CC Minutes - 11/23/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor listed proposals included in the Agenda Item Summary with which she agreed, as follows: · Delay consideration of the incentives portion of Policy 14. · Postpone consideration of ways SDCs could promote construction of affordable housing. · The PWRAC should discuss ways the CIP could be used to implement policies. · Commercial and industrial development should be charged park SDCs. · Regional parks and open spaces should be included in the calculation of SDCs. · The PWRAC should generate ideas regarding implementation of GMS policy, even though the proposals may not all be approved by the council. · SDCs rate-setting should go beyond directly related issues of Policy 14, especially issues of Policy 15. Mr. Laue said that he agreed with the proposals of Ms. Taylor. He said he also hoped a comprehensive strategy for supporting affordable housing could be developed by the council. He suggested that use of the CIP would be most helpful for Policy 15 and that consideration of issues related to nodal development should be postponed until such development was more imminent. Mr. Farr said he believed the proposed changes to SDCs would lead to a better Eugene, but that he was concerned that they would also add to pressures creating an inflated housing market. He suggested that the council goal of affordable housing was in conflict with other policies and that entry-level housing needed to be ensured. In response to questions from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Lyle explained that the parks SDCs were charged for all residential uses, including multi-family developments. He also said that parks SDCs included the cost of land, equipment, and associated infrastructure of a typical neighborhood and community park, but not of swimming pools, which were considered regional facilities and not included in the rates. Ms. Nathanson said that she would like to re-visit the definitions of regional and neighborhood/community parks because it has seemed to encourage inequitable park development. She said she was also concerned, in general, about waivers because revenue lost through them had to be made up from other sources. She said she favored continuation of incentives for certain identified development. She noted that requiring new development to pay for new infrastructure was pioneered in the northwest, but was becoming more common throughout the country. Mr. Meisner said that he agreed that the definitions of regional and neighborhood parks needed to be re-visited. He said he believed SDCs should pay the full cost of infrastructure development and also consider impacts of a development on infrastructure in other areas of the City. He said he supported keeping an affordable and liveable community, and suggested that SDCs were not the sole or major cause of inflationary housing costs. Ms. Swanson Gribskov observed that it was positive to levy SDCs against a larger base of development for the parks SDC. She said discussing such issues in the abstract was more difficult than when specific situations were in front of the council. She said whatever produces the greatest public good needed to be determined when considering fee and SDCs waivers. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 23, 1998 Page 7 5:30 p.m.