Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman noted that Eugene continued to be in the lower third of Oregon cities in terms of <br />what it assessed for SDCs. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly also expressed support for the motion. With regard to the geographic component, he <br />said that the current issue of the Business News indicated that Springfield offered a discount on <br />SDCs in the core. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked if a small retail business with an extremely high transportation SDC in an <br />older area of the community could appeal the SDC if it was a hardship. Mr. McVey said that there <br />were several opportunities for appeal and adjustment to the SDC. For example, a business could <br />submit an alternate calculation of the trips the business generates if it disagreed with the rates <br />assigned through the standard rate table. The SDC could also be appealed to a hearings official. <br />He confirmed that there was a written process for those steps. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ thanked staff and the committee for their work. He determined from Mr. McVey that <br />CH2M Hill had acted as consultant to the committee. Mr. Pap~ asked the total of all SDCs for a <br />typical residence. Mr. McVey said that the current average SDC on a new single-family residence <br />was about $3,300, and the proposal represented about a $500 increase over the current average. <br />He confirmed Ms. Bettman's previous statement that Eugene's SDC was among the lowest in the <br />state. Mr. Pap~ asked if payment of the SDC guaranteed a neighborhood park would be built near <br />a particular development. Mr. McVey said that there was no specific guarantee of a park being <br />available at a particular location; the money from the SDC goes to a fund to support park <br />improvements throughout the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if the City Attorney reviewed the methodology. Mr. McVey said yes. Mr. Rayor <br />asked City Attorney Glenn Klein if the methodology fell within the parameters of State law and the <br />norm for such methodologies. Mr. Klein confirmed that statement. He did not know if the City <br />would be challenged, but believed if it was, the challenge would fail. Mr. Rayor wanted to know if <br />the same was true of the geographic component under consideration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to affirm both the proposed SDC <br /> ordinance and SDC methodologies document and direct the City Manager to <br /> move forward with the ordinance adoption and resolution process. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to include <br /> direction to the City Manager to bring back to the City Council the <br /> appropriate document allocating the reimbursement component of the <br /> transportation SDC revenues for preservation and maintenance of the City's <br /> existing arterial and collector street system. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her amendment, saying that the Public Works Rates Advisory <br />Committee discussed the reimbursement fee and its use at great length. She said that 60 percent of <br />the SDC was an improvement fee, dedicated to capacity enhancement. Because part of the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />