Public Works Commission Mintues - February 2008
(02-19-2008)

CITY OF ROSEBURG

PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING

February 14, 2008

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting of the City of Roseburg Public Works Commission was called to order at 11:37 a.m. Thursday, February 14, 2008 in the City Hall Third Floor Conference Room.

ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Chris Spens, Commissioners, Nathan Reed, Richard Weckerle, Dick Filley, John Kennedy, Stuart Liebowitz, and Noel Groshong

Absent: Jim Kent and Fred Dayton

Others Present: Citizen John Hughes

Attending Staff: Acting Public Works Director Nikki Messenger, Cross Connection Specialist Jesse Di Stefano, and Department Technician Chanelle Rogers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Weckerle moved to approve the minutes of January 10, 2008. Motion was seconded by Reed and carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

Backflow Prevention Testing Policy: Messenger introduced Jesse Di Stefano who is the City’s Cross Connection Specialist. Messenger informed that state law requires that all water backflow assemblies must be tested annually by a certified tester. Customers are legally responsible to have their own devices tested. Over the past four years, an increasing number of City water customers are not meeting the testing deadline. A significant amount of staff time is spent policing the customers who are out of compliance. The City has made modifications to its backflow prevention testing policies over the years to try and streamline the process and reduce the amount of staff time required. Currently the City sends letters out at the beginning of the year to all property owners with backflow devices. They are given until July 1st to test their device(s) and provide the City with a copy of their results. The City, thru an RFP, contracted with a certified tester to perform the mandated tests for the non-compliant customers. The City is authorized to levy an administrative fee of $25 per device in addition to the testing fee on the non-compliant customers with a total charge of $50. The testers provide the paperwork to the City and the charges are added to the customer’s water bill. The combined cost of the testing charge plus the City’s administrative fee is less expensive to the customer than the testing rates charged by other independent certified backflow testers in the local area. These delinquent customers are now relying on the City to ensure that their devices are tested. Staff has proposed two options relative to the non-compliance/administrative fee issue.

Option 1: The City could opt to discontinue water service for customers who remain non-compliant in their backflow testing once the deadline has passed and several warning have been issued. (This option is already an existing ordinance.)

Weckerle felt that Option 1 is a catch 22. You might get people that have sprinkler systems and don’t care if you turn the water off, except per building code you have to have a sprinkler system. Messenger informed that if the City shut your water off staff would then inform the fire marshal.

Option 2: The City could increase the administrative fee to $150, an amount at which it would no longer be financially comfortable for non-compliant customers to continue to rely on the City to contend with the backflow testing process.

Spens questioned that if there is already a procedure in place that if the customer is non-compliant the system could be shut off, why isn’t it working. Messenger informed that is how the ordinance is written, but that it is currently not being enforced. Messenger wanted to bring it to the commission since it hasn’t been being enforced, if staff starts enforcing it then the customers will start contacting council or commission members, and she wanted them to be aware of it in case they receive calls from citizens. Spens wanted to know if it is already an ordinance why does the commission need to endorse it. Di Stefano informed that the previous Public Works Director decided to have a tester on contract so the City wouldn’t have to enforce the ordinance. When the program started 3 years ago the fees weren’t as great so the $50 amount was about double, now the local testers are more expensive than having the City test it. Weckerle questioned about if the City shuts off the water to a business and then they have a fire and the building burns down, who is responsible. Groshong mentioned that the business had been properly notified. Groshong felt that the policy should include that the second letter be sent certified. Groshong also mentioned that other communities, such as Medford, have taken it on as their responsibility to do all the testing at the property line, and then charge the customer. Di Stefano spoke with Medford and the person that they contract with for testing is cheaper than the local testing companies in Douglas County. Reed asked if a backflow is tested and found failed whose responsibility is it to get it fixed. Di Stefano informed that it is the property owner’s responsibility to get it fixed. Reed questioned if the customers water is turned off right away if the test shows failed. Di Stefano replied that the state mandates you turn it off immediately but he works with the customer and usually gives them approximately a week to get it repaired, depending on the level of risk to the public system.

MOTION: Filley moved to recommend staff enforce the policy that has been in place. Motion seconded by Groshong and carried unanimously.

Transportation SDC Methodology Updates: Messenger reported that the City’s original Transportation SDC Methodology and enabling ordinances were adopted in October of 2004. The intent was to facilitate funding for capacity improvements to the City’s transportation system. The fee charged is based on the number of trips a new development will create. The City Manager formed an ad-hoc committee in March of 2007 to review the methodology and make recommendations for improving it. The proposed changes by the committee are:

1. Implement last phase of incremental rate to full rate outlined in the methodology as scheduled. This happened automatically July 1, 2007.

2. Prepare simplified look up chart and post on city website. Will work on the consultant.

3. Update community SDC fee comparison. To be done by consultant.

4. Add annual inflation factor (requires annual review & approval by Council)

5. Allow developers to lock in SDC rate during permit review process upon submittal of complete permit application

6. Add language to reference most recent addition of the ITE Trip Generation Database

7. Add language to clarify credit for redevelopment. Provide credit for vehicle trips that are generated from existing development on the site.

8. Evaluate potential credit for utilizing SDC’s to fund off-site public improvements required for development, but not identified as “qualified public improvements”.

9. Allow developer to submit empirical trip data to support a reduction in Transportation SDC’s

10. Update SDC eligible project list based on recommendations in the recently adopted Transportation System Plan.

11. Identify dedicated funding source for transportation improvements and operations and maintenance.

Messenger informed that items four, five, six, and nine of the committees suggested changes can be handled with text updates to the methodology and ordinance. Items seven and eight require decisions.

