CC Minutes - 11/21/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

thought it made more sense to have a rate that included variables that could be adjusted as appropriate, so the rate increase would not be a stair-step increase. Mr. McVey clarified that if the travel behavior survey indicated significant changes to rate factors, such as the average trip length or trip generation rates for a particular development type, adjustments could be made to the methodology administratively to address those changes. Mr. Fart said the community would always have to deal with growth, and he thought the RAC- recommended changes were a level-handed way to deal the issue of transportation improvements. He complimented staff and the RAC on their work. However, Mr. Fart pointed out the result of the recommendations would be an increase in the cost of single-family housing, which had the effect of increasing the cost of rent across the board. He said that the council should only adopt such increases when absolutely essential. Ms. Nathanson noted the recent presentation of the Six-Year Financial Forecast to the Budget Committee and asked if the information regarding revenue projections was congruent with that presented to the committee. Mr. McVey said the information was not based on the six-year forecast; he had done a straight-line projection based on the experience of the last three years. Referring to the comparison with other cities, Ms. Nathanson asked if it was possible other communities' projects costs differed because they had a higher proportion of streets to be upgraded to urban standards, such as in the high-growth areas outside Portland. Mr. McVey said that one of the difficulties of the RAC's work was the dynamic nature of transportation systems and differences in jurisdictional ownership of the streets. For example, were State highways serving as major community arterials, or were the streets local streets that had evolved from county roads to urban arterials or collectors? He believed it was fair to say that the communities with the highest rates faced the situation mentioned by Ms. Nathanson. Ms. Nathanson asked if SDC funds could be spent on a street such as Elmira Road that was not built to urban standards, suggesting that improved intersections, striping, and the addition of turn lanes in certain places could facilitate safer movements and be considered a capacity-enhancing project. Mr. McVey said that SDC funds could be used on such a project. Even prior to adoption of an reimbursement fee, some portions of the nonassessible improvements on a collector street such as Elmira Road were SDC-eligible. Ms. Bettman believed that there was more to the issue of capacity than just the width or length of a road, and contended that access to the road also affected capacity. She said the issue was relevant to the RAC's discussion of pass-by trips; while such trips were discounted because they were pass by trips, she had argued that each such trip added to the congestion of the roadway and decreased the roadway capacity; the RAC did not have the data to support the argument so it did not get anywhere with it. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding the adequacy of the revenue to be collected, Ms. Bettman said that when the RAC valued the system and determined what kind of development had what kind of claim on the system capacity, it had looked at those issues in a vacuum. There were no numbers to consider until the end of the process. She characterized the process as examining a lot of small details and the range of what the options were, and usually going with the pretty moderate option, and that led to the ultimate methodology. Regarding the cost of housing, Ms. Bettman said the cost of the infrastructure and services to MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 4 Work Session