Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />impact approach. In addition, he said the group discussed the fact that <br />there are other kinds of development that support public,good, such as <br />daycare facilities, social service agencies, etc., and that it would be dif- <br />ficult to determine where to draw the line on exemptions. Therefore, he said <br />the task force felt that the community should find other ways to help fund <br />low-income housing. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom pOinted out that in order to provide two-to-one matching funds for <br />Federally funded low-income housing developments, the council must look care- <br />fully at where it would get its share of this match. Mr. Nicholson said <br />match money could be created by collecting funds from the low-income housing <br />development for SDCs, and then subsidizing the development using other funds. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles said that if the SDC rate methodology were to be based on the full <br />impact of growth, then it must apply across all classes of development. He <br />said this left intact the principle that the City was not playing favorites <br />with its rate methodology. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles said that a burden would be placed on the community to pay for the <br />portion of the City's infrastructure represented by a low-income housing <br />development if the City granted SDC exemptions to such developments. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom said it could be difficult to find matching funds and that the <br />timing of such funds was very crucial. <br /> <br />Mr. MacDonald suggested that SDC funds might prove to be a better source of <br />match money than other moneys which are generated by the General Fund. He <br />said the City might find that it could tap into other previously unavailable <br />funds such as road and sewer funds. <br /> <br />Mayor Miller asked staff for further information on this subject. <br /> <br />Mr. Lyle discussed credits for permit applicants. In response to a question <br />from Mr. Green, Mr. Lyle said charge ownership was difficult to track, but <br />the City would record credit information with the property records so that <br />future property owners could determine if credits were due their develop- <br />ments. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Lyle said off-street bike <br />paths had been included as part of transportation SDCs. He said the rate <br />would be calculated according to the mileage of bike paths (current standard) <br />to compute mileage per population. Ms. Andersen said these statistics were <br />converted to cost per trip. Ms. Bascom said it was important to locate off- <br />street bike paths where they were most needed. Mr. Lyle indicated the CIP <br />identified the Greenway Path as one of the priorities. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles pointed out that the rate methodology for the transportation SDC is <br />the most difficult to calculate based on a reflection of true costs. Mr. <br />Rutan pointed out that the discussion of transportation SDC rate methodology <br />involved subjective decisions. As an example, he referred to the McDonald's <br />Restaurant at 29th Avenue and Willamette Street. He said the SDC Task Force <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />April 8, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />