Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. McVey said according to the statewide framework it was possible to consider transferring or donating <br />credits under the existing local policy. There were limited instances in which credits could be used within <br />larger sites under phased development. Typically, under the City's policy, credits were not transferred <br />from one site to another, but stayed within a site. If development occurred at the site in the future, or if <br />more intensive use occurred, the credits could be used at the site. He added the credits were site specific, <br />rather than property owner specific. <br />Mr. Pryor, noting the specific restrictions on SDCs, asked why low turnover restaurants had high SDC <br />rates when compared to other forms of businesses. He asked if development of a dry cleaning establish- <br />ment would have a similar SDC rate. <br />Mr. McVey explained low turnover was a term used in the transportation trip generation rate manuals that <br />compared a low turnover restaurant to a fast food restaurant, and therefore generated fewer trips on the <br />system than a fast food restaurant. He added that restaurants in general had some of the highest impact on <br />the wastewater system in terms of volume and strength of their wastewater discharge, and the cost of <br />treating that discharge. Mr. McVey stated dry cleaners also had significant impacts on wastewater. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. McVey stated that typical costs for development of a fast <br />food restaurant in terms of construction value may be lower than other businesses, and as a percentage the <br />actual costs were likely similar. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked what the source of SDC was financing and if the City often used the SDC fund as a <br />debt service fund for borrowing. <br />Mr. McVey said the City took the payment over time rather than in a lump sum payment. In other <br />systems, such as utility systems, because the City had upfront capital costs, the City borrowed money from <br />the State revolving loan program to pay for infrastructure projects which was repaid with future payments <br />received. He added only in rare exceptions did the City use the SDC fund as a revolving loan program <br />although it was used to pay for some costs on the Ferry Street Bridge project. Money was loaned from the <br />Parks SDC balance to the Transportation SDC, and eventually repaid. <br />Mr. Zelenka opined that lowering the rate was a double -edged sword in that it reduced the burden on the <br />developers, but at the same time created a potential for more defaults as well as costs associated with credit <br />checks and other administrative costs. He asked what the security on such loans was. <br />Mr. McVey iterated the traditional form of security was a first order lien on the property. Other forms of <br />security, such as certificates of deposit in which the City was named as the recipient in the event of default, <br />were acceptable forms of security. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if the City had done any benchmarking the City's SDC loan total compared to other <br />communities. <br />Mr. McVey said the City of Eugene conducted an SDC rate survey in 2004 of approximately 20 other <br />Oregon communities, at which time the City was in the low- to mid -range of SDCs across the state. In <br />2007, the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) conducted a similar survey of Oregon communities. This survey <br />also showed the City of Eugene to be in the mid - range. <br />Mayor Piercy thanked Mr. McVey for his presentation. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 13, 2009 Page 7 <br />Work Session <br />