11/28/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e ditures of each of the systems, identify specific projects which will be funded with SOC revenues, and the estimated cost and timing for each project. Mr. Lyle said that staff is recommending project identification through the Capital Improvement Plan, but will retain the flexibility to fall back on other approved plans, if needed. He stated that the ordinance needs to be in place by July 1991. Mr. Lyle provided the council with the following list of key features and modifications of the ordinance: * Prohibition of exemptions (except for low-income housing) * Provision of credits for impact-reducing capital improvements * Expenditure of revenue within the system for which it is collected * Addition of an SOC for parks that is charged to all development types * Inclusion of the full administration costs within levied rates * Broad-based scope of facilities included in each system (e.g. transportation) * Rate-setting consistent with current approach; rates set adminis- tratively * Review of possible impacts in relation to Ballot Measure 5 * Revised rates have been compared with other jurisdictions Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Lyle said that that the SDC for parks would not govern a park's size or proximity to development. However, e the responsibility for a park or use of SOCs would have to come from the need created by development in general. In response to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Lyle clarified that the park SDC is for construction and land acquisition only; it would not include overhead and maintenance costs. Mr. Lyle reviewed the issues which the CCI felt warranted further council discussion. He provided the council with an overview of CCI discussion, the council's possible decision options, and a staff recommendation. Based upon the information provided, the council discussed the array of possible deci- sion options and gave its recommendation. A. Recognizing the Developer's Contribution to the Public Good Mr. Robinette asked whether developers would be likely to make on-site im- provements if they were not given SOC credits. In response, Mr. Lyle said that the improvement would likely still be made even in the absence of cred- its because the developer would be required to meet all the infrastructure needs for a development as if it were being constructed publicly. Mr. Nicholson asked about the practical consequences of choosing to provide credits for on-site improvements. Mr. Lyle responded that while choosing to give credits would reduce the amount of revenue coming in, it would be bene- ficial to provide incentives for developments which are for the public good. Credits for such public improvements would be consistent with some of the council's goals, such as bike path improvements or public parks. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 4