Ontario council tables fee plan
By Andy Gates - Argus Observer
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 11:31 AM PDT
ONTARIO - A proposal to use a portion of existing water taxes to fund street repairs could apparently languish faster than it was penned, unless additional information about the ordinance is presented soon to the Ontario City Council.
Ontario Public Works Director Steve Gaschler brought the question-laden ordinance to the council Monday night for a public hearing during a regular meeting.
The proposed measure stalled, though, and was tabled until an undetermined future date because appointed and elected leaders had unanswered legal and logistical questions about the mandate.
The proposed ordinance would apparently split water fee revenues, with a portion earmarked for the city street fund and a portion funneled to the Capital Projects Fund.
The ordinance concerned utility capitalization fees, or UCFs, which are taxes imposed on city water bills that are used to maintain and repair city water lines.
The UCF is a tax of 27 percent on city water bills, according to the online City of Ontario Frequently Asked Questions.
The revenue collected by the city from UCFs goes entirely to the Capitol Projects Fund, according to Monday’s City Council Agenda Report.
However, Gaschler’s proposed ordinance would divide where the revenue from UCFs goes and designate an additional recipient. The Capital Projects Fund would still receive UCF revenue, but so would the streets fund, according to the Agenda Report.
The purpose of funneling UCF revenue into the Streets Fund and the Capitol Projects Fund, is in response to an increase in need for major street repairs, as well as a reduction of transfer funds, according to the City Council Agenda Report.
“During the budgeting process, staff was directed to find alternative revenue methods for streets department revenue due to reduced transfer funds over the years and an increase in the need for major street repairs,” according to Monday’s Agenda Report.
The public hearing was unanimously tabled by the council, though, a move that was also apparently supported by Ontario City Manager Scott Trainor.
Ontario Mayor Joe Dominick requested the debate be pushed forward because he said the proposal was presented too quickly and contained lingering questions. No specific questions on the proposal were discussed.
“It came fast,” Dominick said. “The public needs to be notified more in depth so there’s no confusion. That has not been done.”
Trainor agreed more information on the issue is needed. The legal counsel for the city also has questions about the proposed ordinance, he said.
Even though the public hearing was tabled, the council heard comments from two area developers who came for the meeting.
The developers said the proposal is being discussed in the wrong forum.
Jackson Fox, who recently sued the city in connection to system development charges, or SDCs, said Gaschler’s proposed ordinance should be discussed by the Ontario Public Works Committee. Area developer Riley Hill agreed.
Hill said he only heard about the public hearing 30 to 45 minutes before it began.
“Changes to UCF warrants public comments” Hill said. “It seems public Works should discuss this.”
Fox said he and his fellow plaintiff in the now settled lawsuit against the city, Larry Tuttle, have a settlement agreement with the city showing issues like the UCF proposal should first be deliberated by the Public Works Committee.
The issue of using UCF’s for road work has been a contentious debate for at least three years. It has even been related to a proposed bio-refinery called Treasure Valley Renewable Resources, which is set to be built on land just outside the city’s limits in Malheur County.
According to Ontario City Council meeting mminutes, Ontario resident Gene Messinger said Feb. 2, 2004, “I’m a little disturbed by the fact that the city has been using those funds that’s deducted from the water users for the rebuilding of roads … I think that if you need to widen the road for the new bio-refinery, those funds ought to have to come out of your other accounts, other than using the fees that’s deducted from water users.”
In other city council news:
— Ontario City Councilman Bruce Tuttle said he has received information regarding possible misconduct by a city employee.
No further details were publicly announced.
Dominick said the potential issue needs to be addressed “right away.” Trainor agreed.
— Ontario’s elected leaders are scheduled to vote during their next meeting June 18 on the city’s proposed budget recommended by the budget committee.
The council set additional dates before the meeting to discuss the proposed budget recommendations: at 10 a.m., June 11 and again June 14, after a regularly scheduled work session in Ontario City Hall.
