the maximum figure determined by the methodology adopted by the Council. By applying the conservative approach used in estimating the impact and associated charges, the maximum fees are justifiable. Decisions regarding systems development charges are policy decisions of how needed improvements will be financed. The questions are not necessarily whether improvements will be made, but rather who should pay and what combination of taxation/ assessment/ user fee/ impact fee is best suited to the fund raising task. Recommendation: Continue the public hearing, distribute additional information to the media and gain additional public comment with the intent of acting on new System Development Charges within 30 days. avid Reeves Finance Director - 7 - EXIiIBIT "A" Water System Capital Improvement 10 Year Plan for SDC's 1991-96 Well #6 356,000 1991-96 Emergency Generator Well #6 100,000 1991-96 Upgrade Pump/motor in well #3 (to increase capacity from 1100RPM to 2000GPM 100,000 1991-96 Well #7 400,000 1991-96 Upgrade booster system to Forked Horn Butte 25,000 1991-96 Fire Hydrant upgrade program ($5000/Yr) 25,000 1991-96 Main valve upgrade program ($1500/Yr) 7,500 1991-96 Extend 18" trunk main from 10th & Highland to 9th. and Maple 367,800 1991-96 Loop deadend mains (100,000/Yr) 500,000 1991-96 Upgrade 411 main - N. Canyon, Forest to Evergreen 20,000 1991-96 Loop Salmon/Odem Medo/21St./Wickiup along S. Canal 148,500 Total 1991-96 $2,049,800 1997-2001 Extend 18" trunk line from 9th & Maple to S.W. Reservoir 279,000 1997-2001 2 MG Reservoir (Tentative location, Cinder Butte) 550,000 1997-2001 Fire Hydrant upgrade program ($5,000/Yr) 25,000 1997-2001 Main valve upgrade program (1500/Yr) 7,500 1997-2001 Connect Deadend mains Sisters Ave. 27,000 1997-2001 Well #8 400,000 1997-2001 Emergency generator system Well #8 100,000 E �� 991-1996 1997-2001 XHIBIT "B"B" U .-ij L1`-¢1 2 WASTE WATER PLANT & DISPOSAL C/P 10 YEAR PLAN Phase I Plant and disposal system upgrade including design, construction and monitoring system $5,400,000 Phase II (Same as above) $6,300,000 1991-1996 1991-1996 1991-1996 1991-1996 1991-1996 1991-1996 1991-1996 1997-2001 1997-2001 1997-2001 1997-2001 1997-2001 EXHIBIT "C" STREET C/P 10 YEAR PLAN i i --CILIA �°'3 Airport Way extension to Yew Ave_ ( New construction to Industrial Std.) Shared funding, city share 500,500 First Street - Sisters Ave. to Salmon Ave. New Construction to industrial Std. (grant and match) City share $183,000 Lake Rd. - 1st. St. to Hwy 126. New construction to industrial Std. (grant and match) City share $78,000 Obsidian - 31 St. to 23rd. Reconstruct to Collector Std. -City share above local Std. $36,570 Maple - Hway 97 to N. Canal Blvd. (New Construction to arterial Std.) City share above local std $ 19,320 Quartz - 23rd. St. to Canyon Dr. Reconstruct to collector Std. (LID to local Std.) City share above local Std. $25,460 Rimrock - Highland to Antler (Reconstruct to Collector Std.) Upgrade local to collector $38,690 Black Butte/Antler - 19th. St. to 12th.St. (Reconstruct to Collector Std.) City share above local Std. $30,360 Extend 9th St. - Highland to Canal New construction City share above local Std. $27,600 Land acquisition/Construction of intersection - North Canal/Antler/Second/Black Butte $105,000 Maple - 10th St. to Hway 97 (Reconstruct to Arterial Std.) City share above local Std. $53,820 Obsidian - 35th to 31 St. Reconstruct to collector Std.- City above local Std. $17,940 41 EXHIBIT "C" page 2 1997-2001 Obsidian - 23rd_ to Hwy 97 - Reconstruct to Collector Std_ City share above Local Std. $77,280 1997-2001 Quartz - 27th St_ to 23rd. St. Reconstruct to collector Std. city share above local Std. $17,250 �f -04 Other projects defined in Public Facility Plan. EXHIBIT "D" PARKS C/P 10 YEAR PLAN neighborhood Parks, 3 located South and 1991-96 Four new Highland and Hwy_ 97, One located near West of Central area (Specific Sites not identified) of four or more acres $1,200,000 1991-1996 Four new Mini Parks of 1/2 + acres, 2 located South 2 located West of & West of Highland and Rte, 126 97, (Specific Sites not Canyon, North of Hway identified) $400,000 1991-1996 Complete Sam Johnson Park $500,000 1991-1996 Relocate Ray Johnson Park $700,000 If 1997-2001 Four new neighborhood parks, in 2 located in Southwest Northwest area of City area of city, 2,located $1,200,000 - 1997-2001 Four new Mini Parks of 1/2 + acres, 2 located in 2 located in southwest North or North Central area, area $4001000 September 20, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Joe Hannan, City Manager FROM: David Reeves, Finance Director RE: Systems Development Charges Report in Brief: The discussion regarding systems development ongoing since early June 1990. The Council for the Water and Sewer SDC charges, and has SDC. The Streets SDC is still significantly and has not been an item of major concern as charges has been is nearing a consensus addressed the parks below actual costs of yet. Three issues remain prior to drafting an ordinance to change the City code regarding Systems Development Charges: Is the City willing to accept alternative methods of securing payment of systems development charges over time such as: City lien, mortgage or trust deed, alternative collateral, bond, cash deposit, or other acceptable security. Does the City want to continue calculating SDCs using the measure of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs). Parks SDCs need further assessment to ensure that we are not requiring new development to "make-up" an existing deficiency in parks development. Background: The Systems Development Charge review has been an involved process. The following lists dates and purposes of meetings involving SDCs. DATE PURPOSE 5-14-91 Introduction to SDCs/ Review of H.B.3224/ Opened public hearing RE: potential projects 5-28-91 Public hearing continued RE: project list and pricing of proposed projects. 6-11-91 Public hearing RE: discussion on potential ways to establish and collect SDCs. Deferred Payments The home builders association suggests that an up front charge of $1,000 would escalate costs to $1,445 and would generate additional costs to the buyer. Though an up front SDC charge is very efficient in collection, the builders claim it is "the most expensive" way to assess the fee. A request has been made to allow the fee to be paid over time. An instalment contract with sufficient guarantee to protect the City would accomplish this. Providing alternative methods to guarantee the payment of the contract should avoid any measure five impact where the fee may be interpreted as a tax. The SDC is clearly designed as a fee on the activity of development, it is not a tax. The collection of this fee (over time) should not have any impact on the interpretation of whether or not it is a tax. Methods of guarantee could include: City lien, mortgage or trust deed, alternative collateral, bond, cash deposit, or other acceptable security. The City would want to take care that it is in a first position so that the City would not be required to buy out other interests to secure its position. 6-25,91 Continued public hearingmeeting on 7-18-91. 7-18-91 Mayor distributed staff report on recommended methodology for establishing new and revised SDCs for water, sewer, streets, and parks. Continued the hearing. 8-13-91 Some public testimony and review of staff proposal. Staff directed to prepare alternatives to review along with SDCs to finance capital improvements. 