Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> further develop options 1 and 3, considering today's discussion, and to <br /> schedule a subsequent work session before year's end. <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion and encouraged the council to sit down with staff and get <br />some more background on the SDC methodology. She said that she heard councilors argue for <br />decreased SDCs in the urban core on the basis that it was less of a burden on capacity, and if <br />there was justification for reducing them in the urban core there was justification for raising them <br />in the periphery. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion with the <br /> addition of Option 2. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said he appreciated Ms. Bettman's remarks but that his support for Option 2 would not <br />be based on the burden on capacity but on his interest in assisting downtown. If the City wanted <br />to promote downtown development as Springfield had through its differential rates, it should <br />concentrate on doing that. Mr. Pap~ continued to have a difficult time with the equivalency <br />argument being offered. He noted that there was a small restaurant near the University that <br />attracted residents from all over town, and asked if the City should penalize such a businesses for <br />its success if it wished to expand. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he was interested in further analysis of Option 2 but needed to know how the <br />motions worked together. Mr. Kelly said that the motion, if amended, meant the staff would work <br />on all three options. Mr. Meisner said he would support the amendment because of the additional <br />analysis Option 2 would receive. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment because there were other incentives that could be used to <br />assist downtown. She said that most Capital Improvement Program projects that the City could <br />afford to build were being funded by SDCs and street assessments. Given that she thought SDC <br />revenues were already inadequate, she believed that Option 2 would reduce SDCs revenues, <br />meaning the City would recover less for capacity and have less revenue to invest in its high- <br />priority infrastructure. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly also opposed the amendment because of the revenue issue. If the goal of SDCs was to <br />recover the cost of development, lowering SDCs without another revenue source to supplant the <br />lost revenues meant those costs would not be recovered. In addition, he wished to narrow staff's <br />scope of effort. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said most of the neighborhoods around his residence were not new and they were not <br />served. He pointed out that the entire community paid for the bicycle paths that served south <br />Eugene, so he was unwilling to penalize residents because of where they lived now. He said that <br />no new restaurants would be built in his area if a geographic adjustment was adopted, forcing him <br />and other residents to drive to restaurants in other pads of Eugene. Mr. Fart indicated support for <br />the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor questioned why options 1 and 3 were revenue-neutral and Option 2 was not. He <br />suggested that Option 2 could be made revenue-neutral. Mr. Rayor reiterated his interest in <br />treating nodes in the same way as downtown. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />