Laserfiche WebLink
Les Lyle, Public Works, provided the staff report, calling attention to the meeting packet that <br />included the analysis requested by the council during its last discussion. He reviewed the packet <br />material, including a table reflecting the financial implications of reduced assessments for 12 <br />example projects. He reviewed a second table in the packet reflecting the impact on <br />transportation systems development charges (SDCs) from assessable share reductions, noting <br />that all new development would pay as much as 21 percent increase in transportation SDCs, with <br />single-family dwellings paying a net increase of about 5 percent for all SDCs charged by the City. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson explained that if the council determines that the current policy of charging some <br />people for two roads is unfair, one of the ways to make it more equitable is to spread the cost to <br />everybody through SDCs. <br /> <br />Addressing a question from Mr. Tollenaar, Mr. Lyle said that if new development is not creating an <br />additional demand on the roadway, the City would be precluded from financing a share of the <br />cost of an improvement of that roadway using SDCs so the non-assessable component would <br />have to be General Fund or Road Fund. Mr. Klein explained that under State law, SDCs may be <br />used only to increase road capacity. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said it was curious that a way cannot be found to use SDCs for traffic control or a <br />safety devices necessitated by increased volume, not just capacity. Mr. Lyle said based on staff's <br />and the City Attorney's analysis of State law, SDCs can only be used for increasing capacity. <br /> <br />Mr. Lyle continued his report, noting a discussion in the packet of the pros and cons for both the <br />primary access approach and the previous staff recommendation. If the council was leaning <br />toward an SDC approach, he said, staff recommended delaying action until the Public Works <br />Rates Advisory Committee has reviewed the transportation SDC as a whole. He said staff <br />believed the TransPlan and the Arterial and Collector Street Plan, currently in progress, may <br />influence the way the council wished to use transportation SDCs to accomplish those policy <br />goals. Mr. Lyle reminded the council that the City Charter requires that assessment ordinance <br />changes cannot take effect for six months and six affirmative votes on the council are required to <br />move forward with any code change. Finally, he said, the council needs to decide the role of the <br />new council and the level of public involvement it deems appropriate. He added that he would be <br />working with Mr. Lee and Meisner on the alley assessment policy issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked what the municipality could to bring non-SDC-eligible projects into eligibility. <br />Mr. Klein reiterated that the statute says SDCs can only be used for enhancing capacity. Mr. <br />Meisner ascertained that the statute does not define capacity. Mr. Klein said he would research <br />whether any court had addressed that question and also look at the broad liberal interpretation of <br />how SDCs could be used and what the risks would be. Mr. Klein said the council might consider <br />referring the issue to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said the proposal was fair because it shared the costs of development more equitably. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Lyle referred her to page 67 of the <br />packet, which reflected the SDC cost to the average home in various scenarios. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked for Mr. Lyle's opinion. Mr. Lyle recommended that the council postpone any <br />approach to increase SDCs until the Rates Advisory Committee has completed its work--in <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 5 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />