CC Minutes - 12/11/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

SDC. He said additional analysis was included in the meeting packet as well as alternatives for refining the options previously presented. Mr. McVey said there was another item from a previous meeting that had been added to the agenda that was a motion related to nodal development adjustments. He said staff was recommending Option 2, which retained the greatest level of defensibility. He noted staff was also recommending the ongoing use of the current SDC with its current nodal development adjustment without separate specific geographic adjustments, Option 4. Mr. Kelly said there was a great value to geographic adjustment to conform to the City's growth management policies as well as to capture the impact of new development on infrastructure costs. He noted that Springfield, Salem, and Portland all had some geographic adjustment to SDCs. Mr. Kelly said the day's action would set a 90-day notice process in motion until a public hearing before the City Council. He said he had reached a different conclusion than staff and expressed his preference for Option 1. Ms. Nathanson clarified that any geographic adjustment would be in addition to any existing nodal development adjustment. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the status of a downtown node, City Manager Carlson said downtown was designated as a potential node in TransPlan. He said that, as a result of the finalization of the downtown plan, part of the implementation measure would be the official designation through the zoning overlay of the downtown area. Ms. Nathanson said that already having a charge that recognized nodes was a geographic component. She expressed a preference for Option 4 with a second choice of Option 2. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding who the members of the SDC project team were, Mr. McVey said the team was comprised of staff and consultants, including Debbie Galardi from CH2M Hill. Ms. Taylor said she had been in favor of geographic components but raised concern over whether the plan would be fair to people living further from the center of town. She expressed a preference for Option 1. Ms. Bettman said the SDC was not a user fee but a charge that compensated the City for its expenditures for building new capacity for development. She commented that it was much less expensive to build in a compact urban form and stated that was the reason why a geographic component was justifiable. She said she could go with Option 1 or Option 2 as long as there was something in place to keep them revenue neutral. Mr. Rayor said he believed in a geographic adjustment. He said he was in equal favor of options 1 or 2. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2002 Page 2 Work Session