Item 7 - Action MWMC Fac. Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Letter to Susie L. Smith June 23, 2004 Page 4 Development Charge law (ORS 223.297 et seq) simply does not contain such a requirement. It merely requires approval of both. 2. Mr. Stamp argues that if the Methodology is approved independently from the Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement List more judicial appeals of Systems Development Charges are likely than if the two were combined and, the public would not have any input to any change in the amount of System Development Charges actually assessed. Both statements are patently false. (a) If Mr. Stamp's recommended approach is utilized, anytime there is any change in the Facilities Plan, the System Development Charge Methodology, or the Capital Improvements List, all three areas would be open for review and subject to judicial appeal. On the other hand, if the Methodology is adopted independently from the Facilities Plan and Capital Improvements List, future changes could be made to the Facilities Plan or Capital Improvement List to adjust System Development Charges without affecting the Methodology. In that case, only the changes to the Facilities Plan and Capital Improvements List would be subject to judicial review and the Methodology itself would not. Consequently, the scope and number of legal challenges using the procedure recommended by the Homebuilders would undoubtedly be greater than the challenges which are likely to occur under the approach recommended by MWMC. Apparently that is what the Homebuilders want without explicitly saying so. (b). The statement that the procedure proposed by MWMC would allow staff to adjust System Development Charge rates without any public process or input is simply wrong. Once the Methodology, Facilities Plan and Capital Improvements List are adopted, rates will be fixed. Under the Systems Development Charge statutes, the Facilities Plan and Capital Improvements List must be approved by the cities imposing the System Development Charges. Consequently, if circumstances necessitate a change in the Facilities Plan or Capital Improvements List, MWMC and Eugene and Springfield would all have to hold public heatings on the changes, allow for citizen input and the ultimate decisions would be subject to judicial review under the writ of review procedure. No change could be made without going through that process. 3. Mr. Stamp's argument is largely based upon his interpretation of what he perceives to be the intent of the Oregon legislature in enacting the System Development Charge law. He cites as authority for the legislature's intent, quotes from lobbyists who appeared before legislative committees. That is not evidence of legislative intent, that's evidence of the lobbyist's intent. Furthermore, legislative intent is totally irrelevant unless the statute being analyzed is ambiguous. The statutes dealing with System Development Charges are not ambiguous and in his 25 pages, Mr. Stamp fails to identify any specific ambiguity except the ones he has attempted to create. 4. Mr. Stamp also suggests some dishonest motive on the part of MWMC and City Staff and ulterior motives by elected and appointed officials who serve without