Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zelenka asserted it was disingenuous to say there was no nexus between businesses and parks. He said <br />it was clearly not the case. He averred that businesses located next to parks had higher property values than <br />businesses not located next to parks. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said when she worked in Springfield she had never visited a park in that community. She went <br />to Springfield to work. Her husband worked in Springfield and never visited a park. He went to Springfield <br />to work. She opposed assessing businesses an SDC for parks based on speculation that their employees <br />created an impact on a park. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor thought the Rates Advisory Committee had done a great job in a short amount of time. He said <br />that growth occurred geographically and drove the location of parks; ideally, one would link the two through <br />the parks SDC to the geography where the growth was likely to occur and not to areas where growth did not <br />occur. However, that would be quite complex, so the committee had to take a generalization and make it fit <br />fairly, and he thought it did a good job of accomplishing that. He thought there might be a nexus between <br />the parks SDC and commercial and industrial uses, but he questioned whether that nexus was strong and <br />direct enough to justify charging an SDC to those uses. Mr. Pryor observed that he heard people say their <br />property values decreased when recreational facilities were located nearby, although he questioned that. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor did not see a sufficient nexus to start charging SDCs to nonresidential uses at this point. He <br />preferred to stay with the current ordinance because of the more clear nexus between residents and parks. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz believed there was a connection between business and park use. She attended an event at <br />Molecular Probes recently and talked to an employee who shared that they owned a business in Carlsbad, <br />California, and bought land around their business to make it more park-like. She thought it would be great <br />if businesses were willing to do that. <br /> <br /> <br />6. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Authorizing HUD Section 108 Revenue Bonds <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public <br />hearing. She called for council questions and comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman wanted to amend the ordinance so that it did not go into effect until there was a project <br />attached to it. Sue Cutsogeorge of Financial Services indicated that was possible. Ms. Bettman said she <br />understood that a project would come back to the council and a hearing would occur, but it would occur <br />before the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee. She wanted to amend the ordinance <br />so that any public hearing on any project occurred before the City Council. She requested text to that effect. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz questioned what was left of the authorizing ordinance if the council did not want it to take effect <br />until there was a proposed project. He did not know the difference between that and merely postponing <br />adoption of the bond authorization until a project was at hand. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman determined that one alternative would be to postpone adoption of the ordinance or include a <br />provision in the ordinance detailing that once there was a project, the public hearing would occur before the <br />City Council. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the council could do a project-specific ordinance instead of enacting the <br />ordinance before it. Ms. Bettman requested both options be prepared. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 10 <br /> Public Hearing <br />