Per the ad-hoc committee’s recommendations, staff is proposing to implement a mechanism for allowing credit against the transportation SDC for the following conditions:

1. Redevelopment: Credit for existing trips generated by the existing use at a site to be redeveloped.

• If an existing use generates more trips than the proposed use, no SDC is charged. Credit is calculated and stays with the property up to 10 years and cannot be transferred to any other property or development. The developer will sign an agreement acknowledging the amount of the credit. No refund is given.

• If an existing use generates fewer trips than the proposed use, the SDC is the difference between existing and proposed.

• If an existing use has been demolished or otherwise removed, any credit will be based on the last verifiable use that paid transportation SDC’s.

This would encourage redevelopment of existing sites which helps prevent urban sprawl. A downside would be that this offers credit to properties that may not have paid any TSDC’s in the past.

Groshong questioned how many years it has to sit empty to no longer receive a credit. Messenger informed that there is nothing determining that currently. Liebowitz feels that this is an important issue. Weckerle asked if it could be set up on a percentage basis for example it goes down 20% each year and after 5 years it would all be gone. Liebowitz wanted to know if we could require the developer to do the research on what the last business was at a location if the developer wanted a credit. Weckerle asked if staff couldn’t go back to the last water bill to see what was at a specific site. Messenger inquired from the commission how long they felt was a good time frame to still allow credits after it has sat vacant. Commission agreed on 5 years but didn’t feel that they should be allowed to receive 100% credit during all of the 5 years, it was agreed that it would go down 20% each year up to 5 years. Spens suggested spanning it out to 10 years and the first 5 years you would receive 100% credit then the last 5 years would be the decreasing 20% per year. Groshong asked about when a big box store comes in how does that work, how does staff figure the credit amount. Messenger informed it would be based on what ever was on the land prior, you would calculate all of the area. Commission came to a consensus to do 10 years, with first 5 years at 100% and a decrease of 20% for the next 5 years. Staff will base the credit on the last development that was on the land that had water usage.

2. Qualified Public Improvements: These are defined by state law as the qualified public improvement projects listed in the TSDC methodology as being eligible for funding using TSDC’s money. If the project is identified in the methodology and the developer constructs part or all of the project as part of his/her development, the City is required at a minimum to provide credit against the development’s transportation SDC’s for any part of the improvement that is either not on or contiguous to the development’s property or exceeds the minimum standard and capacity needed to serve the development. The ad-hoc committee’s intent was to provide a full credit for any qualified public improvement, whether it is on or off of the developer’s property. Commission asked why the developer would do one of these listed developments. Messenger informed that the city requires it and the developments traffic will impact the specific section. The projects on the list have been identified because of capacity issues. Kennedy informed that if a developer was able to do one of these projects in conjunction with their development to give them a credit, this would also help the City out with having to come up with the funds to pay for these projects.

3. Other Capital Improvements: These can be defined as other capital improvements that the City would have to otherwise construct and pay for. State law does not require the City to allow a credit for this purpose. If public improvements are required as part of the developer’s project and the public improvements are not listed in the CIP of the methodology, the developer can be required to construct the improvements and pay TSDC’s The ad-hoc committee felt that this may cause too big of a burden on the developers and impede development. The options that staff came up with were:

• Full credit for other public improvements

• Partial credit for other public improvements

• Credit for other public improvements – offsite only, not contagious

• No credit for other public improvements

Messenger provided information from other cities regarding this issue. Liebowitz inquired what has happened in the past if a developer wants to develop and there is an existing project that was going to happen anyway, were they provided any credits. Messenger informed up until 4 years ago they built the improvement then the City implemented the SDC fee so now they have to build the improvement and pay the SDC. If a credit is considered the project should have to be identified in the current 1-year or 5-year capital improvement plan or should be identified in the Transportation System Plan. Local streets should be excluded, as capacity is rarely an issue on a local street and this would prevent the average residential sub divider from seeking credits against an SDC for street improvements required as part of the development. Liebowitz inquired as to rather than credit the SDC’s why not reduce or eliminate charging the developer for the public improvement that the City was going to do anyway. Messenger informed that the key word is these projects would happen “some day” and that the City can’t plan the improvements and then have a developer come in and want to develop a location and now the list of improvements is changed to accommodate the area being developed. Filley asked if the developer could do the improvements for less than the city could. Messenger replied that is true partly because they don’t have to pay prevailing wage. Filley then feels that it would be worthwhile to give a partial credit. Commission asked what staffs recommendation was, Messenger informed it was to provide a 50% credit. Kennedy informed the reason behind this was to try and increase the Transportation revenue for maintenance, instead of just start charging more taxes or fees it was to look at other options too. Filley feels that a partial credit should be looked at. The consensus of the commission was to look at the 50% and bring more information back at the next meeting.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:

Public Safety Center Project Update: Messenger informed that the bids for the Public Safety Center had been opened and Council approved awarding the bid to Harmon Construction out of Coos Bay. Construction is to start in March.

Orthophotos: Messenger reported that it had been budgeted to re-fly the ariel photos with full ortho data, which is the survey data that goes with it. City staff works a lot with Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) on the GIS programs. LCOG just did an RFP to fly several communities in Lane County so they offered to have their vendor fly our orthophotos, it could be done thru an intergovernmental agreement with LCOG. They are planning to fly later this month if the weather cooperates.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: None

BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION: Kennedy asked about the Public Works position. Messenger informed that interviews are scheduled for February 27th and there are 8 candidates.

Spens asked about the Bike/Ped Committee. Liebowitz mentioned he was still waiting to hear when the first meeting will be.

NEXT MEETING DATE: Special Meeting February 28, 2008

ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 1:04 p.m.

_______________________________________

Chanelle Rogers

Parks and Public Works Department Technician

<< back