Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin 04-26-83312 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH STUDY SESSION APRIL 26, 1983 The City Council convened in special session at 4:05 p.m. in the City Chambers. The following Councilmembers were present: Councilmembers Dickens, Hickey, Myers, Feibusch Absent: Councilmember Kelley. Staff present: Payne, Orchard, Harris, Gutierrez Roper, Goforth City Manager referred to Exhibit "D", the memo from the Staff Development Fee Review Committee which resulted from Council inquiry as to how the $25/KVA charge was established. In 1973 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 634 which required all new development to have underground facilities. In orde~ to provide this underground service an underground backbone system is necessary. It is a major Capital Improvement and not a maintenance item for overhead lines. Within the City, five branches of backbone system are needed. Each portion is approximately 6,000 - 7,000 feet in length with a capacity of 6,000 KVA. In 1976 it was determined that the cost of installation, including materials and labor, of one branch of the backbone system with 6,000 KVA capacity, was approximately $160,000 or $26.66 per KVA. The cost in 1983 is $63.11 per KVA, and reflects actual expenditures by the City to provide the system. The Council determined that in order to pay for the system, there would be a charge for all new hookups, equal to the benefit each user receives, placed on all new land uses, industrial, commercial and residential alike. Each year the City's budget identifies a portion to be built. The completion of the system is a long term effort. Incremental payment by each new demand, whether served immediately or not, is necessary to insure equitable cost for benefit to all using the service. The breakdown of costs is that thirty-nine percent of the cost of such a capital improvement is borne by new developers while the remaining 61% is paid by all of the rate payers in the City. City Manager referred to his memo which contained several recommendations. The first recommendation~ was to provide parcels with a credit on existing facilities with a 90 day time limit. Councilmembers were in agreement that the concept of issuing credits was an excellent idea. Mayor Feibusch felt the 90 day limit was not sufficient for a developer to obtain all his permits, loans, etc. He suggested a six month period. Councilmember Dickens questioned the possibility of allowing an extention on the 90 day period for an additional 90 days. Mr. Goforth replied that an extention for 90 days, or an initial period of six months would not present a problem. He noted that most cities have a 30 day period. Mayor Feibusch preferred the six month period with no extensions in order to eliminate time and effort for both the City and the developer. Gary Akerstrom stated one year would be more appropriate as permits, detailed drawings, financing, etc. are lengthly procedures. M/S: Dickens/Myers to allow credits subject to a 6 month delay time limit to parcels with existing facilities and refer the developer to staff for the necessary documents carried by a unanimous voice vote. City Manager noted that the option was made available to Wendy's to purchase their own equipment, i.e. transformers, etc. This has provided the developer an opportunity to determine what is most advantageous to his project and also to allow him a delay in fee payment. He further noted there is a gamble on the part of the developer of not having his equipment available at the time of opening his business. City Council discussion resulted in general agreement that this option should be available to the developers. Mr. Turnbull noted that when developers buy Study Session April 26, 1983 Page 1 313 the equipment they must guarantee the warranty for one year. Thus a lower price was not an actual benefit. Discussion then related to the possibility of progress payments. Mayor Feibusch suggested payments coincide with the inspections of each phase of the job. Gary Akerstrom stated if the Capital Improvement Fees could be delayed until the first finance payment of a project, that progress payments would not be necessary. Councilmember Dickens was not in favor of creating problems for City staff by initiating progressive payments. M/S: Hickey/Myers to give the option to developers to purchase their own equipment, i.e. transformers, etc. and also allow a 30 to 60 day delay on the payment of Capital Improvement Fees, but that no work on part of the City would begin until those fees are paid carried by a unanimous voice vote. The above matter was referred to staff to prepare documentation for the implemention of this policy. City Manager's third recommendation was to develop a procedure that clearly specifies the difference between fees and development costs. He further recommended that the Planning Department forms be revised to clearly delineate that estimates for fees and cost are based upon information provided to staff by the developer and are subject to changes, up and down, depending on the information given by the developers and what is actually installed. Council accepted City Manager's recommendation and instructed staff to revise the forms. Questions were raised by members of the audience regarding the possibility of raising the rate payers one mill per kilowatt hour and eliminating the Capital Improvement Fees as mentioned at the previous study session. After a lengthly discussion, Council decided to hold another study session to deal with the rate structure on May 17, 1983 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. to May I7, 1983 at 4:00 p.m. Sandra Gutierrez Secretary Study Session April 26, 1983 Page 2