My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet 3-6-19 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Public Meetings
>
CMO
>
2019
>
03-06-19
>
Agenda Packet 3-6-19 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2019 11:04:11 AM
Creation date
2/22/2019 11:02:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City_Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Packet
City_Council_Meeting_Type
Work Session
City_Council_Meeting_Date
3/6/2019
City_Council_Effective_Date
3/6/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
7 | P a g e <br /> <br />citizens further outside the process and leaves cities in the position of trying to enact a code that <br />does not relate to local conditions. <br /> <br />Section 6: SDC Deferral <br />As outlined above, the SDC process requires a lot of particular work by a local government to <br />keep capital improvement plans and cost estimates updated. But, the policy choices about how <br />to structure payments and cutting costs also require an important balance of needs. Cities that <br />have enacted a deferral program have to balance their ability to ensure the collection of the fee, <br />timing the repayment to help prevent buyers from being charged an unexpected SDC bill, and <br />preservation that the SDC payments are consistent enough to assure bonding agencies that the <br />fees will be collected to repay bonds. <br /> <br />If SDCs are not payed, cities must find other funds from either property taxes or user fees to <br />make up the difference. Deferred SDCs leave cities at greater risk if projects are abandoned <br />before the developer has fully constructed the project and a lien on the property is of limited value <br />if the project is half constructed. When local jurisdictions implement deferral programs they can <br />plan to have funding to cover this possibility. <br /> <br />In addition, cities are not the only local government to charge SDCs and are not always the <br />building official in charge of providing a certificate of occupancy. This will complicate the <br />problems with this section. We respectfully request that this section be removed from the bill so <br />that we can have a conversation about the variety of pieces that fit into this complex issue. <br /> <br />Section 7: ADU regulations <br />Cities implement restrictions on parking and owner/occupancy for a variety of reasons. The <br />primary reason is to reduce conflicts between neighbors. Parking and having an owner on the <br />property reduce these issues. Similarly, cities are trying to address ongoing concerns that these <br />unit types will not be used for long-term occupancy and instead be used as a short-term rental. <br />Regulations like these might be the only means of increasing the likelihood that these units will <br />used for long-term rentals and that conflicts with neighbors is reduced. This reduces the barriers <br />to ADUs being an excepted as additional units in a city’s overall housing supply. <br /> <br />Section 8: Attorney Fees <br />LUBA currently has the authority to shift attorney fees in two instances. LUBA may shift fees in <br />some instances, but LUBA must award attorney fees if a non-prevailing party presented a <br />position without probable cause to believe the position was well-founded in law or on factually <br />supported information. <br /> <br />March 6, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.