City pushing for SDC resolution
Another public hearing to be scheduled
By Katie Pizza
Argus Observer
Monday, June 23, 2008 10:52 AM PDT
Ontario — The system development charges issue continues to be a topic of conversation among elected officials and committee members.
Ontario Mayor Joe Dominick said City Council members plan to revisit the document, which failed to gain approval at the council’s meeting June 16.
The ordinance failed because it could not get the necessary four votes it needed to pass. Some Ontario Public Works Committee members spoke out against changes made to the document, which committee Chairman Riley Hill called “substantially different” than the document the committee submitted to council.
City Attorney Larry Sullivan said he removed the public works committee’s methodology because it did not include ways for the city to charge for sewer and water connections.
“I talked to city staff last week, and they said they felt that should be included,” Sullivan said. “That required a substantial rewrite.”
He said removing that particular methodology report from the ordinance would be the simplest way to allow there to be more than one methodology report at a later date.
As he said at the City Council meeting, Sullivan again stated the change gave the document more flexibility.
Another change in the document was the removal of the word “new” when referring to developments. This opened the door for annexations, an idea Hill did not want included in this particular document. Sullivan said the addition of annexed property into the ordinance was important because it gave the city a way to charge property owners a fee for the development.
However, the ordinance does not currently include a schedule for proposed annexation fees, which concerned Ontario Public Works Committee member Tom Frazier.
“Just by making it an SDC, it doesn’t help the fire chief get the fire services out there,” he said June 16. “You need the money now to get the things that need to happen.”
Sullivan said the city needed a broader ordinance and the previous ordinance was tied too closely to the methodology.
He also said the public works committee decided to tie the ordinance to the methodology because of city staff recommendations.
“I don’t know why they were told that,” he said.
Sullivan also said it was important to make these changes now because amending the document later would require a 90-day waiting period and a public notice.
Hill said making the ordinance more broad makes it so there is a lot less of a review process.
Dominick said council members will look at both documents and try to reach a common ground.
“The council will be revisiting the new ordinance versus the one presented by the public works committee,” Dominick said.
The mayor also said the council plans to hold a special meeting before the next council meeting, which is slated for July 7.
“We’ll see if we can have a new public hearing to keep the process in motion,” he said.
At this meeting, Dominick said the council will vote if it can reach a consensus.
However, the date of the meeting remains up in the air. Currently, City Manager Henry Lawrence will review the document with Sullivan, according to Dominick.
Dominick also said a couple of City Council members have met with public works committee members to discuss the differences between the two ordinances proposed.
Friday, Dominick said he expects to hear from Lawrence regarding the documents next week. Dominick then plans to organize a public hearing.
“The council needs to get together so it can be back on the table by July 7,” he said. “And if no one else pushes it, I am going to.”
Hill said he could not forecast what would happen in the future regarding the issue.
“I don’t know where it’s going to go,” he said. “All we really do is make recommendations.”
Hill said the public works committee will continue to be involved in the discussions if the council requests members’ assistance.
He also called SDCs a “challenging issue” and said he received the same opinion a few days ago from Sullivan.
“They are just very, very difficult,” Hill said.
Larry wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:43 AM: