Weather Magnet

News
Print this story  |  Email this story  |  [+] Text Size [-]  

Council receives SDC methodology report



ONTARIO - The Ontario Public Works Committee formally submitted its report on a revised methodology and fee study for system development charges to the Ontario City Council at Monday night’s regularly scheduled meeting, but the elected board will not accept the report until after a public hearing is held early next month.

The earliest the City Council can hold a public hearing and meet the standards for proper notice is at its June 2 meeting, which is when the council agreed to hold the public hearing. The council decided, however, to hold the meeting at a different venue other than City Hall council chambers to allow for more people to attend. The regular City Council meeting will be scheduled to begin an hour earlier at 6 p.m. and the public hearing at 7 p.m. to provide more time for the issue to be discussed by the council and the public. The meeting will either be held at the Four Rivers Cultural Center theater or the Ontario High School commons to allow for the meeting to be recorded.

Ontario Public Works Committee member Tom Frazier again presented the report to the council, again stating, as he did in Thursday’s work session, the committee is “of one accord.”

“We weren’t always of one accord,” he said, adding, the committee had to work through a lot of information and discuss the information presented by Don Ganer and Associates, Portland, who prepared the initial report before agreement was reached by all the committee members. Frazier told the council, because of the population numbers provided to Ganer in the city’s master plans were “skewed,” and based on unreasonable population projections that have not been supported by the city’s actual growth, the committee asked Ganer what its options were to make the SDC fees more “accurate and accountable” regarding Ontario’s expansion. Ganer told the committee, Frazier said, it should adjust the fee schedule percentages to reflect the city’s actual growth.

He said, based on the previous fees instituted in the methodology report, a development project such as Carl’s Jr., would have to pay $187,305.84 for 100 percent of the SDCs allowable. He said, however, Carl’s Jr. only had to pay $66,000 in SDCs when developing at the “busiest intersection in Idaho.” After adjusting the project list, which SDCs will help pay for, down to only include those projects that need to be built to accommodate growth for the next 10 years rather than the previous 20, and after adjusting the fees to represent a better growth in population, a project like Carl’s Jr. would only have to pay $68,000 to $69,000.

“Still at the upper end, but I think it still keeps us competitive,” Frazier said.

Ontario City Councilwoman Susann Mills said she thought it was amazing Don Ganer's numbers were so different and out of context than those that the committee presented and asked why that was, but Frazier told her Ganer did everything he was supposed to do based on the information presented to him.

“The city’s master plan was what was skewed,” he said. Also during the City Council meeting, the council approved a resolution establishing a $25 processing fee for a noise ordinance variance for those events that would otherwise not meet the noise ordinance established by the city. It also rescinded an ordinance passed in 2007, agreeing to sell approximately 5 acres of surplus property, currently known as the Stellings property, to Pepsi Co., after Pepsi Co. indicated it would no longer purchase the property from the city.

Interim City Manager Mike Kee said after Thursday’s work session he believed Pepsi Co. pulled out because of the great cost to install water and sewer to the property.

Also, the council approved a labor agreement with the Teamsters Union for city staff in public works and streets.

Councilman Jim Mosier also regretfully announced his resignation during the meeting. He said his wife, Vicki, was recently diagnosed with cancer, and he was giving up his council seat to care for her and help her recover.

Mosier was given a standing ovation by the people in attendance after his announcement. The council agreed to form a committee to install his replacement, and the city will be accepting letters of interest from people to establish candidates for his seat.




Comment Blog - Note: All Comments Subject To Approval

Bubba wrote on May 21, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Bubba says "ben over ratepayers cus you gonna get it"! "

Homer wrote on May 21, 2008 9:19 PM:

" All I can say is, I can see it now the poor ratepayers are going to get hosed by the developers and special intersts and the Council isnt going to do a thing about it. "

Concerned wrote on May 21, 2008 9:16 PM:

" To ML I may sound like an idiot, lets dee if you are one, tell us all just what I am PALNIN WRONG ABOUT?. Being close to something and actually knowing somehting are two mutually exclusive events. I cant wait for your response. "

Larry wrote on May 19, 2008 7:55 PM:

" I guess if you want developers, real estate agents, building material retailers....some campaign contributors, "calling the shots", than yeah thats all ok but, what about the average working voter? The fact they are stating population growth has not been as predicted, hardens the argument that developers should pay SDC's. If development of retail, commercial and such has slowed down here, I will swallow my eye. Therefore, as an example, a Fire hydrant was recently installed on East Lane because of DEVELOPMENT. A small example but, WHO exactly paid for that hydrant? A developer, or the taxpayers? Another example, is retail development creating traffic demand for a new traffic signal. Should Mr. Modulator who does not drive but lives and votes help pay for the signal or should Barry P Developman pay for the signal? "

M.L.-Ontario wrote on May 19, 2008 2:02 PM:

" 'Concerned,' I know you think you're the expert here, but I've been close to this thing from the very beginning, and you're just wrong. Ill-informed, distrustful, disrespectful, and JUST PLAIN WRONG. The council, who I'm sure are also pretty sick of this project, will decide what to do with the recommendation, so it's out of the committee's hands. They can sleep well, knowing that they were as thorough and forward-thinking as possible. And 'Concerned,' if you're going to go to the trouble of posting something crude, please take the time to spell it correctly. You sound like an i-d-i-o-t. "

Concerned wrote on May 17, 2008 5:12 PM:

" To ML your nievity is disconsetring to say the least, pull your head out before you kickied in the @$$ "

Life of riley wrote on May 16, 2008 6:53 AM:

" To ML, I think Concerned meant that as a massive insult. "

M. L.- Ontario wrote on May 15, 2008 2:38 PM:

" This so typical. The people who don't participate flapping their mouths and complaining about the people who do. That public works committee has slogged through countless hours of facts and figures, trying to come up with a system that is fair and effective. To call them self-serving is a massive insult. Self-serving would be to make a quick decision,toss the data in the dumpster,and go home to their wives and children. You need people on that committee who understand construction, construction costs, and how development works. Most of us wouldn't have had a clue about how to proceed. Whether the council accepts the final plan or not, I appreciate these citizens and their committment to completing this job. "

Concerned wrote on May 15, 2008 11:18 AM:

" The cost of new development should not have anything to do with population projections. New development should pay their fair share of our transportaion system, wastewater system and water system, who cares what our populaion is or isnt? It appears to me this committee is very self serving and I cant believe this Council continues to look to them for a recomnedation on this issue. As rate payers we need to elect Councilors who will look out for the majority, not the special interest groups. "

Cool Hand Luke wrote on May 15, 2008 11:13 AM:

" And this woudl be the same Public Works Committee that recomeded the Council adopt the Master plans that they are now calling flawed. seems to me we have a credabilty problem here? Or maybe they are just incompetant? "

BS wrote on May 15, 2008 8:03 AM:

" And if you believe all of that BS I have a igloo in Florida I would like sell to you. "

Life of Riley wrote on May 15, 2008 6:57 AM:

" I have waited to see if the explanation you have in this blog would appear in the paper. My hope was that the Argus would correct the wrong impression when editorial staff suggested that land purchased out of the Public Works fund could be declared surplus and sold to support the General Fund. Ontario has some tough decisions to make and to have the Argus putting out information that is incorrect does not help the citizens of Ontario. I have given up on the Argus actually trying to report both sides of a story. I still have a little hope it will at least not allow the wrong information it prints to go uncorrected. "

Jessica Keller wrote on May 8, 2008 9:14 AM:

" While the Argus Observer was admonished by Councilman Dan Cummings during the meeting, contrary to what he said, the Argus Observer did not overstep its boundaries regarding an executive session. The media is allowed to follow up on information obtained from executive session afterward, which the Argus did, receiving confirmation from a city official. Nor was that information, later used in an editorial printed Sunday, anything that wasn't a matter of public record, easily obtained through public documents. That said, the information, later used in Sunday's editorial, did not pertain at all to the City Council's executive session as it was used in a different context. The information in question was the city has about $3 million in surplus property — land that can be declared surplus and sold should elected leaders choose. It was used as a starting point for an idea the Argus felt city officials should consider and determine whether it was possible — selling some surplus property and using the funds to build a spray park to help make the Aquatic Center self-sustaining. The Argus never presented it as a viable solution,as Councilor Cummings maintains it is not. Therefore, the Argus did not print incorrect information, nor information obtained without following proper channels. The Argus Observer takes very seriously its duty of providing the body politic with both accurate information and thoughtful ideas to open up public debate and conversation in the community. Thank you for your interest.
Jessica Keller
Argus Observer
News Editor "

life of Riley wrote on May 7, 2008 4:16 PM:

" Whoa there! Wasn’t there more going on at the Council meeting than this? I seem to recall that the Argus was admonished by a Council member for printing information they had received from an executive session? Then to make matters worse, the Argus didn’t bother to follow up on the facts and printed an erroneous conclusion based on this information. Way to protect the body politic. "


TERMS OF USE

Those who post comments are accountable for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they furnish. While we encourage writers to utilize this service on our Web site, we also strongly suggest they treat it as public forum where good taste counts. We reserve the right to decline for approval objectionable material from these blogs.

Writers that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments - such as racists language, threats or comments unrelated to the story - will not be approved for the blogs. Also, entries that are unsigned or "signatures" by someone other than the actual writer will not be approved.

While writers can still post anonymously, we strongly suggest that they do not do so.

Opinions, guidance and other information expressed in Argus Observer story blog comments and on the Argus Observer blogs represent the individuals' own views and not necessarily those of the Argus Observer. The Argus Observer furnishes this type of forum and does not endorse and is not accountable for statements or advice from anyone other than an designated Argus Observer spokesperson.


(optional)
   

All Newspaper Ads
Place a classified ad

Community Calendar
November 2009
S M Tu W Th F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

» This Week's Events
» Submit an Event
Click to View All Events

Business Directory
Find a business near you
Business Type

OR Business Name

Web Search
Google
 

Find out about our RSS feeds and what they are.

Copyright © 2009 Argus Observer - www.argusobserver.com. All rights reserved. | Unathorized reproduction is prohibited.