Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he objected in general to tax increases in an economic downturn. He questioned <br />why government should spend more while the private sector was losing money. He asked how <br />the proposed increase related to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Mr. McVey did not know. He <br />said that the CPI was not related to construction costs, which must be the basis for the SDC. Mr. <br />Farr asked how many cities used for comparison purposes were in Oregon. Mr. McVey said there <br />were none, adding there were no Oregon cities in the CCI. Mr. Fart said that it appeared nothing <br />took into account the fact that Oregon had one of the poorest economies in the nation, and he <br />would probably vote against the resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner indicated support for the resolution. While acknowledging Mr. Farr's concerns, he <br />pointed out that, even in an economic downturn, people continue to want public services and new <br />facilities. The demands on government do not cease. He determined from Mr. McVey that the <br />CCI was predicated strictly on construction costs and did not include such costs as land <br />acquisition. Mr. Meisner said while it was not enough to make him oppose the resolution, he <br />questioned having the same inflation rate for all the SDCs given that the inflation rate for the <br />different underlying elements would not be the same. He added that he was often mystified by the <br />manner in which the inflation rate was arrived at, since it often excluded such basic things as the <br />cost of land and the cost of housing, costs all people generally have. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to affirm the proposed resolution <br /> and direct the City Manager to move forth with the resolution adoption <br /> process. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that the motion merely made the topic the subject of a public hearing and for that <br />reason alone he could support it. He said he appreciated Mr. Fart's comments about the <br />economy but pointed out that construction costs were rising in spite of the state of the economy. <br />If SDCs were to cover the cost of extending needed infrastructure, the rate must keep pace with <br />inflation. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed that Mr. Meisner's points were well-taken, and suggested staff consider the <br />issue of looking at different indices for the different systems in subsequent reviews. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the timing of the recommendations, Mr. McVey <br />said that the focus of that package was to adopt a new transportation SDC, and the administrative <br />topics had not been processed yet through the RAC. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the struck language in the ordinance appeared to allow for an administrative <br />rate adjustment. Mr. Lidz responded that the 2001 legislature clarified what was a full adjustment <br />and an index-base adjustment and stipulated that index-based adjustments could be made <br />administratively. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Farr why, given the condition of the economy, the City would reject an <br />SDC increase and burden its taxpayers further with having to pay for the capacity needed to serve <br />new development. They were already paying about 60 percent of the cost anyway. She said that <br />the charge was not a tax, but reimbursement for capacity the City must build to serve new <br />development. She indicated reluctant support for the recommendation. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />