Opinion by Dean Silver

Monday night’s City Council study session was a distillation of one of the critical issues facing the Council.  The two primary factions faced off in what is sure to be a preview of discussions to come in the future. You can find the agenda and links to the topics here https://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Agenda&AMID=8060

The video of the meeting can be viewed here https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/w9sPsSE7vna3XTN_39bs1rEXjVWF0kfP/media/717946?fullscreen=false&showtabssearch=true&autostart=true

SDCs

The report of the SDC Committee was up first.  SDCs, or System Development Charges, are the fees that developers pay to the city to offset the impact of development on the city’s infrastructure expenses. SDC fees are only used for project costs associated with infrastructure capacity enhancements.

Needless to say, this is a fairly technical and complex topic.  A committee was formed to examine the issue, and the Council hired a consultant to work with the committee and staff to come up with recommendations for revisions of the SDCs.  You can read all about their deliberations, calculations, and conclusions here https://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/05_02_22_Update_on_Water_and_Storm_Drain_Systems_Development_Charges_Project_CC_FINAL.pdf

The Cart Before the Horse?

Councilor Shaun Moran went right to the heart of the issue.  He was the council liaison to the committee, so he was intimately familiar with its work. He acknowledged that SDCs are essential for funding our infrastructure needs.  He pointed out that SDCs are driven by the anticipated cost of infrastructure improvements.  He noted that many of the assumptions in the calculations are based upon the CIPs (Capital Improvement Projects).  The CIPs are approved by Council as an adjunct to the budget process.

Moran stated that before we can make informed decisions about how to apply SDCs, we must accurately determine the need for the capital (infrastructure) improvements.  That is something that Moran and Councilor DuQuenne have been asking to be examined for the past sixteen months.  But they have met resistance at every juncture from the “status quo” majority on the Council.

As a perfect example of this disconnect, Counselor Moran used the proposed new $40,000,000+ water treatment plant as a perfect example of this disconnect.  It is by no means a foregone conclusion that building a new water treatment plant is the right answer for our water needs.  Yet Council continues to fund studies and planning to the tune of millions of dollars for this project.  This project has never been approved, but it is one of the CIPs. 

One of the quirks of our city government is that we allow money to be spent on projects that have not yet been approved, with the expectation that the funds expended will be reimbursed when the projects are approved and funded.  Resolution 2021-04, the CIP Reimbursement resolution, was passed by Council May 18, 2021 by a vote of four to two.  It makes preplanning easier, but it facilitates spending almost without restrictions on projects that might never come to fruition. (See my next article for a discussion of the problems with this way of doing business.)

Councilor Moran summed it up thus:  “People need to understand what this really means.  We should be taking the time, actually looking at our CIP list.  It seems the cart before the horse. Let’s look at the CIP list, and then evaluate the system development charges.”

Dysfunctional Thinking

Councilor Tonya Graham attempted to counter Moran’s argument, but she only managed to demonstrate the kind of thinking that the City of Ashland cannot afford.  She stated correctly that the CIP was approved by Council.  She correctly stated that CIPs are derived (note: usually, but not always) from Master Plans that have been approved by Council.  Therefore, she concluded that the CIPS should be assumed to be appropriate, and pursued.

What she and other Counselors ignore is that things change over a decade. 

The new water treatment plant was first approved in the Water Master Plan, approved in 2012.  In the ensuing ten years, many things have changed.  Ashland’s finances have changed.  Ashland’s water use has changed. The effect of climate change on our water supply has changed. The need for the new water treatment plant has changed.  The actual conceptual plans and parameters for the new WTP have changed numerous times.  The projected cost of the new plant has exploded over those ten years.  And our understanding of what is possible to extend the life of the current water treatment plant has changed.

What has not changed is the devotion to master plans that some Counselors exhibit.  What Graham and others seem to be incapable of doing is examining the question in the light of those changes.  She seems to think that only highly paid consultants can determine what is best for our city.  She seems to be unable to think for herself.

Graham also dragged out the old straw men of wildfire and flood and seismic problems with the old plant, as well as the lack of algae treatment.  All of these objections have been repeatedly debunked, yet she continues to present them as if they were facts.  Councilors DuQuenne and Moran did a good job of answering those specious claims.

Graham also stated the old saw that Ashland is just so special, so different from other localities, and that’s why we usually come out on top: the most expensive, almost always in almost all respects.

Finally, she knocks down another straw man, avoiding the issue.  She would have the citizens think that the question is undercapitalizing our infrastructure, when that is not the issue at all.  No one is suggesting not funding our infrastructure needs.  The question is: how to accurately determine what those needs actually are.

This is not the kind of representation that the citizens of Ashland deserve.  We need Councilors who can think for themselves, who can be honest about the issues, and who will take all factors into consideration—including finances—when making decisions.  It’s easy to be cavalier with other people’s money.

Councilor Graham may run for reelection this November.  We need to look at what needs to be fixed in the city, and remember how our elected leaders have responded to those needs.  We need representatives who know how to think for themselves, and who address the issues realistically and logically.

The Water Supply & Storage Report

The final item for discussion was the Water Supply & Storage Report.  There wasn’t much new there, so I won’t comment on it. There were several questions from the Councilors that were easily answered, most of which were obvious and not really worth exploring.

However, Public Works Director Scott Fleury finally provided some interesting numbers regarding the cost of water from our three water sources: Reeder reservoir, TID, and TAP.  I have requested more information from him, and will report more about that issue when I hear back from him.  I must admit I was surprised at his information, and I think you will be, too.  Stay tuned to the Chronicle for in depth reporting and analysis of our city government, and more.