My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 10/25/06 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2006
>
CC Minutes - 10/25/06 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:32:12 AM
Creation date
1/11/2007 11:30:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
10/25/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
<br />City Manager Taylor introduced Engineering Data Services Manager Fred McVey of Public Works. Nancy <br />Burns of Public Works and City Engineer Mark Schoening were also present. Mr. McVey was present to <br />overview the recommendation of the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee (RAC). He acknowledged <br />the complexity of developing an systems development charge (SDC) methodology and recognized the <br />members of the advisory committee: Michael Roberts of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, Paul <br />Nicholson of the Friends of Eugene, Merle Bottge of the League of Women Voters, Paul Harrison of the <br />Citizens for Public Accountability, Barbara Roberts representing professional engineers, Doug Weber of the <br />Lane County Home Builders Association, David Hinkley of the Neighborhood Leaders Council, Scott Clark <br />of the Voter Pool, and John Prior of the Neighborhood Pool. He thanked the RAC members on behalf of the <br />Public Works Department for their commitment and involvement. He also acknowledged staff contributing <br />to the effort and thanked consultant Debbie Galardi, who was present, for her assistance. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey said the two issues before the council were the applicability of parks SDCs to non-residential <br />development and the growth allocation method to be used for neighborhood parks. Regarding the first issue, <br />Mr. McVey reminded the council that the examination of the applicability of the parks SDC to nonresiden- <br />tial development was pursued at its direction. He reported that the staff team worked with the RAC and <br />developed what it believed was the basis for a rational and defensible nonresidential charge; but the RAC <br />disagreed, believing the staff recommendation was both difficult to explain, administer, and defend. The <br />RAC instead recommended a hotel/motel charge as an aspect of the residential charge. However, staff <br />prepared an ordinance consistent with the council’s earlier direction to forward to a public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey addressed the second issue, that of methodological choice as it applied to the allocation of <br />capacity to growth attributable to neighborhood parks. He reminded the council that the Lane County Home <br />Builders Association raised issues earlier in the review process related to the use of the system-wide capacity <br />analysis used in the methodology, which lead to further work by the RAC, resulting in the development of a <br />service-based allocation method to be applied uniformly to all development regardless of geographic <br />location. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey said staff also provided a summary of the key elements of the parks SDC in Attachment C to <br />the AIS. Table 1 of the AIS provides the relative effect of the various options before the council; the <br />numbers were based on figures that were two years old, and he recommended the application of an inflation <br />factor. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey said that throughout their development of the proposed SDC, staff and the RAC considered the <br />issues of legislative compliance, public acceptance, administrative feasibility, revenue adequacy, equity, and <br />technical defensibility. He believed the proposal met those criteria, and hoped to have a final methodology <br />available to the public by mid-November, prior to the public hearing schedule for January 16, 2007. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman averred that the RAC was heavily weighted in favor of the development sector. As the SDC <br />methodology was a technical matter and the City had engineers that could develop the methodology, Ms. <br />Bettman questioned whether the City needed such an industry-weighted committee to work with staff to <br />bring policy to the council. She did not think it was fair; staff should bring the council a recommendation, <br />which should then be open for public discussion and possible modifications. She also thought the committee <br />process dragged out the timeline for the SDC to be revised. She maintained that, after participating in the <br />development of the SDC rates, the industry members sued the City. She called for the RAC to be sunsetted. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 25, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.