01/23/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

best route because it was fair and workable. Ms. Smith asked if the Committee thought the Council should determine exceptions to the charge. Mr. Anderson replied a number of exceptions had been consi- ~ dered; for example, ERA's suggestion. However, this was a political ' decision which should be determined by Council. Mr. Lieuallen said he wanted the Council to take action on the issue tonight. He said no charge system was perfect, but that the one proposed was more equitable than the one being used. Mr. Bradley asked why the Board of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, and Homebuilder1s Association were all opposed to the systems develop- ment charge, since the cost would be passed on to the home buyer. Mr. G 1 ea ves sa i d the bu i1 der added the cha rge as a front-end payment, which meant he made money. However, disadvantages of the system outweighed advantages because the homeowner was assessed for his present home according to what it would cost him to buy a new home. In other words, the associations mentioned by Mr. Bradley were con- cerned that the homebuyer and owner would both pay more with the SDC. Mr. Bradley said it seemed the associations were looking at the consumers point of view. Mr. Delay asked if the opposition were saying that if the cost of housing were increased, existing housing would also go up in cost because of taxes. Contrary to this, he said, the valuation could be doubled on homes and taxes cut in half, depending on what the City needed in the way of public services. Mr. Gleaves said if the cost of housing in the City went up, it would be to the builders advan- tage to build outside the city. He said there were no pure figures on the tax situation. However, new residential growth last year raised ~ $300,000, of which any extra should be credited to the homeowner. .., Mr. Bradley asked if the systems development charge would cause development problems for the County, considering that the County had zoning districts which permitted fewer units per acre than the city. Mrs. Niven said that development problems could be caused for jurisdictions outside the City, like the city of Veneta. Mr. Bradley suggested this would be consistent with the 1990 Plan in that it would help develop satellite communities. However, Mrs. Niven countered that the satellite concept included developing employment opportunities, not just bedroom communities. Mr. Williams said the distance of a residence from the center of employment was inversely proportionate to incomes. He said as the cost of housing in Eugene went up, pressures would be increased for people to move out of town. Mr. Obie felt the ordinance, as proposed, did not solve the South Willamette Street problem because it did not change the assessment procedures. He said ERA1s and JHC1s points had to be considered, but Council did not have the time or energy to do that at this evening~ meeting. He suggested that Council schedule a work session on the ordinance. Mr. Delay agreed the issue should be rescheduled. - 1/23/78--8 'fi