Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> - C. Date of Implementation <br /> Mr. Lyle explained that the intent of this is to decide whether persons ap- <br /> plying for permits in the process would be subject to the current or revised <br /> rates. <br /> Mr. Green asked about the time frame that exists between the date of applica- <br /> tion and the date of issuance. In response, Mr. Lyle said that this varies <br /> across projects. He estimated the time to be approximately 4-6 weeks. <br /> Mr. Boles said that the central concern on this issue centered around the <br /> potential burden on the Permit and Information (PIC) staff that might occur <br /> if developers try to rush new plans through before the new rates go into <br /> effect. He pointed out that the detriment of recommending that permits be <br /> processed on the date of application rather than the date of implementation <br /> would be a continued burden on the General Fund. <br /> To respond to one of the concerns raised by Mr. Boles, Mr. Lyle said that the <br /> PIC will consider, under the current rate system, only those applications <br /> which are submitted with a complete set of development plans at the time of <br /> application. <br /> Council recommendation: Levy the new SDC rates based on the date of applica- <br /> tion to lower the negative impact on the PIC staff. <br /> D. Transfer of SDC Credits <br /> e Mr. Lyle explained that the issue is whether to allow the transfer of SDC <br /> credits from one system to another or provide the ability to bank a credit, <br /> if the credit is greater than the SDC, to be used in future developments. <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Boles said that the committee <br /> struggled with this issue, and eventually came out on the side of the staff <br /> recommendation. <br /> Council recommendation: Do not allow the transfer of credits between devel- <br /> opments because of the expense and problems of administering such a program <br /> but allow it between phases. <br /> E. SDCs within the Urban Growth Boundary <br /> Mr. Lyle said that it was suggested by CCI that the City collect SDCs within <br /> the Urban Growth Boundary and establish a relationship between the ordinance <br /> and Lane County. This would be an extension of the existing urban transition <br /> agreements. <br /> Mr. Boles said that the CCI's purpose in doing this was to find a consistent <br /> means of treating those persons who may choose to annex to the City early. <br /> He recognized that in actuality, the City is not able to collect enough money <br /> to cover the true costs of growth. He also said that in the future, the City <br /> may want to consider networking with other jurisdictions as well. <br /> e <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 1990 Page 6 <br />