Laserfiche WebLink
Broadened SDCs <br />State ORS stipulates the limits under which transportation SDCs can be established and <br />Legal Authority <br />restrictions on how the revenues can be used. They can only be used for capacity- <br />and Restrictions <br />oriented capital projects responding to growth demands. They cannot be used for street <br />on Use <br />reconstruction unless additional capacity is added, and then only for the capacity-related <br />portion of the projects. Reimbursement fees can also be collected for the community?s <br />investment in capacity that supports growth, which in turn can be used for road-related <br />needs. The City is currently evaluating such a reimbursement transportation SDC. Lane <br />County could establish an SDC to be collected by the City, or the City of Eugene could <br />include the arterial/collectors under Lane County?s jurisdiction within the UGB in its fee <br />structure, and then transfer the SDC revenue to Lane County. In either case the projects <br />would need to be identified in a capital improvement plan. Road funds that would <br />otherwise have been used for improvements by Lane County are not required by law to <br />be transferred to Eugene; to do so would be a policy decision by the Commissioners. <br />As with the Lane County situation, ODOT facilities planned for construction that would <br />provide capacity for new development within the UGB could be accommodated by a <br />state or local SDC. A further refinement of this option could be a local match for state <br />facilities. The issues outlined above would also apply to ODOT facilities. <br />The revenue stream would be dependent on the pace of development. It would not <br />Assessment of <br />address the preservation and maintenance needs of the community unless the road funds <br />Financial <br />that would be replaced by SDCs were tranferred to Eugene?s Road Fund. This concept <br />Stability and <br />has been reviewed by the City of Eugene Public Works Rates Advisory Committee who <br />Political <br />have recommended that the two agencies, should they so choose, each create their own <br />Feasibility <br />transportation SDC versus attempting to incorporate all of those needs in the City SDC. <br />They suggested that it would be appropriate that the associated road funds be transferred <br />to Eugene, but they also acknowledged the political challenges associated with such a <br />transfer. The City of Eugene may be interested in supporting Lane County?s goal of <br />establishing a transportation SDC if the Road Urban Transition agreement that is due to <br />expire July 2001 can be renegotiated and improved. Likewise, the City may be interested <br />in establishing matching funds through SDCs if there could be some assurance of <br />investment in the local area by ODOT. <br />There is no current estimate available of the financial impact to development as a result <br />Potential <br />of either jurisdiction creating a transportation SDC. The additional costs associated with <br />Economic <br />such a fee may have an effect on Council affordable housing goals. <br />Impacts <br />This proposal would be consistent with Council?s growth management goal that <br />Consistency <br />development pay the full cost associated with its impact on the eligible infrastructure. <br />with Council <br />Goals and <br />Policies <br />As mentioned above, the City of Eugene currently is or is planning to collect an MWMC <br />Other <br />regional wastewater SDC as well as a Lane County Parks SDC. It is likely that similar <br />Jurisdiction <br />arrangements exist in other jurisdictions, and one would expect that the concept will be <br />Experiences <br />increasingly used as funding options for infrastructure improvements become more and <br />more restricted. <br />I4 <br />