Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regarding the staff recommendation for the nonresidential parks SDC, Ms. Bettman said the staff <br />recommendation was a justifiable calculation. She thought just charging hotels was arbitrary and not <br />supportable. <br /> <br />Regarding the growth allocation attributable to local services for parks versus a system wide approach, Ms. <br />Bettman pointed out that all other City SDCs were based on a system-wide approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé acknowledged the complexity of the information before the council but questioned why the process <br />had taken so long, given that the council asked that the methodology be revised in April 2003. Mr. McVey <br />attributed the time taken to the adoption timeline required for the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space <br />(PROS) Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Papé suggested that commercial and industrial uses could have been <br />added tentatively. Mr. McVey recalled that the council agreed in 2003 to adjust the rates as opposed to the <br />methodology. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman it was time to sunset the RAC, given it had worked through all four <br />SDC methodologies and because he did not believe it was not needed for every change to the SDC. <br />However, he believed the RAC had served a useful purpose. He had read the minutes of RAC meetings and <br />found them interesting for understanding the tradeoffs had had taken place. He was struck by the fact that <br />RAC members had frequently not taken the political positions he expected. <br /> <br />Regarding the nonresidential parks SDC, Mr. Kelly said he could live with either the staff recommendation <br />or the RAC recommendation. <br /> <br />Speaking to the issue of the growth allocation attributable to neighborhood parks, Mr. Kelly said he agreed <br />with the input the council received from Roxie Cuellar of the Lane County Home Builders Association. As <br />long as the City had a defensible and equitable plan, it should also have a common sense plan. He said that <br />the City could not argue in the PROS Plan for new neighborhood parks in already developed areas and then <br />attribute that all cost to future growth. He was fine with the revised staff recommendation in the staff- <br />prepared motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor indicated he could support either the RAC or staff recommendation as it related to the nonresiden- <br />tial parks SDC. He looked forward to hearing public testimony on the issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor thought the RAC had done a good job and members had tried to be balanced. He said it never <br />hurt to have extra eyes on the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Kelly’s remarks regarding the growth allocation attributable to neighborhood <br />parks. He said the blanket application of rules tended to fall victim to the blanket application of rules. They <br />do not apply in each situation, and he thought it was good to be as specific as possible, particularly when it <br />came to money. Mr. Pryor endorsed the revised allocation method as being more intuitive and much more <br />responsive to the needs of a particular service area. <br /> <br />Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Pryor, Ms. Bettman said that the SDC actually was a blanket rate and the <br />methodology did not change what was charged or where it was charged, it just changed the calculation for <br />capacity. She likened the service area issue to how the City charged for transportation SDCs. The City did <br />not separate its road investments by geographic area and charge only those living in a certain service area. <br />Ms. Bettman said the City should not base its neighborhood parks SDC on a geographic service area <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 25, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />