Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />.'; <br /> <br />Mr. Teitzel said that the new fee structure was in line with those of other <br />jurisdictions. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Teitzel said <br />that the City1s proposed rate of 17 percent for engineering and administrative <br />costs compared with the following rates of other jurisdictions: City of <br />Corvallis--15 percent for engineering, and 1 percent plus the cost of warrant <br />interest; City of Salem--15 percent for engineering, plus 8 percent for adminis- <br />tration; and City of Springfield--actual cost for engineering (from 8 to 12 <br />percent). He noted that the City of Springfield agreed that its figure for <br />overhead was low. Mr. Teitzel noted that private sector firms working in the <br />City of Eugene were charging from 8 to 12 percent for design work only. <br /> <br />Councilor Wooten asked whether these charges would be made for City-initiated as <br />well as developer/property-owner initiated projects. Mr. Teitzel responded <br />affirmatively. Ms. Wooten said that she was uncomfortable with raising the fee <br />for the work of City departments on projects initiated by the City. Mr. Whitlow <br />said that the intent of the proposal was to allow the City to recover the costs <br />of design, inspection, bidding, assessments, etc. without having these activi- <br />ties subsidized by the General Fund. Councilor Miller said that this proposal <br />seemed to follow City policy of having adjacent property owners pay the costs of <br />improvements. She said that discussion of saving money within the Public Works <br />Department itself was a separate but appropriate topic for discussion. Res- <br />ponding to Councilor Wooten's concern regarding increasing City fees on City- <br />initiated projects, Ms. Miller said that this concern could be addressed, at <br />least in part, by caution on the part of the City regarding initiation of <br />projects which do not address issues such as the publiC health and safety. <br /> <br />Councilor Wooten said that she would oppose the resolution, since she did not <br />believe that the City should impose additional costs on City-initiated projects. <br /> <br />Res. 3670--A resolution establishing fees for engineering, inspec- <br />tion, and administrative costs incidental to public <br />improvements and repealing Resolution No. 2365. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. <br />Roll call vote; motion carried 4:1, with councilors Hamel, Miller, <br />Schue, and Smith voting in favor, Councilor Wooten voting in <br />opposition, and Councilor Ball abstaining. <br /> <br />IX. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF WARRANTS (memo, resolution distributed) <br /> <br />Mr. Whitlow introduced David Coombs, Accounting Manager. Mr. Coombs reported on <br />a new process being used by the City in the sale of warrants to fund local <br />improvement projects. He said that lending institutions that had bought the <br />warrants in the past were not interested in buying this type of warrants, <br />because of their portfolios and the tax-exempt status of the warrants. He said <br />the City had also found that, on a cash flow basis, the City would receive the <br />cash sooner and that the new process would create a new market that will improve <br />the City's ability to sell warrants on a competitive basis in the future. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />May 26, 1982 <br />