8-29-91 Meeting held by Chamber/Board of Realtors/ Builders: to discuss alternatives, allow input, and communicate concerns regarding the proposed SDC changes. 9- 4-91 Council workshop to refine System Development Charges. 9-10-91 Continued public hearing - focused on parks SDC. Current level of developed parks needs to be identified on an equivalent dwelling unit basis. DISCUSSION: Additional information and suggestions have come to the City since the the last meeting. They include a letter and attachment from Oregon State Home Builders Association (attached), and a letter from B.J. Fowler (attached). Deferred Payments The home builders association suggests that an up front charge of $1,000 would escalate costs to $1,445 and would generate additional costs to the buyer. Though an up front SDC charge is very efficient in collection, the builders claim it is "the most expensive" way to assess the fee. A request has been made to allow the fee to be paid over time. An instalment contract with sufficient guarantee to protect the City would accomplish this. Providing alternative methods to guarantee the payment of the contract should avoid any measure five impact where the fee may be interpreted as a tax. The SDC is clearly designed as a fee on the activity of development, it is not a tax. The collection of this fee (over time) should not have any impact on the interpretation of whether or not it is a tax. Methods of guarantee could include: City lien, mortgage or trust deed, alternative collateral, bond, cash deposit, or other acceptable security. The City would want to take care that it is in a first position so that the City would not be required to buy out other interests to secure its position. U A.-id Cli J`3 Since the impact of development truly precedes the actual development it is important to collect the fee as soon as possible. The City can not wait until all 700 homes affecting the need for a new well have paid their SDC prior to the actual construction of the needed facility. Obviously the City needs to provide a finance mechanism to facilitate growth. The City currently allows deferral of Water and Sewer SDCs for 60 days without interest, or a one year installment contract secured by a City lien with interest at 10%. Extending the contract period beyond one year adds additional administrative burden on the City and puts the City in the Banking business. There is also a potential of additional conflicts arising should any changes occur in the annual review of the Systems Development Charges. City staff recommends expanding the methods of securing an instalment contract and making no change to the one year or 60 day deferral. Method of Assessment In the attached letter, an alternative to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) is proposed based on fixture units. The number of tubs, sinks, etc., are counted for assessing the fee. The means of determining the fee assessment in the past has been done on an equivalent dwelling unit basis in the City. It assumes that each unit impacts the system to the same degree. The City also does its billings for sewer on the same basis, each house pays the same. This system is simple to understand and administer. Because both water and sewer are consumption based commodities, difficulties arise anytime you speculate future use or demand. Averages can assist as does basic logic, but neither is really accurate. Does a big house create big demand? Does a large family always use more? Do large homes always have more fixtures built into them? The system proposed does have merit in that it will likely distribute higher costs to bigger buildings. I am not sure that it fairly distributes costs of the actual impact on the system. It would require additional efforts in calculating the assessment and would encourage "under reporting". There would also be a problems in setting rates for business. The change from the City's current method of assessing charges would also create new problems. Before changing the way the City assess fees or charges the Council should be convinced that the new method is more fair, will cover its own costs, and that it will not create more problems than its alternatives. Staff recommendation is to retain the EDU standard for calculating systems development charges. �... t Parks System Development Charge As a result of the hearing and in re-examination of the parks list, there is a question regarding the scope of the projects and if the proposed projects exceed current parks standards. An inventory of developed parks has been taken. The City of Redmond has 25.25 acres of developed parks land including: Baker Park(2.35), Bolby Field(3.30), Kalama Park(2.39), Lake Park(3.20), Library Park(0.46), Ray Johnson Park(6.50), Sam Johnson Park(5.90), South West Island Park(0.92), 8th Street Tennis Courts(0.23). This equals .0036 acres of developed parks per person. The adopted parks project list would develop up to 56 new acres in the next 10 years. During that time the population would increase approximately 8,400 people. That equates to .0052 acres of developed parks in the year 2001 (81.25 acres 15,585 people). At current parks development levels we would need to fund 30.86 new acres of developed parks (not 56 acres). If the proposed parks development list was to equal the current standard for parks, the total development costs would be reduced about $2,100,000. There is a need to revise the adopted parks project list and propose a new parks SDC. The estimated cost of projects affecting new development would be reduced from $3.3 million to $2.3 million dollars. Assuming the same number of EDUs (5,350) the cost calculates at $429.91 per EDU at existing standards. It still may be desirable to increase parks development over current standards; however, the financing should come from other sources other than SDCs. We can also estimate the value of the current developed parks, dividing it by the current number of citizens (7185), and multiplying by 2.2 (average household or EDU) if the Council wishes. The result will be the current level of developed parks in dollars for each EDU. It is expected that this figure would also be below the $500 per EDU system development charge previously proposed, but near the $429 figure. Staff proposes to use the lower of these figures as the required SDC for parks, or for rounding purposes $425.00 per Equivalent dwelling unit. Fiscal Impact: The implementation of the new/increased systems development charges will off -set the required participation through other taxes and/or service fees needed to build the capital facilities. The quality of the services provided can be maintained through the use of SDCs for capital improvements. IBJ Alternatives: 1. Direct staff to draft the implementing ordinance for review at the next council meeting. 2. Seek additional information through additional hearings and resources. Recommendation: Prepare a draft ordinance to establish SDC as follows: 11 1 Recommended Charge Increased Amount Water $ 600/EDU $ 150 Sewer 900/EDU 350 Streets 100/Space 50 Parks 425/EDU 425 TOTAL $2,025 $ 975 * Estimate only for residential impact, commercial and industrial impact will increase proportionally per required parking space. Including alternative methods for securing a one year deferral contracts. David Reeves, Finance Directorl September 20, 1991 �-�S" CITY OF REDMOND DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON 455 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET REDMOND, OREGON 97756 (503)548-2148 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Joe Hannan, City Manager FROM: David Reeves, Finance Director RE: Systems Development Charges Report in Brief: The discussion regarding systems development charges has been ongoing since early June 1990. The Council is nearing a consensus for the Water and Sewer SDC charges, and has addressed the parks SDC. The Streets SDC is still significantly below actual costs and has not been an item of major concern as of yet. Three issues remain prior to drafting an ordinance to change the City code regarding Systems Development Charges: Is the City willing to accept alternative methods of securing payment of systems development charges over time such as: City lien, mortgage or trust deed, alternative collateral, bond, cash deposit, or other acceptable security. Does the City want to continue calculating SDCs using the measure of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs). Parks SDCs need further assessment to ensure that we are not requiring new development to "make-up" an existing deficiency in parks development. Background: The Systems Development Charge review has been an involved process. The following lists dates and purposes of meetings involving SDCs. DATE PURPOSE 5-14-91 Introduction to SDCs/ Review of H.B.3224/ Opened public hearing RE: potential projects 5-28-91 Public hearing continued RE: project list and pricing of proposed projects. 6-11-91 Public hearing RE: discussion on potential ways to establish and collect SDCs. 17 i-io� r � 4 6-25,91 Continued public hearing meeting on 7-18-91. 7-18-91 Mayor distributed staff report on recommended methodology for establishing new and revised SDCs for water, sewer, streets, and parks. Continued the hearing. 8-13-91 Some public testimony and review of staff proposal. Staff directed to prepare alternatives to review along with SDCs to finance capital improvements. 8-29-91 Meeting held by Chamber/Board of Realtors/ Builders: to discuss alternatives, allow input, and communicate concerns regarding the proposed SDC changes. 9- 4-91 Council workshop to refine System Development Charges. 9-10-91 Continued public hearing - focused on parks SDC. Current level of developed parks needs to be identified on an equivalent dwelling unit basis. DISCUSSION: Additional information and suggestions have come to the City since the last meeting. They include a letter and attachment from the Oregon State Home Builders Association (attached), and a letter from B.J. Fowler (attached). Deferred Payments The home builders escalateassociation tosuggests andthat wouldup front generatecharge of $1,000 would additional costs to the buyer. Though an up front SDC charge is very efficient in collection, the builders claim it is "the most expensive way to assess the fee. A request has been made to allow the fee to be paid over time. An instalment contract with sufficient guarantee to protect the City would accomplish this. Providing alternative methods to guarantee the payment of the contract should avoid any measure five impact where the fee may be interpreted as a tax. The SDC is clearly designed as a fee on the activity of development, it is not a tax. The collection of this fee (over time) should not have any impact on the interpretation of whether or not it is a tax. Methods of guarantee could include: City lien, mortgage or trust deed, alternative collateral, bond, cash deposit, or other acceptable security. The City would want to take care that it is in a first position so that the City would not be required to buy out other interests to secure its position. C� i Since the impact of development truly precedes the actual development it is important to collect the fee as soon as possible. The City can not wait until all 700 homes affecting the need for a new well have paid their SDC prior to the actual construction of the needed facility. Obviously the City needs to provide a finance mechanism to facilitate growth. The City currently allows deferral of Water and Sewer SDCs for 60 days without interest, or a one year installment contract secured by a City lien with interest at 10%. Extending the contract period beyond one year adds additional administrative burden on the City and puts the City in the Banking business. There is also a potential of additional conflicts arising should any changes occur in the annual review of the Systems Development Charges. City staff recommends expanding the methods of securing an instalment contract and making no change to the one year or 60 day deferral. Method of Assessment In the attached letter, an alternative to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) is proposed based on fixture units. The number of tubs, sinks, etc., are counted for assessing the fee. The means of determining the fee assessment in the past has been done on an equivalent dwelling unit basis in the City.. It assumes that each unit impacts the system to the same degree. The City also does its billings for sewer on the same basis, each house pays the same. This system is simple to understand and administer. Because both water and sewer are consumption based commodities, difficulties arise anytime you speculate future use or demand. Averages can assist as does basic logic, but neither is really accurate. Does a big house create big demand? Does a large family always use more? Do large homes always have more fixtures built into them? The system proposed does have merit in that it will likely distribute higher costs to bigger buildings. I am not sure that it fairly distributes costs of the actual impact on the system. It would require additional efforts in calculating the assessment and would encourage "under reporting". There would also be a problems in setting rates for business. The change from the City's current method of assessing charges would also create new problems. Before changing the way the City assess fees or charges the Council should be convinced that the new method is more fair, will cover its own costs, and that it will not create more problems than its alternatives. Staff recommendation is to retain the EDU standard for calculating systems development charges. Parks System Development Charge As a result of the hearing and in re-examination of the parks list, there is a question regarding the scope of the projects and if the proposed projects exceed current parks standards. An inventory of developed parks has been taken. The City of Redmond has 25.25 acres of developed parks land including: Baker Park(2.35), Bolby Field(3.30), Kalama Park(2.39), Lake Park(3.20), Library Park(0.46), Ray Johnson Park(6.50), Sam Johnson Park(5.90), South West Island Park(0.92), 8th Street Tennis Courts(0.23). This equals .0036 acres of developed parks per person. The adopted parks project list would develop up to 56 new acres in the next 10 years. During that time the population would increase approximately 8,400 people. That equates to .0052 acres of developed parks in the year 2001 (81.25 acres 15,585 people). At current parks development levels we would need to fund 30.86 new acres of developed parks (not 56 acres). If the proposed parks development list was to equal the current standard for parks, the total development costs would be reduced about $2,100,000. There is a need to revise the adopted parks project list and propose a new parks SDC. The estimated cost of projects affecting new development would be reduced from $3.3 million to $2.3 million dollars. Assuming the same number of EDUs (5,350) the cost calculates at $429.91 per EDU at existing standards. It still may be desirable to increase parks development over current standards; however, the financing should come from other sources other than SDCs. We can also estimate the value of the current developed parks, dividing it by the current number of citizens (7185), and multiplying by 2.2 (average household or EDU) if the Council wishes. The result will be the current level of developed parks in dollars for each EDU. It is expected that this figure would also be below the $500 per EDU system development charge previously proposed, but near the $429 figure. Staff proposes to use the lower of these figures as the required SDC for parks, or for rounding purposes $425.00 per Equivalent dwelling unit. Fiscal Impact: The implementation of the new/increased systems development charges will off -set the required participation through other taxes and/or service fees needed to build the capital facilities. The quality of the services provided can be maintained through the use of SDCs for capital improvements. Alternatives: 1. Direct staff to draft the implementing ordinance for review at the next council meeting. 2. Seek additional information through additional hearings and resources. Recommendation: Prepare a draft ordinance to establish SDC as follows: * Estimate only for residential impact, commercial and industrial impact will increase proportionally per required parking space. Including alternative methods for securing a one year deferral 10 contracts. r ��LG Lc--�" �QE David Reeves, Finance Directorl 0 Recommended Charge Increased Amount Water $ 600/EDU $ 150 Sewer 900/EDU 350 Streets* 100/Space 50 Parks 425/EDU 425 TOTAL $2,025 $ 975 * Estimate only for residential impact, commercial and industrial impact will increase proportionally per required parking space. Including alternative methods for securing a one year deferral 10 contracts. r ��LG Lc--�" �QE David Reeves, Finance Directorl 0 0140 -0�1 so Page 2 - Redmond City Council - September 24, 1991 Councilor Anderson moved to defer a decision on the application until the next meeting when co -applicant Tom Lersch can be present, seconded by Councilor Povey, motion passed. Councilor Thackery commented that as he will be unable to attend the October 8, 1991 Council meeting he wanted to go on record as saying that unless new evidence is presented to the contrary he is against recommending approval of the application of Mssrs. Terrell and Lersch. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION None PUBLIC HEARING A Continued - System Development Charges - Methodology Finance Director, David Reeves, reviewed the packet memorandum providing a brief summary of previous discussion of this topic held at meetings in the recent past. Several major issues brought up during these previous discussion were addressed in the memorandum: deferred payments; method of assessment; and parks system development charges. Mr. Reeves directed attention to copies of letter received from Oregon State Home Builders Association providing an analysis of a typical buyer's cost of a home including the City's new proposed SDC charge. General discussion ensued. B.J. Fowler, 526 SW 6th, spoke in favor of the proposed SDC charges, she is in favor of the "pay as you go" payment method, which could be included with the building expense. Discussion followed on assessment of apartments, duplexes, etc. compared to residences. Tony Hill, Trout Realty, stated that while the proposed parks fees have come down since the beginning of the hearings he is not opposed to the fees, his concern was with how those charges would be administered and collected. Mark Wood, 6316 S. Hwy. 97, asked if the $425 proposed park SCD charge could be spread out over a period of several years to reach the proposed $425 charge. Reeves responded that a graduated fee, starting at $100 for the first year, would not provide the full value of the funds to build the presently needed parks. Council President Schroeder continued the public hearing until the October 8, 1991 meeting, at which time more public input will be taken. Staff was directed to prepare a draft ordinance for Council consideration at that time. BID AWARD A. AIP #07 - Lighting & Signage Project Airport Manager, Carrie Novick, reviewed the packet memorandum concerning bid award for the AIP 07 Runway Lighting Project. The project covers repairs and/or replacement of wiring, transformers, conduit, and renovation of regulators damaged during a storm in August of 1990, as well as changes to and new signage mandated by the FAA. She reported that a request for proposals was published and 5 bids received. The low bidder on the project was Gerdes Electric of Bend, at $311,285. The bid has been reviewed by both the FAA and Morrison-Maierle, and Morrison-Maierle recommends that the City accept the bid of Gerdes Electric. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF REDMOND WAS HELD OCTOBER 22, 1991 QUORUM PRESENT MAYOR BOB RIGGS PRESIDENT COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Harms - Don Lee - Randy Povey - Bob Riggs - Jerry Thackery OTHERS PRESENT: City Staff - Jan Volz, Spokesman - Gene Barton, Bulletin - Fran Hahn - Robert and Beverly Bergstrom - Tito Nappi COUNCILORS EXCUSED: Councilors Anderson and Schroeder Mayor Riggs called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL The Recorder called the roll. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilor Harms led the pledge of allegiance. INVOCATION Rev. Jim Bennett, Assembly of God Church, gave the invocation. COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS AT THE MEETING There were none. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Harms moved to approve the consent agenda to include a. Minutes of August 13, 1991 (Exhibit A), b. Minutes of September 10, 1991 (Exhibit B), c. liquor license application - Redmond Quick Stop (Exhibit C), and d. liquor license application Old Creamery Deli. The motion was seconded by Councilor Lee and passed. CITIZEN RECOGNITION A Recyclers of the Year Award - Big R, Ted Moan and Robert & Beverly Bergstrom Mayor Riggs called on Fran Hahn of High Country Disposal and Recyclers to present the Recyclers of the Year Award. Each year High Country Disposal and Recyclers recognizes several local households and businesses for their outstanding recycling efforts. Ms. Hahn reported that on October 10, Ted Moan of the Big R received the Redmond Business Certificate of Appreciation. She asked Robert & Beverly Bergstrom to step forward to receive the Redmond Residence Certificate of Appreciation for their efforts in recycling of milk jugs, .,glass, newspaper, and tin. Mr. & Mrs. Bergstrom accepted the award and they %?ere congratulated by those present. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued - System Development Charges Methodology Ordinance 91-28 - An ordinance establishing Section 3.400 through 3.435 and of systems development charges. (Exhibit D Mayor Riggs opened the public hearing, inviting testimony from the audience. There being no one present who wished to speak to the issue, Mayor Riggs was directed by Council consensus to close the public hearing. KqJ Page 2 - Redmond City Council - October 22, 1991 City Manager, Joe Hannan, reviewed the proposed ordinance which had been drafted as a result of prior discussion of the subject held at several recent City Council meetings. General discussion followed. Councilor Thackery discussed the appropriateness of applying the Parks SDC to institutions such as churches and schools, saying it appears to be double charging to charge users at home and also through the institution. There followed some discussion of the method used to calculate the total potential EDUs, which are predicated on charging the Parks SDC to institutions. There was some support for taking SDC institutional charges out of the calculation but it was felt it would be difficult to determine the exact uses for the various institutions and the impact of this potential usage on the parks. There was discussion on the method of determing equitable street SDC charge. It was felt the rates should reflect usage or trips/day as well as recognizing the additional usage generated from commercial and industrial development. There was discussion regarding providing services to users who live outside of the City such as schools where not all attendees pay City taxes and fees. Councilor Harms moved to have the first reading of Ordinance 91-28 by title only, seconded by Councilor Povey, motion passed. City Attorney, Ed Fitch, read the first reading of Ordinance 91-28 by title only. Following discussion, the second reading and consideration of approval of Ordinance 91- 28 was deferred until the next meeting. Resolution 91-54 - A resolution setting the system development charge rate for water and sewer according to Redmond Code Section 4.075 (2). (Exhibit E) Resolution 91-55 - A resolution setting the system development charge rate for parks according to Redmond Code Section 3.410 (2). (Exhibit F) Resolution 91-56 - A resolution setting the system development charge rate for streets according to Redmond Code Section 3.510 (2). (Exhibit G) Consideration of approval of the three above resolutions was deferred until the next meeting. B. Recreational Vehicle Park Standards Ordinance 91-29 - An ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to revise recreational vehicle park standards, by adding definitions to Section 1.050 and amending Section 7.040 (12) Standards Governing Conditional Uses (Exhibit H) Mayor Riggs opened the public hearing. Community Development Director, Bob Quitmeier, reviewed the packet memorandum and proposed ordinance outlining new recreational vehicle park standards. He reportled that the ordinance had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and that they had expressed some concerns over certain of the provisions contained therein. General discussion followed, during which the Council discussed various elements of the proposed ordinance having to do with private drive and parking standards, park setbacks, overall park size, and minimum landscaping requirements. The Council directed the Planning Commission to consider revisions to the proposed ordinance addressing these areas of concern. Mayor Riggs continued the public hearing to a future meeting. r Page 3 - Redmond City Council - November 12, 1991 01 JL 'oto 02,03 Councilor Lee moved to accept the low bid of Jack Robinson and Sons, Inc., in the amount $69,246.75, for construction of 17th Place project, and the low -bid of Dice Construction, amount $61,823.00, for the construction of seven downtown sidewalk improvement projects subject to supplemental budget approval, seconded by Councilor Thackery and passed. B. Cavel West Waterline (Exhibit J) Public Works Director Stevenson reviewed the packet memorandum recommending acceptance of the low bid of John Arnold in the amount of $16,280.00 to close loop of waterline identified as Cavel West Water Line Couplet Project. Councilor Povey moved to accept the low bid of John Arnold in the amount of $16,280.00 to close loop of waterline identified as Cavel West Water Line Couplet Project, seconded by Councilor Anderson and passed. ORDINANCES A Ordinance 91-28 - Second Reading - An ordinance establishing Section 3.400 throuoh 3.435 and amending Sections; 3.500 through 3.535, 4.075, and 4.102 of the E Councilor Povey moved to have the second reading of Ordinance 91-28 by title only, seconded by Councilor Anderson and passed. City Manager Hannan read the second reading of Ordinance 91-28 by title only. Councilor Povey moved to adopt Ordinance 91-28, seconded by Councilor Anderson, and discussion continued. Councilor Lee voiced his philosophical opposition to the Parks Systems Development Charge. Councilor Anderson commented the Parks SDC is needed as it will help in acquiring needed new park lands. Councilor Thackery is concerned, about the appropriateness of applying the Parks SDC to institutions such as churches, schools, and nursing homes, as it appears to be double charging to charge users at home and also through the institution. Following discussion, the roll was called for approval of the motion: Anderson yes, Harms -absent, Lee -no, Povey-yes, Riggs -absent, Schroeder -yes, Thackery-no; motion passed by a 3-2 vote. U .Rr)T.TTTTnNG A Resolution 91-54 - A resolution setting the system development charge rate for water and sewer according to Redmond Code Section 4.075 (2). Councilor Thackery moved to adopt Resolution 91-54, seconded by Councilor Povey, roll call vote: Lee -yes, Povey-yes, Riggs -absent, Schroeder -yes, Thackery-yes, Anderson -yes, Harms -absent, motion passed. B Resolution 91-55 - A resolution setting the system development charge rate for parks according to Redmond Code Section 3.410 (2). Councilor Anderson moved to adopt Resolution 91-55, seconded by Councilor Povey, roll call vote: Povey-yes, Riggs -absent, Schroeder -yes, Thackery-no, Anderson - yes, Harms -absent, Lee -no, motion passed by a 3-2 vote. C Resolution 91-56 - A resolution setting the system development charge rate for streets according to Redmond Code Section 3.510 (2). Councilor Anderson moved to adopt Resolution 91-56, seconded by Councilor Povey, roll call vote: Schroeder -yes, Thackery-yes, Anderson -yes, Harms -absent, Lee- F REDMOND ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 9/-" AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SECTION 3.400 THROUGH SECTIONS; 3.500 THROUGH 3.535, 4.075, AND 4.102 CODE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT THE CITY OF REDMOND ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE 3.435 AND AMENDING OF THE REDMOND CITY CHARGES. Sections 3.400 through 3.435 are established as follows: PARKS SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 3.400 Findings and Purpose. (1) The Council finds that development in the Redmond area has led to the need to improve the City's parks and developed open areas to maintain the standards set forth in the Parks element of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to accomplish the improvements, a need exists to seek new sources of revenue to contribute to the costs of those improvements. The Council finds it fair, reasonable and equitable to impose a charge on development to pay a portion of the costs of increasing the capacity of the existing parks facilities in order that those facilities may accommodate the increased use created by development. (2) The Council finds that the Equivalent Dwelling Unit is an appropriate measure of growth in the community, and the Council further finds that it is reasonable to use the Equivalent Dwelling Unit as a measure for establishing the rate structure for a parks System Development (3) The Council in Section 3.410 are based extent and anticipated cos they represent no more th share of those anticipated facilities plan serves as a projec ts. is the sole purpose of Sections 3.400 to 3.435 to establish a new source of revenue necessary to help meet the rising demands placed on the City. (5 ) The funds derived from this charge will be dedicated to the particular use of parks capital improvements and acquisition including but not limited to: design and engineering, landscaping, construction, purchase of equipment or other property as needed for parks. Charge. further finds that the rates established on an in depth analysis of the projected is of the needed improvements and that an the fair and equitable proportional costs. The projects list in the public basis for identifying the participating (4) It f 3.405 Definitions. For the purpose of Sections 3.400 to 3.435, the following mean: City, commercial use, industrial use, owner, residential use, structure. Shall be given the same meaning or definition given to them by the Development Code of the City. Applicant. The owner or authorized agent of the owner requesting a building permit. Building permit. A permit for construction issued by the City pursuant to the structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Code as adopted by the State of Oregon and in effect within the City. Development. (a) The establishment of a use on any parcel of land involving the construction or the placing of a structure on a parcel that was not previously occupied by any structure. (b) Any alteration or change in use which increases the capacity or number of employees/tenants allowed pursuant to the Development Code. 3.410 Charge Imposed; Rate Established. (1) A charge is imposed on all development requiring City sewer or water services. This charge is imposed on all development as that term is defined in Section 3.405 or upon issuance of a building permit. (2) The rate of the charges for parks systems development will be based on the number of Equivalent Dwelling units and set by resolution. (3) The systems development charge shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction or, in the case of a new business in an existing building, at the time a building permit is issued or at the time a change in use impacts the number of individuals in the building. For computation of the systems development charge, the applicable Equivalent Dwelling Unit fee shall be multiplied by the number of Equivalent Dwelling Units, determinable by the following chart. When calculating the number of units, the capacity of the development will be used for determining the number of; employees, etc. The minimum number of Equivalent Dwelling Units is one. Partial units over one shall be rounded up to the next whole unit. Only whole units will be charged. EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS Residential: (a) Single family dwelling is one Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). (b) Duplex: one EDU per dwelling unit (i.e. 2). (c) Multi -family: Each unit shall be multiplied by a factor of .80 EDU and the total rounded up to the whole EDU. (Example -of an eight-plex: 8 x .8 = 6.4 rounded to 7 EDUs). Mobile home and RV parks are included in this classification. Non -Residential: (a) Institutional Uses (1) Church: One EDU per each 200 seat capacity. An additional EDU shall be added if the church has a kitchen. (2) Schools: Kindergarten or preschool - one EDU per 30 students; elementary school - one EDU per 20 students; junior and senior high schools - one EDU per 15 students. (3) Nursing homes: One EDU per three beds. (4) Hospital: One EDU per three beds. (b) Commercial Uses (1) Retail Stores, service. and repair shop, bank, and office - One EDU per nine or less employees. (2) Theaters - One EDU per 200 seat capacity. (3) Civic clubs and lodges serving meals on a regular basis - One EDU per 30 seat capacity. (4) Motels, hotels, motor courts, boarding and rooming houses, dormitories - .50 EDU per room. (5) Banquet rooms, cocktail lounges, restaurants, taverns - one EDU per 30 seat capacity. (6) Government buildings - one EDU per 9 or less employees. (c) Industrial Establishments (1) One EDU per 9 or less employees. 3.415 Time of Imposition of Charge; Alternate Payment Method. (1) The charge imposed by Section 3.410 is due and, except as provided by subsection (2) of this section, is payable in full at a time no later than the issuance of the building permit for the development. (2) Any property owner obligated to pay the charge imposed by Section 3.410 may make written application to the City for the right to pay the charge due in installment payments. All installment plans shall include an interest charge at the rate of 10% per annum. (3) Any charge imposed by section 3.410 for which application has been made to make installment payments is to be secured in a manner acceptable to the City. Acceptable security may include; a City lien subject to ORS 223.297 through 223.314, first`,position mortgage or trust deed, or alternative acceptable collateral. t (4) No person who chooses to pay the charge by installments established by contract shall fail to make payments in compliance with that schedule. In event installment payments are not paid when due, the City may simultaneously seek collection of the charge, foreclose any lien, seek appropriate injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction and seek any other applicable remedy or penalty available to the City, including terminating the provision of water and sewer services to the property. The rights, remedies and forfeitures provided by the Chapter are cumulative and not exclusive. 3.420 Building Without Payment of Charge Prohibited; Penalties. (1) No building permit shall be issued for, and no person shall construct or secure construction of any development unless the charge imposed on the development has been paid or a schedule of installment payments, if allowed, has been established. (2) The violation of any provision of this Section constitutes a Class A civil infraction and is by its nature a continuing infraction. Any infraction under this section shall be processed in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Code. (3) The rights, 'remedies and forfeitures provided by Sections 3.410 to 3.435 are cumulative and not mutually exclusive. The City may simultaneously seek collection of the charge, foreclose any lien, take action pursuant to the civil infraction procedure, seek appropriate injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction and seek any other applicable remedy or penalty available to it. 3.425 Credit for Certain Costs Incurred. (1) An applicant may seek a credit against the charge due in connection with the applicant's development in the manner and subject to the limitations provided by this section. (2) If an applicant is required to make certain public improvements as a condition of development approval, and the improvements are deemed extra capacity facilities and are not directly necessary to minimize or eliminate the adverse and deleterious impact the development is likely to make on the City's parks, the applicant may request that the cost of the improvements become a credit against the charge due. (3) The City Manager shall establish a procedure to provide for a review of requests for credit made pursuant to this Section. An applicant making such a request, after following the procedure established by the City Manager, shall have the right to have any determination made on the request reviewed by the Council in the manner the Council deems appropriate. 3.430 Segregation and Use of Revenues. The proceeds derived from the charge imposed and collected pursuant to Section 3.400 to 3.435 shall be used for no purpose other than Parks. 3.435 Charge Not Exclusive. The charge established by Sections 3.400 to 3.435 is a separate revenue measure apart from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, charge or fee otherwise provided by law, except as expressly stated to the contrary. SECTION TWO Sections 3.500 through 3.535 of the Redmond Code are amended to read as follows (words underlined are added and words s�ciei are to be deleted) ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREET DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 3.500 Findings and Purpose. (1) The Council finds that development in the Redmond area has led to the need to improve the City arterial and collector street system to the standards set forth in the City's General Plan. In order to accomplish the improvements, a need exists to seek new sources of revenue to contribute to the costs of those improvements. The Council finds it fair, reasonable and equitable to impose a tax charge on development to pay a portion of the costs of increasing the capacity of the existing street facilities in order that those. facilities may accommodate in a safe manner the increased demands placed on them by the growth and development of the area. (2) The Council further finds there is a strong correlation between the demand any given type of development places on the street system and type of use, number of parking spaces required to serve the use, and the amount of turnover which occurs in the parking spaces during any given time of reference. The Council determines that reliance on such information is a fair and equitable method of determining the fi�ik:::E�if:� fee structure. (3) The Council further finds that the methodology for setting rates aliYd in Section 3.510 is based on an in depth analysis of the projected extent and anticipated costs of the needed improvements as identified in the streets SDC project list and that they represent no more than the fair and equitable proportional share of those anticipated costs. The projects list in the public facilities plan serves as a basis for identifying the ParticiDatina Droiects. z:h::sd::pip:ky :€:iriSF�t3ri3 55 ... ........................... .....::••.... •. -- a�Y:: HO 33::: szei = ieessa..:..: 3s i iii:: roc ......... ........................ 3:"::: aim i s Ci i i : �� i s ............................................... r........................................................................................................... ...................................... ... . . ....... ... .. .. .. pgzr�r a:I�sheH::bar::Ye::r::airi:::::regaisi Cit rii ��i�� � :�Q s�g�rt � e::Zxa ag ::...... tQ e:_:p r� r...............................t Cn�ne :o .. o... g:caaa dei ::: it i3 ::: c ............... ....... d- i i i i �E1 i H:::a�:::� i:::iiia ii Epic:::6! f.:::bi �agi� E. iH � g::a:ia:::�Eedi��t-•.':::-r'ii�- -ire ...................................................................................................................-••-•••............g....................................... 3.510 Charge Imposed; Rate Established. (1) An arterial and collector street development charge is imposed on all development requiring City sewer or water services. This charge is imposed on all development as that term is defined in Section 3.505 or upon issuance of a building permit. Vix .... ..................... .. . . . .. . ................. .......... . (2) mif rat Ei Eii�: LY -al a::3 i.isj6� Y��r ��i- � _ sept Qr� _..ia1 Y16 :s: ..............................•........... .......................... . ....... Pg ........... :IIS::�:€:.: Vs:.::.::.:fig ii..:: spses ............... ................ sment-T --------. -- af�c:txssa:s a aig.: -..... :aPs :... ::-6Y1E.I�g-: ................ 1 IVlilij a asks::::::......... Dance::: ........................................... ::::restaurants:;: ........................... n��e� ............................................. p :::!sing:;pace::: �regned`:O�d� nanps::::3 .....................::....c...e ..Recmnndt�x3.ng...o.cdinance; The rate of the charges for streets systems development will be based on the number and classification of parking spaces and set by resolution. The number of parking spaces provided for any development shall be that number established pursuant to the provisions of the Development Code. 3.515 Time of Imposition of Charge; Alternate Payment Method. (1) The Edi charge imposed by Section 3.510 is due and, except as provided by subsection (2) of this section, is payable in full at a time no later than the issuance of the building permit for the development. (2) Any property owner obligated to pay the charge imposed by Section 3.510 may make written application to the City for the right to pay the Ea charge due in installment payments.. All installment plans shall include an interest charge at the rate of 10% per annum. (3) Any charge imposed by Section 3.510 for which application has been made to make installment payments is to be secured in a manner acceptable to the City. Acceptable security may include; a City lien, first position mortgage or trust deed, or alternative acceptable collateral. 4 n :::cage::Inc :::paid::: n::: :ries di s1:::? . ��:: ��:.:c... ................. .. .. :....:.:....:........:::.....:........:..:......::: .....:::........ ... er is:;::: r! Y t :: s::..................................: a ��::� ..s .................................................... :.::::.:..:.................. .. ...... .. P£? P ? €::a Q at : h ... i ga x i a ge:: ::: a No person who chooses to pay the charge by installments established by contract shall fail to make payments in compliance with that schedule. In event installment payments are not paid when due, the City may simultaneously seek collection of the charge, foreclose any lien, seek appropriate injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction and seek any other applicable remedy or penalty available to the City, including terminating the provision of water and sewer services to the property. The rights, remedies and forfeitures provided by the chapter are cumulative and not necessarily exclusive. 3.520 Building Without Payment of Wak Charge Prohibited; Penalties. (1) No building permit shall be issued for, and no person shall construct or secure construction of any development unless the charge imposed on the development has been paid or a schedule of installment payments, if allowed, has been established. (2) No person who chooses to pay the charge through the use of an installment payment schedule shall fail to make payments in compliance with that schedule. (3) The violation of any provision of this Section constitutes a Class A civil infraction and is by its nature a continuing infraction. Any infraction under this section shall be processed in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Code. (4) The rights, remedies and forfeitures provided by Sections 3.510 to 3.535 are cumulative and not mutually exclusive. The City may simultaneously seek collection of the charge, foreclose the lien, take action pursuant to the civil infraction procedure, seek appropriate injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction and seek any other applicable remedy or penalty available to it. 3.525 Credit for Certain Costs Incurred. (1) An applicant may seek a credit against the charge due in connection with the applicant's development in the manner and subject to the limitations provided by this section. (2) If an applicant is required to make certain public improvements as a condition of development approval, and the improvements are deemed extra capacity facilities and are not directly necessary to minimize or eliminate the adverse and deleterious impact the development is likely to make on the city street and traffic circulation system,. the applicant may request. that the cost of the improvements become a credit against the Eak charge due. (3) The City Manager shall establish a procedure to provide for a review of requests for credit made pursuant to this section. An applicant making such a request, after following the procedure established by the City Manager, shall have the right to have any determination made on the request reviewed by the Council in the manner the Council deems appropriate. 3.530`, Segregation and Use of Revenues. The proceeds derived from the Eai charge imposed and collected pursuant to Section 3.500 to 3.535 shall be used for no purpose other than construction and improvement of the extra capacity facilities identified by those sections. 3.535 Tag Charge Not Exclusive. The charge established by Sections 3.500 to 3.535 is a separate revenue measure apart from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, charge or fee otherwise provided by law, except as expressly stated to the contrary. SECTION THREE Section 4.075 of the Redmond Code is amended to read as follows (words underlined are added and words sfi�i�Ek.:*6UE are to be deleted) SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 4.075 Systems Development Charge (Sewer and Water). (1) A systems development charge shall be made for each connection to the city's sewer or water system on the basis of equivalent dwelling units as that term is defined in this section. ........................... . ................. .... ............ .... .. ......... . Sewed ? = � ?............q���e��n� dire�� hg ... '. ........................ II P ege ............................................ iitg 1en h.. (2) The rate of the charges for water and sewer systems development will be based on the number of Equivalent Dwelli.nq units as defined in this section and is set by resolution. (3) The Systems Development Charge shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction or, in the case of a new business in an existing building, at the time a building permit is issued or at the time a change of address is provided on an existing business license or upon issuance of a new business license. For computation of the Systems Development Charge, the applicable Equivalent Dwelling Unit fee shall be multiplied by the number of Equivalent Dwelling Units, determinable by the following chart. When calculating the number of units, the capacity of the development will be used for determining the number of; students, employees, etc. The minimum number of Equivalent Dwelling Units is one. Partial units over one shall be rounded up to the next whole unit. Only whole units will be charged. EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS Residential: (a) Single family dwelling is one Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) . ..., .... ,....... ...... h i =Qx r. -Ly i f:::fairixire.En UPe .... dsae7... n3 ee h.. (b) Duplex: one EDU per dwelling unit {i.e. 2). (c) Multi -family: mhe...first:::dwell pg:::gp :::Ta:::gaa atTitQ�eiaddseel Each unit shall be multiplied by a factor of .80 EDU and the total rounded up to the whole EDU (Example of an eight-plex: 8 x .8 = 6.4 rounded to 7 EDUs) . Mobile home and RV parks are included in this classification. Non -Residential: (a) Institutional Uses (1) Church: One EDU per each 200 seat capacity. An additional EDU shall be added if the church has a kitchen. (2) Schools: Kindergarten or preschool - one EDU per 30 students; elementary school - one EDU per 20 students; junior and senior high schools (1) One EDU per 9 or less employees. (2) In addition to the systems development charges based on the number of employees, industrial and process waste loads shall be determined by the following chart, each negotiated as an individual contract. (a) Having less than 150 ppm of suspended solids and less than 200 ppm of B.O.D. - one unit per .3,000 cu. ft. of water used. (b) Having less than 150 ppm of suspended solids and less than 200 ppm of B.O.D. - one unit per 3,000 cu. ft. of water used, plus one unit for each 100 ppm of suspended solids over 150 ppm. (c) Having more than 200 ppm of B.O.D. - one unit per 6,000 cu. ft. of sewage flow, plus one unit for each 300 ppm of B.O.D. over 200 ppm. (4) Any property owner obligated to pay the charge imposed by this section may make written application to the City for the right to pay the charge due in installment payments over a term not to exceed one year. Installment payments shall be established pursuant to a written contract between the City and the property owner. A 60 day deferral of the fees may be made without interest. All installment plans shall include an interest charge at the rate of 10% per annum. (5) Any charge imposed by this section for which application has been made to make installment payments is *...................... i *; i "E" *3 * H:::::: ...cue e � = ei f z it a€ = h:': �.g ---.i r fi.................................ce ................................................................................y......4.............................1�...._I=�._.... `.....A ait a2ia3iie9e? isto be secured in a manner acceptable to the City. Acce table security may include; a City lien, first position mortgage or trust deed, or alternative acceptable collateral. (56) No person who chooses to pay the charge by installments established by contract shall fail to make payments in compliance with that schedule. In event installment payments are not paid when due, the City may simultaneously seek collection of the charge, foreclose Ehi� any lien, seek appropriate injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction and seek any other applicable remedy or penalty available to the City, including terminating the provision of water and sewer services to the property. The rights, remedies and forfeitures provided by the chapter are cumulative and not necessarily exclusive. SECTION FOUR Section 4.102 of the Redmond Code is amended to read as follows (words underlined are added and words iers are to be deleted) RATES 4.102 Sewer Rates. WTf.E �:::: -h'-e::::.t-1— i mt :::: i :::: e e :::: i. ... .................... . . . . . . ............. ........ ... ... .:. ....... clsAr YY g E n t { Mit (( si e Y rlri ti anal t ............................... :::::........ : , ::.........i...... ::_ . ..a........ ..... ........ ....... .1'E1�a:r cE adma EDU ..: The charges for sewer will be based on the number of Equivalent Dwelling units -and a usage factor. The sewer rates are established by resolution. SECTION FIVE The effective date of this ordinance shall be January 1, 1992. APPROVED by the City Council and SIGNED by the Mayor this 7" day of ectober, 1991. c:\wp51\finance\sdc\sdccode.ord ATTEST: Nanc Blankenship, Ci y Recorder