Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Regarding the growth allocation attributable to local services for parks versus a system wide approach, Ms. Bettman pointed out that all other City SDCs were based on a system-wide approach. Mr. Papé acknowledged the complexity of the information before the council but questioned why the process had taken so long, given that the council asked that the methodology be revised in April 2003. Mr. McVey attributed the time taken to the adoption timeline required for the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Papé suggested that commercial and industrial uses could have been added tentatively. Mr. McVey recalled that the council agreed in 2003 to adjust the rates as opposed to the methodology. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman it was time to sunset the RAC, given it had worked through all four SDC methodologies and because he did not believe it was not needed for every change to the SDC. However, he believed the RAC had served a useful purpose. He had read the minutes of RAC meetings and found them interesting for understanding the tradeoffs had had taken place. He was struck by the fact that RAC members had frequently not taken the political positions he expected. Regarding the nonresidential parks SDC, Mr. Kelly said he could live with either the staff recommendation or the RAC recommendation. Speaking to the issue of the growth allocation attributable to neighborhood parks, Mr. Kelly said he agreed with the input the council received from Roxie Cuellar of the Lane County Home Builders Association. As long as the City had a defensible and equitable plan, it should also have a common sense plan. He said that the City could not argue in the PROS Plan for new neighborhood parks in already developed areas and then attribute that all cost to future growth. He was fine with the revised staff recommendation in the staff- prepared motion. Mr. Pryor indicated he could support either the RAC or staff recommendation as it related to the nonresiden- tial parks SDC. He looked forward to hearing public testimony on the issue. Mr. Pryor thought the RAC had done a good job and members had tried to be balanced. He said it never hurt to have extra eyes on the process. Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Kelly’s remarks regarding the growth allocation attributable to neighborhood parks. He said the blanket application of rules tended to fall victim to the blanket application of rules. They do not apply in each situation, and he thought it was good to be as specific as possible, particularly when it came to money. Mr. Pryor endorsed the revised allocation method as being more intuitive and much more responsive to the needs of a particular service area. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Pryor, Ms. Bettman said that the SDC actually was a blanket rate and the methodology did not change what was charged or where it was charged, it just changed the calculation for capacity. She likened the service area issue to how the City charged for transportation SDCs. The City did not separate its road investments by geographic area and charge only those living in a certain service area. Ms. Bettman said the City should not base its neighborhood parks SDC on a geographic service area because people move and they use parks all over the city. She did not think the service level approach was justifiable, and the system-wide approach was more defensible given its use in the other SDC methodologies. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. McVey said he would provide the council with the rate schedule showing what condominiums would pay when that information was available. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 25, 2006 Page 6 Work Session