Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Responding to a process question from Councilor Nathanson, Mr. Klein advised the council to <br />withdraw the motion on the floor and direct the manager to return with the appropriate resolutions <br />if it wished to separate the issues. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ indicated willingness to withdraw his motion. Councilor Nathanson indicated her <br />assent to withdraw. Councilors Taylor and Bettman indicated objection to the proposed <br />withdrawal of the motion. Mayor Torrey ruled that the motion remained on the floor. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman said the SDCs reflected the cost of growth pointing out that it cost money to <br />provide infrastructure and services for new growth. The issue was, she said, who pays for the <br />cost of that growth? She said not to support the increases was to shift those costs onto <br />residents. Continuing, she noted that residents would have to accept fewer services, pay more <br />in taxes, or pay more fees. She cited the transportation system maintenance fee as an example. <br />The City was assessing $9 million annually to residents to pay for maintenance while using <br />existing transportation resources to build new infrastructure to serve new growth when those <br />costs should be paid by new growth. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman pointed out if the council adopted the increases, the City would still be in the <br />lowest third of the state for SDCs. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor supported the resolution for the reasons cited by Councilor Bettman. She <br />viewed the increase as modest and pointed out that the council had agreed previously it needed <br />to assess part of the costs of growth to growth. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson indicated opposition to the resolution because, while she acknowledged the <br />cost of growth, she wanted to vote separately on each SDC, some of which she found <br />appropriate, and some of which she disagreed with on the basis of the calculation. She <br />concluded that the rates would be raised; the question was by how much. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon said that once built, roads become part of the inventory and must be <br />maintained over time. The City lacked funding for that purpose, so it turned to the transportation <br />system maintenance fee as an option. SDCs would never pay for all the costs of the roads, but <br />they paid for their construction. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling agreed that development should pay the costs of growth. However, he believed <br />that the costs involved were extremely high and that there was something incorrect about the <br />methodology. He said that in terms of comparing Eugene with other communities, he believed <br />the comparisons being made were "apples and oranges," given the many variables involved. <br />Each community made different choices, thereby making a comparison difficult. He indicated <br />opposition to the resolution so the issues could be voted on separately. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the motion to adopt the resolution failed, 5:3; Councilors Kelly, <br /> Taylor, and Bettman voting yes. <br /> <br /> Councilor Pap~, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City <br /> Manager to bring back a resolution related to the transportation SDC without <br /> a geographic adjustment. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; Councilors <br /> Pap~, Solomon, and Poling voting yes. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 14 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />