04/24/1991 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e mended that the administrative charge be set at five percent of the fee charged prior to deduction of credits. He reviewed SDCs for other communi- ties and other ordinance recommendations. Mr. Lyle said the council could review the rate setting methodology if two thirds of the council voted to do so. Mr. Gary clarified that the council could review the rate methodology at any time. However, he said modifica- tions to the ordinance required a two-thirds vote. Keith Martin, City Attorney's Office, said an appeal of the rate-setting methodology would have to come before the council. He said the council would take action by majority vote. However, he said that if the council wanted to open the record, and take more testimony, a two-thirds vote (six councilors) would be required. Mr. MacDonald flagged methodology for later discussion. Mr. lyle explained the options for low-income housing which the task force recommended not be included as an SDC exemption. Mr. Nicholson suggested the council create a fund to subsidize low-income housing, at least in terms of SDC fees. He asked if the council could craft an ordinance which stated that it would maintain a fund dedicated to this kind of project and that this fund would be as large or larger than antici- pated SDCs. Mr. Martin said the council could create such an ordinance, although the issue would become how to budget for such a fund. He said other communities which have attempted to do this have looked not just at the SDC fees, but also other fees imposed on low-income housing developments, and have created a special fund. He said the Joint Social Services Fund could be used for this purpose or a new fund could be created. Mr. MacDonald said the Social Goals Committee had discussed the possibility of exempting projects from the SDC, case by case. He said he felt this was highly undesirable because of its unpredictability and the difficulty this would create for financial planning. Mr. MacDonald said he favored either an SDC exemption for low-income housing or the creation of a special fund to pay for SDCs and other development-re- lated fees for certain categories of housing. He said an ordinance should be written which specified the action that would occur to offset costs when a public or non-profit project qualified. Mr. Rutan said the purpose of the SDC exercise had been to recognize the monetary costs of development now and in the long term. He said that since these costs existed for low-income housing, just as for any kind of develop- ment, the question was how they should be funded. He said the creation of a special fund to pay these costs was strictly a budgetary concern. He pointed out that the council would have to remove funds from some other City service if it chose to finance the SDCs for low-income housing and suggested that if MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 1991 Page 7