Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. McVey stated, in response to a concern raised by Councilor Bettman, that all of the relevant <br />project cost components were covered and included in the SDC. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for the vote. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />9. ACTION: Resolution 4769 Adopting Amended Systems Development Charge <br /> Methodology for Transportation System and Amending Resolution Nos. 4740 and 4748 <br /> <br /> Council President Pap~ moved, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, to adopt <br /> Resolution 4769 adopting amended Systems Development Charge <br /> methodology for transportation system and amending Resolution Nos. 4740 <br /> and 4748. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ noted that, should the council vote in opposition to the resolution, the existing <br />methodology would remain in place. He stated that this was the recommendation of the Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey confirmed this, adding that the recommendation had come from the Rates Advisory <br />Committee and was that the geographic adjustment should not be incorporated in previous <br />changes to the transportation SDC. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ reiterated his opposition to the inclusion of geographic adjustments in the <br />amended SDC methodology. <br /> <br /> Councilor Poling moved, seconded by Councilor Solomon, to amend the <br /> resolution to remove the geographic adjustment to the SDC methodology. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling stated that the Rates Advisory Committee had voted against the geographic <br />adjustment, 6:1, and the initial recommendation from staff was not to add such an adjustment. He <br />said that there was no justification for the proposed four-percent increase in methodology for the <br />outlying area as it was not tied to a capital improvement program. He related that the assumption <br />this adjustment was based upon was that citizens in the outlying areas would drive more. He <br />remarked that he would support a lower SDC for the core area of the downtown area, but that <br />the one under consideration was unfair. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson commented that she had questioned this approach at the initial discussion, <br />held in December 2002. She expressed her preference to keep the methodology as it was and to <br />add the downtown to the list of nodes. She supported the amendment. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 17 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />