CC Minutes - 02/20/07 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

she had never been able to find an appropriate nexus between the parks SDC and commercial and industrial development and did not think one existed. She recommended a solution by which a larger part of the SDC was allocated to pick up the cost of nonresidents visiting parks. Ms. Cuellar expressed concerned about the 20-year project list because it was so speculative. From now on, developers would pay a piece of every single park project on the 20-year list, and it was highly unlikely current residents would ever pay for all parks projects. Terry Connelly , representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, 1401 Willamette Street, said the chamber supported parks, recreation, and open space which made a positive contribution to the community’s quality of life, but believed that it was only one contributor in that regard. A healthy economy, he said, was also important to quality of life. Mr. Connelly said the chamber did not support charging a parks SDC to nonresidential development. The City could not demonstrate that commercial and industrial development created a demand for parks. Office buildings for professional services, art galleries, health care clinics, restaurants, banks, hardware stores, and clothing stores do not create a demand for parks and should not be charged an SDC. Mr. Connelly said the chamber objected to charging thousands of dollars in parks SDCs to new businesses as it could prove to be possible disincentive for compact urban development, redevelop- ment, and downtown revitalization. Existing public and private land providing hundreds of acres of open space were not taken into consideration when future demand for parks was calculated for parks in the PROS Plan; thus, the parks SDC was artificially set. Mr. Connelly objected to charging parks SDCs on nonresidential development if the money was to buy lands otherwise needed for jobs and housing inside the urban growth boundary. The large scale purchase of land considered in the PROS Plan would have a major impact on buildable lands inventory but the City would not account for that impact nor the future costs to maintain all the land acquired in part with SDCs. Michael Roberts , 1919 Meyers Road, said he was a member of the City’s Public Works Rates Advisory Committee and its Green Building Committee. He expressed disappointment with the City Council. Mr. Roberts said the Rates Advisory Committee, which was a disparate group of citizens representing many differing points of view, worked together to twice reach unanimous agreement about the application of the parks SDC to industrial and commercial lands, and the council rejected the recommendation. He asked what a committee had to do for the council, and why anyone should serve on a committee if that was the way committees were listened to in Eugene. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street,wanted to know if the funding in question would facilitate redevelop- ment in the Riverfront Research Park. He also wanted to know if there was a tie to funding to a “green street” on Franklin Boulevard being proposed, which he believed was a boondoggle. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, supported assessing SDCs to commercial and industrial uses because he believed any park located within a quarter mile of a business or offices would be used by the employees of those businesses. Any reasonable person would conclude that and pointed to the Parks Blocks as evidence that the proximity of businesses contributes to the use of parks. He believed that Eugene businesses were “getting a free ride” and should pay their equitable share of the costs of maintaining City parks. Jim Welsh , 2139 Centennial Plaza, Springfield, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, expressed appreciation for the City’s attempt to spread the costs of building parks out to more parties. However, he MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 8 Public Hearing