Laserfiche WebLink
for the two local SDCs. He asked staff to provide its best guess as to the consequence of using a project-list <br />based SDC and how it compared to the current methodology. Additionally, he wondered if the City must <br />return a portion of the SDC collected should a significant project be dropped. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey estimated that, when looking at a project-based SDC, the improvement fee portion was <br />approximately $1,200 per trip while the current SDC fee was around $800 per trip. He noted that the parks <br />master planning work was not yet completed and so it was unknown how the SDC rates would be affected. <br />He predicted they would be similar to the present rates. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked staff to consider whether a developer would have legal recourse to pursue return of an <br />SDC based on a project that did not come to fruition. Mr. Lidz responded that there would not be legal <br />recourse as the CIP was a legislative document and, when one project came off, there would likely be <br />another project added on. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. McVey said there was not much controversy as this bill <br />made its way through the legislature. Mayor Torrey suggested that someone could increase the CIP and <br />subsequently increase the SDC with only a public hearing. He expressed some incredulity that no one had <br />taken issue with this. <br /> <br />Jason Heuser, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, explained that the work group had vented these <br />concerns and the building industry had been comfortable with it. He related that the League of Oregon <br />Cities had testified before the committee that the bill was a collaborative effort and all parties were in <br />agreement on it. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ noted that Eugene was one of only several cities left in the State of Oregon that still based its <br />SDCs on the LOS methodology. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman commented that the SDCs had not matched the need or the expenditures on new capacities. <br /> <br />C. ACTION: Resolution 4780 Responding to the Remand of Ordinance Nos. 20258 and 20259 <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to adopt Resolution 4780 responding <br /> to the remand of Ordinance Nos. 20258 and 20259, along with that resolution's <br /> ~Attachment A" ¢~Explanation of Findings"). <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner questioned why the resolution was coming before the council prior to the issuance of a new <br />report by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) which could potentially alter the West Eugene <br />Wetlands Plan (WEWP). He noted that the other three jurisdictions that were going to adopt the resolution <br />would not see it until January, 2004. <br /> <br />City Attorney Emily Jerome responded that the other jurisdictions would be considering the resolution in <br />December and not January. She commented that no one knew at this point precisely what would be in the <br />ODOT plan. She predicted it would be akin to the policy decisions approved by the City Council in July <br />2003. She said once the TransPlan and the WEWP had been established, they might or might not require <br />further review. She advised taking the action before the council and %losing the door" as it would be <br />cleaner from a legal standpoint. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 4 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />