CC Minutes - 07/14/03 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Bettman clarified, at Councilor Papa's request, that she was not making a motion, but rather was encouraging her fellow councilors to vote down the delay of the increase in SDCs and then, should the resolution fail, determine a time to hold a work session for the discussion of the matter. Councilor Poling noted that he and Councilor Solomon had raised questions regarding the methodology behind and the legality of the 144 percent increase of the SDCs, adding that the council had passed it by a vote of 6:2. He related that shortly thereafter, the Springfield City Council pulled the item off of its agenda to address questions that had been raised. He said that a legal appeal had not been filed in time in reference to the action of the Eugene City Council, but that an appeal had been filed prior to the scheduled action in Springfield based on a court case in the City of Newberg in which the city had settled out of court and had reimbursed the home builders $400,000 in SDCs deemed to have been illegitimately collected utilizing the same methodology that was proposed by the MWMC. Councilor Poling disagreed with Councilor Bettman's assertion that the home builders association was well-represented on the MWMC, stating that he was on the board of the MWMC and that he had not observed this to be so. He said that the MWMC had decided that the commission should refer the SDC methodology back to a citizen committee to avoid any legal fallout. In order for this to go into effect, he added, both cities need to work together. He stressed that the delay did not mean that SDCs would not be collected, only that they would not be collected using the new methodology. Councilor Poling observed that, should councilors vote against the resolution, Springfield would be collecting at the old rate and Eugene would be collecting at the new, higher rate, thus creating a more desirable climate for development in Springfield. He urged the council to vote for the resolution. Councilor Kelly expressed concern that the structure that had been set up around the SDC procedure effectively provided one municipality veto power over another. He asked the City Attorney to comment on the two legal documents, and specifically, that should the resolution fail, whether the City of Eugene would be legally allowed to utilize the new methodology for collecting SDCs given the legal weight of the IGA between the two cities. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that the reason the City of Eugene had not collected the increase in the SDCs thus far was because of the IGA. He likened it to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan in that the council could pass an amendment to it, but unless all of the jurisdictions that were party to the plan had voted for it, it could not be implemented. He reminded the council that this discussion was only focused on the MWMC component of the SDCs and that the council had power over all of the other SDCs. As to what would actually happen in the event that the council gave direction to the City Manager to institute the new methodology for SDC assessment, he affirmed that it would be desirable to take every step MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 10 Regular Meeting