01/23/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ' I Mr. Lieuallen said Council had heard an appeal on a minor parti- tion less than a month ago and had heard the same arguments. He felt the City could not undermine its own policies, so he was against the motion. - Mr. Hamel said this particular neighborhood had been interested in the panhandle issue for a long time, which was the reason for his motion. Vote was taken on the motion, which was defeated, with Delay, Williams, Lieua11en, and Smith voting no; Hamel and Obie voting aye; Williams and Bradley abstaining. A two-minute break was taken. B. Systems Development Charge City Manager introduced Les Anderson, Chairman of the Assessment Committee which studied the proposal for a systems development charge. Mr. Anderson would discuss background information; Betty Niven, alternate systems; and Bob Thomas, Assistant Director of ERA, exemptions. Mr. Anderson said public costs were a major question of growth, particularly relating to pUblic services and facilities. In the past, he said a public subsidy had covered new development of downstream improvements. Eugene had been generous with new deve- ~ lopment in subsidizing fire hydrants, street signs, etc. He said ,., Eugene had spent more than $2 million in one year on downstream improvements. Thi s had become an issue for Ci ty Council in April, 1976, because the City had considered widening South Willamette Street. At that time, the Assessment Committee was asked to study the public subsidy system and recommend alternatives. The Committee members were himself, Wickes Beal, Mr. Hamel, and Edna Shirey, assisted by City staff. Mr. Anderson said the recommended plan would provide funds to reduce the assessment on arterial streets. It would also reduce the subsidy paid into new developments, taxes, and bond funds. Presently, he said too much subsidy is paid to the developer of new building projects. The systems development charge would be a fee applied to all new developments that required more pUblic facilities. It would average 1.2 percent to 2.0 percent of the building permit valuation on a sliding scale. Charges would differ depending on when the land in question had been annexed to the City, with land annexed prior to 1948 paying the least amount. The owner of a new development would be allowed to pay by 1) adding the development charge to the mortgage; 2) obtaining a Bancroft loan; or 3) paying cash. Mr. Anderson said reasons to favor the plan were: 1) It was fair; 2) it was based on one's ability to pay; and 3) it had worked else- where in the State and nationally. He asked Council to separate the issue into three elements: 1) the charge itself in terms of its fair- ~ ness; 2) how the fees should be collected; and 3) determination of 1/23/78--4 'i3