Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Clark noted that the figures reflected in the aforementioned memorandum to the council were <br />significantly different than those presented by staff at the January 11 council meeting. He noted that the <br />figures from the memorandum had apparently been based on the comparative level of development <br />activity evidenced in 2009. Mr. Schoening clarified for Mr. Clark that the lower figures had been based <br />on development activity in 2009, and the higher figures had been based on development activity in 2008. <br />Mr. Clark noted he had made the amended motion at the January 11, 2010, regular council meeting out of <br />a desire to improve the chances for economic recovery and job creation in the area. <br />Mr. Zelenka joined the meeting via telephone at 12:05 p.m. <br />Mr. Pryor asked if any other similar jurisdictions had waived SDC’s in a manner similar to that under <br />discussion. Mr. Schoening responded that the City of Springfield had postponed, but not waived, SDC’s <br />on single-family homes. <br />Mr. Pryor did not know how many projects SDC’s might actually delay but further averred that the <br />amount of money that might ultimately be collected from those SDC’s was potentially very significant. <br />Public Works Engineering Management Analyst Nancy Burns elaborated upon Mr. Schoening’s earlier <br />comments regarding SDC’s in Springfield and understood that those charges were only postponed at the <br />request of developers. She further noted that recent increases to Springfield’s SDC’s were now in full <br />effect and that Springfield’s SDC’s for a single-family development were approximately 27 percent <br />higher than what had been proposed for Eugene. <br />Mr. Pryor sympathized with local developers who were paying large amounts of money to initiate or <br />complete projects but noted that he would support the increase to the SDC’s. <br />Ms. Piercy commented that it was important to strike a balance between the encouragement of responsible <br />property development in the community and the real community needs that were met by the revenue <br />generated by local SDC’s. <br />Mr. Brown indicated he had not heard from any local developers that an increase to SDC’s would be a <br />“deal breaker” with respect to their projects. He noted that he would support the motion. <br />Mr. Poling noted that, unlike past council work sessions which addressed SDC’s, a comparison chart <br />regarding the SDC increases had not been provided as part of the agenda item summary materials. <br />Mr. Poling asked if staff had heard any feedback from area developers regarding the proposed SDC <br />increases. Mr. Schoening responded there had been no such feedback. <br />Mr. Poling believed that the SDC increases would ultimately be passed on to consumers and would not <br />necessarily directly affect developers themselves. He believed that the City would be better off not <br />delaying the SDC increases and indicated that he would not support the amended motion from the January <br />11, 2010, regular council meeting. <br />Ms. Ortiz noted she shared several of the concerns that had already been raised by the other council <br />members. <br />Mr. Schoening, responding to a request from Mr. Zelenka, briefly recapped the revenue information he <br />had stated earlier in the meeting. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 13, 2009 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />