Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a status of Priority 2 Oppose for the bill. Mayor Piercy asked for staff comment. Mr. Yeiter said if there was a developer proposing an expansion of the UGB it would be easy to state that the City would not provide the trunk line and to direct the developer to put it in. However, in the case in which the City was planning in the future to accommodate population growth, the UGB was going to be expanded, and the City was planning an area for many properties prior to any development proposals, instead of waiting to collect enough Systems Development Charges (SDCs) from development elsewhere to allow utilities to be extended, the bill would allow a loan to where the City could provide utilities and the developers as incrementally as they developed would pay it back. Ms. Bettman asserted that passage of the bill would result in an explosion of UGB expansions. Mr. Yeiter cited the trunk line that the City needed to put into the Royal Node so that the incremental development could occur per the master plan as an example of infrastructure that would benefit from such a revolving loan fund. Ms. Bettman countered that it would remove an obstacle to expansion of the UGB. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 1019 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the Priority 2 Support stance to a Priority 1 Support stance on SB 1019. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Wilson noted that SB 1019 would have its first hearing on April 9. SB 1011 Ms. Bettman asked how the bill modified the process for designating urban reserves. She recalled that the City had vacated an urban reserve approximately six years earlier. Mr. Yeiter responded that the City had two big urban reserves and then the State had created a procedure for designating urban reserves and Eugene’s no longer conformed to the State’s requisites. He said when the City of Eugene had undertaken its housekeeping measures it had taken the urban reserves off. He felt the goal of providing a “sustainable and complete community” was a laudable goal but within the context of the bill it was ill-defined. He saw the bill as a source for appeals. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Yeiter explained that the bill indicated that it referred to a Metropolitan Service District and Portland was the only area that qualified as such a thing. He noted that the bill referred to counties and the Metropolitan Service District, but to his knowledge a county could not provide urban services. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had not had a hearing. Ms. Bettman indicated she would not pose a motion to change the status from Priority 3 Monitor. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 10