Item 2: PH on Resolution Adopting Amended SDC Methodology and Rates

Home Browse Search

stand, the city is trying to establish the future level of service through the SDC 309 list, which is not permissible to LUBA becatIse it is not a land use decision and, therefore, can not purport to be a park refinement plam IV. The SDC methodology proposes to charge new commercial and industrial construction a park SDC without a sufficient nexus. I Eugene currently does not charge park SDCs to commercial and industrial construction. There are virtually no jurisdictions in Otegon that do; Sherman may be the exception and they probably got away with it because no one challenged it. The Eugene Rates Committee that studied the proposed methodology recommended against imposing a park SDC on all new commercial and industrial construction. City staff who has worked on SDCs for years did not recommend sucH an inclusion in the methodology. It was solely at council direction that this was placed ~n the methodology. The RBA and RCC recommend that it be removed. There is a reason why jurisdictions with park SDCs do not rush to attach them to commercial aid industrial construction and that is because the nexus between this type of growth and capacity demands is simply not there. ORS 223.304(2) provides the requirements for charging growth with an improvement fee: (2) Improvement fee must: (a) Be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that is available for public inspection and demonstrates con$ideration of: (A) The projeoted cost of the capital improvements identified in the plan aI).d list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 that are needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is related; and (B) The need ~or increased capacity in the system to which the fee is relat~d that will be required to serve the demands placed on the system by future users. (b) Be calculated to obtain the cost of capital improvements for the pr01ected need for available sy~em capacity for future users (emphasis added) I In other words, jurisdictions can only charge growth for the capacity demands that growth puts on the infrastructure. If new construction does not translate into future users who will put demands on the infrastructUre, that growth can not be charged an improvement fee. The question, therefote, is what evidence exists that new storage units on West 11 tit or a new video store in Valley River or a new hair salon downtown will place demands on the park system that requires that the capacity of the park system be increased? :