Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey acknowledged the diversity of opinion on the committee regarding the <br />recommendations and indicated there were areas where there was not full consensus, but <br />majority support for the recommendations. Specific differences were noted in Attachment A, <br />Transportation SDC Methodology, Summary & Discussion of RAC Recommendations. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey noted the RAC's recommendation for a reimbursement fee, which recognized that a <br />portion of the capacity needs of new development were met by the existing transportation system. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey indicated that adoption of the recommendations would result in a 50 percent increase <br />in the transportation SDC; the result would be that the City of Eugene's rates fell in the mid-range <br />of those charged by other Oregon communities; Eugene would be in the lower one-third of those <br />cities in rates for most development types. Staff anticipated that the rate increase would increase <br />SDC revenues by about $700,000, raising the total in SDC revenues to $2 million total. Of the <br />total transportation increase, a portion would be in the form of reimbursement fee revenues, and <br />staff proposed that 40 percent of SDC be reimbursement, so about $800,000 would be available. <br />He said that there was more flexibility in how those dollars could be spent; for example, they could <br />be used to fund any capital project in the system for which the fee was collected, including <br />rehabilitation and replacement projects. <br /> <br />Referring to the revenue projections, Mr. McVey emphasized that revenues collected depended <br />on the level of development activity in the community. He also emphasized that the total <br />revenues projected to be collected did not come close to the meeting all transportation system <br />needs. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey reviewed the time frame for implementation, terming it expeditious. He said that staff <br />had already provided legal notice of the City's intent to modify the charge, and awaited council <br />approval to complete the process. Mr. McVey invited questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the notification provided by staff would cover a higher fee if the council chose <br />to take that direction. Mr. McVey said yes, as the notice was not specific to any particular rate or <br />methodology. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Meisner about the membership of the RAC, Mr. McVey said <br />that members were as follows: Doug Weber from the Lane County Homebuilders Association, <br />Micheal Roberts of the Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Bettman, originally representing the Citizens <br />for Public Accountability, Merle Bottge from the League of Women Voters, John Prior from the <br />Neighborhood Pool, Paul Nicholson from the Friends of Eugene, David Hinkley from <br />Neighborhood Leaders Council, and technical representative Chris Clemow. He noted that the <br />RAC lost a Voter Pool representative midway through the process, and that position was not <br />refilled. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked Mr. McVey if the RAC had examined the factors in other cities' methodologies to <br />determine why their rates were higher or lower than Eugene's. Mr. McVey said communities had <br />differently configured transportation systems and different levels of growth and need for projects <br />to respond to that growth, resulting in different methodologies and different rates. He confirmed <br />that most other Oregon communities use a project-based approach. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />