Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner said he was interested in a geographic adjustment that was legally and technically <br />defensible. He expressed his preference for Option 2 with a refinement for revenue neutrality. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said Option 1 was not fair. He said Option 2, if downtown again found itself as the <br />center of the community, would be acceptable, but expressed doubt that this would be the case. <br />He expressed his preference for Option 4. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey expressed his interest in listening to the input from a public hearing on the matter <br />before making a decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr expressed his preference for Option 4 or Option 2 if it was revenue neutral. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> prepare modifications to the Transportation SDC methodology to include a <br /> geographic adjustment consistent with Option 2, Scenario 3a (presented in <br /> Attachment A). <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she could support the motion even though it was not her first choice. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he supported the motion but noted that it was based on a 20 percent reduction in <br />that area. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly raised concern over the lack of analysis of State or County roads that were at capacity <br />during peak times and therefore adding to the trips over the City street network. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding whether the City was trying to find a way <br />to encourage development or punish people who were building outside of downtown, City <br />Manager Carlson said it would be a benefit to the developer who decided on a downtown location <br />but it would not make them decide to go downtown and not locate somewhere else. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion. He opined that none of the geographic adjustment <br />options would truly act as an effective planning tool. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ reiterated that he was in favor of Option 4 or Option 2 with revenue neutrality. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that the City of Eugene was in the lowest third of the cities in Oregon for SDC <br />cost-recovery. She said if the City was getting enough SDCs it would have enough money to build <br />transportation infrastructure to accommodate new growth, but noted that this was not happening. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Farr and Mr. Pap~ in opposition. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman reviewed a tabled motion she had made at a previous meeting regarding. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2002 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />