Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner hoped the council majority would not be so adamant that it refused to include all three <br />options. He believed that if the council rejected the option, the remaining options would also be <br />rejected, leaving the council with the RAC recommendation. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson thought the options could be presented as multiple zones, two zones (inside and <br />outside downtown), or as a linear adjustment. The council could also decide whether the option <br />should be revenue-neutral. She preferred that the decision be framed in such a way. She was <br />going to support the amendment, and emphasized the council's interest that Option 2 be revenue- <br />neutral. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor <br /> voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that because of the phrase "consider the discussion" he assumed that staff would <br />consider a revenue-neutral approach to Option 2. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if there was a way to make Option 2 revenue-neutral. Mr. Carlson suggested <br />that the City would have to reduce the SDC in the urban core and raise them everywhere else to <br />make the option revenue-neutral, as SDCs were based on the total impact on the system. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wanted the City to consider treating neighborhood grocery stores and small restaurants <br />in a different way than other businesses. Mr. Carlson responded that particular delineation was <br />already contained in the SDC methodology. The methodology assumed that a large grocery store <br />would generate more trips than a neighborhood commercial store, and that a fast food restaurant <br />would generate more trips than a sit-down restaurant. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Fart voting no. <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: Proposed Annual Inflationary Cost Adjustments to Local Systems <br /> Development Charges (SDC) and Revisions to SDC Methodologies Document <br /> <br />Mr. McVey introduced the item. He asked the council to consider proposed revisions to the SDC <br />to incorporate an inflationary cost adjustment and modifications to the methodology to enable <br />such adjustments to be made administratively. Mr. McVey said staff proposed an inflationary <br />adjustment increase of 3.9 percent. That was based on data from the Construction Cost Index <br />(CCI), which was publishing by the Engineering News Record (ENR). The adjustment would <br />affect all SDC rates, excepting the regional wastewater SDC and the Eugene Water & Electric <br />Board water SDC. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey noted a change in the methodology stipulating that modifications to the methodology <br />were to be adopted by the council through resolution rather than by the City Manager through <br />administrative rule, in keeping with recent changes to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). Also <br />in keeping with ORS, the methodology was revised to state that certain revisions to the SDC, <br />those based on an adopted cost index, could be made administratively, with a cap on such <br />adjustments beyond five percent in a twelve-month period. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey reported that the Public Rates Advisory Committee had considered the <br />recommendations before the council and had indicated its acceptance of them. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />