Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19773ORDINANCE NO. 19173 AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES; AMENDING SECTIONS 1.010 AND 1.065 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1911; ADDING SECTIONS 7.401, 1.100, 7.702, 1.705, 1.110, 1.115, 7.120, 1.125, 1.730, 1.135, AND 1.740 TO THAT CODE; REPEALING SUBSECTION 1.1152}fib}5.d, SECTIONS 1.245, 1.215, 7.211, 1.219, 1.281, 1.283, AND SECTION 1.285 OF THAT CODE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLIOwS:. Section 1. The Counci 1 hereby finds: A. Section 4 of the Eugene Charter of 1976, ORS 223.208 and 223.297 through 223.314 grant the City the authority to impose system development charges SDC} to equitably spread the cost of essential capital improvements to new development. B. Given the inability of the population and the geographic size of the City, most capital improvement projects benefit new level apment regardless of where in the City it occurs. The entire community's health may be affected if adequately sized sanitary and storm sewers are not provided in all loca- t~ ons of the , C~ ty and , ~ is envi raps, Except as modified i n Fi ndi ng D bel ow, development ~ s occurr~ ng throughout the entire City and no single area of the City i s experiencing such a hi gh 1 evel of new development acti of ty to require SCD revenue from development i n one area be dedicated to that same area.. It i s more cost efficient to use SDC revenue from new development i n the entire community to finance the growth related portion of capital improvements based upon acity-wide priority rather than to hold the SDC revenue generated in one area of the community for improvements just in that area. C. The increase in administrative cast to account for receipt and expen- diture of SCD revenues based upon geographic areas of the City rather than on a c i ty-wide basis would divert revenue from needed capital improvement pro - jects . Except as stated i n F i ndi ng D bel ow, the benefit of minimizing admi n- istrati ve costs attributable to the system development charge outweighs the benefit of allocating SDC revenues and expenditures based upon geograph i c areas. D. In an endeavor to equitably spread the cost of providing sanitary sewer service between new development within the corporate 1 i mi is of the City and existing and new development i n the uni ncorparated areas of River Road and Santa Clara, the system development charge established for sanitary sewers i n River Road and Santa G1 ara shall recover the cost of capital i m- provements constructed to serve those areas, Ta the extent possible the methodology for sanitary sewers shall take into account the necessity of segregate ng such 5DC revenue, and expenditures. However, nathi ng i n thi s F~nd~ng sha11 preclude the City from advancing the cost of constructing sani- Ordinance - 1 tary sewer facilities to serve the unincorporated areas and being reimbursed for such costs as the system development charge i s col 1 acted. E. Whenever the City Counci 1 has authorized an intergovernmental agree- ment which requires the City to impose an SDC, the city manager may estab1 i sh the methodology, impose the charge and collect and expend the revenue as though the same were City capital improvements and funds as provided in this Ordnance or any future amendment thereto. F, The system development charge established herein i s intended to be a charge upon the act of development by whomever seeks the level apment permit, It ~ s a fee far serve ce because ~ t contempt ates a deve1 opment's receipt of essential municipal services based upon the nature of that development, The timing and extent of any development are within the control and discretion of the developer. G. The SDC imposed by this ordinance i s not intended to be a tax on property ar on a property owner as a direct consequence of ownership of prop- erty w~th~n the meaning of Sec llb, Art. X1 of the Oregon Constitution ar the legislation implementing that section. H. Even i f the SDC herein imposed i s viewed under Sec 11 b, Art. xI of the Oregon Constitution as a tax against property or against a property owner as a d~ rect consequence of ownership of that property, i t i s an incurred charge within the meaning of that Section and the statutes implementing i t be - cause: 1. It allows the owner to control the quantity of the service by determining the extent of level oprnent to occur upon the property. 2. It allows the owner to determine when the service i s to be initiated ar increased by controlling when the development occurs . 3. State 1 aw and the ordinances of this City require the owner to provide certain basic utility and infrastructure services to the prop- erty when i t i s level aped for human occupancy. The provision of these basic services are a rout i ne ob1 i gat i on of the owner of the affected property and essential to the health and safety of the cammuni ty. I . Among the basic services which the City i s required to provide its res~ dents are the caps tat improvements as defined i n this ordinance. J. The SDC imposed by this ordinance is based upon the costs of provid- ing existing or planned for capital improvements and does nat impose charges on persons not recei vi ng a servi ce and imposi ng a burden upon the City's existing capital improvements. Section 2. Section 1,010 of the Eugene Code, 1911, is amended by add- i ng the fol 1 owi ng definitions i n alphabetical order therein, to provide: Ordinance - ~ 1.010 Definitions, For purposes of this chapter, the fo11 owing words and phrases shal 1 have the meanings ascribed to them by this section : Ca ital im rovement s . Public facilities or assets used for any of the following: ~a} Water supply, treatment and di stri buti an; fib} Sanitary sewers, including col 1 ecti on and trans- mission; ~c} Storm sewers, including drainage and flood control ; ~d} Transportation, including but not limited to streets, s i dewai ks, bike paths, traffic signals and control devices, street 1 i ghts, street trees, public transportation, veh i cl e parking, and bridges; or fie} Parks and recreation, may include but i s not 1 i mi ted to mini-neighborhaod parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, and other recreational faci 1 i ti es, Development. Only as used in sections 1.700 to 1.140: means conduct i ng a bu ~ 1 d i ng ar mining operation, or maki ng a phys i cal change i n the use or appearance of a structure ar 1 and, which i n- creases the need for additional capital improvements. Public im rovement char e. A fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed after the date the fee is adopted pursuant to secti an 1.105. This term sha11 have the same meaning as the term "improvement fee" as used in oRS 223.297 through 223.314. ua1ified ublic im rovements, A capital improvement that is: ~a} Required as a conditi on of development approval ; ~ b} Identified i n the p1 an adopted pursuant to subsec- tion 1.115~2~; and ~c} Not 1 orated on or contiguous tv a parcel of 1 and that is the subject of the development approval. See subsec- tion 1.1301} for definition of "contiguous."} Reimbursement fee. A fee for costs associated with capi tat impravements constructed or under construction on the date the fee i s adopted pursuant to section 1.105. S stems develo meat char e. A reimbursement fee, a publ is im- provement charge or a combination thereof assessed or collected at any of the times specified i n section 1.120. It shal 1 also include that portion of a sanitary sewer or storm sewer system connection charge that is greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the city for its average cost of inspecting and installing connections with sanitary sewer facilities and storm sewer facilities. Section 3. Section 1.Ofi5 of the Eugene Cade, 1911, i s amended to pro- vide as follows: Ordinance - 3 1.065 Storm Water and Sewers - Connections E uivalent Assessments. ~ 1 } No person shal 1 connect or allow to remain connected to any city sanitary sewer a drai n, downspout yr other conduit carrying storm or surface water. This type of drain, downspout or other conduit shall be di s- charged into ei ther a watercourse, street gutter, or i nto a storm sewer or other approved f ac i 1 i ty. ~2} No person shall connect a drain, downspout or other conduit carrying storm or surface water to the city storm sewer system or to a street gutter without first paying the fees required by this section and obtaining a permit from the city engineer. The city engineer shal 1 issue the permi t upon payment of the required fee and assessments and upon a determi nati vn that the proposed connection i s a proper use of the public drainage foci 1 i - ti es . A fee for a permi t required by this section shall be set as provided in section 2.020 of this code. Permits shall only be issued to a property owner for connections for the owner's personal residence or to a l icensed plumber or licensed septic tank installation contractor. ~3} In all building plans submitted to the building official, where the improvement sought to be made contemplates the disposal of storm or surface water, such plans sha11 show what storm sewer connections are contemplated and what storm ar surface water i s to be discharged therein, and such plans so submitted shall be reviewed and approval granted by the city engineer. The bui 1 di ng official shall not approve the plans unt i 1 th i s approval is given. ~4} In addition to the permit fee required by subsection 1.0652}, when the owner of real property connects or seeks to connect the owner's prop- erty to a city storm sewer for which the city has given a credit under sub- sections 1.1303} and 1.1304} based upon the size of the storm sewer that would be assessable under supart 1.1152}fib}4, the owner sha11 pay to the finance officer an equivalent assessment and any other fees required by the city before connecting to the storm sewer. If the property has delinquent local. improvement assessments against it, before issuing the storm sewer con- nect i on permit, al 1 delinquent assessments shal 1 be brought current . The equi vat ent assessment shal 1 be determined by the city engineer, taking into account the city policies regarding the size of storm sewer assessed to bene- f i tted property, based on the greater of the credit given under subsection 1.130 ~3 } or ~ 4 } for the storm sewer to which connection i s proposed or the cost at the time of connection of local improvement assessments for similar storm sewers . As used i n this subsection "cast" includes the expenses i den- ti f i ed i n section 1.110. The total equi vat ent assessment sha11 be reduced by any principal payment received on a 1 oval improvement assessment levied against the property for a storm sewer. Any person aggrieved by the city engineer's determination of the equivalent assessment may seek its review before a heari ngs official by fo11 owi ng the procedures i n section 3.060 of this code. The petitioner shall have the burden of proof in such review. ~5} In lieu of paying the equivalent assessment at the time of issuance of the permit to connect, the owner of the real property to be con- nected to the storm sewer may execute and deliver to the finance officer an agreement to pay the equivalent assessment i n installments . The finance officer may accept the owner's agreement to pay only i f i t i s consistent with the 1 i mi is established under subsect i an 1.160 ~ 2 ~ and ~3 ~ . Equivalent assessments paid as provided i n this subsection shal 1 be charged interest on the unpaid principal balance as provided in section 2.022 of this code and are hereby decl ared a 1 i en against the real property and shall be docketed Ordinance - 4 s n the 1 s en docket of the city and may be foreclosed i n the same manner as other assessment 1 i ens . ~fi} Nothing in this section shall prevent the city from creating a 1 ocal improvement district for storm sewers under sect i an 1.115 upon a determination that an existing storm sewer for which the city has given credit under subsection 1.1303} and ~4} is determined to specially benefit property that did not pay for the storm sewer. Such assessments shall be cal cut ated upon the greater of the amount of credit given by the city or of the cost of constructs ng a simi 1 ar storm sewer at the time of the formation of the local improvement district. If a property has been given an equiva- l ent assessment under subsection 1.Ofi5 ~4} s t may not be assessed again for the same storm sewer. ~1} The equivalent assessment required by this subsection shal 1 be used for storm sewer purposes and shall be in addition to all other fees and assessments required by this code. Section 4. Section 7.401 is hereby added to the Eugene Code, 1911, to provide: 7.407 Driveways-Curb Cut Equivalent Street Assessment. ~ 1 } ~In adds ti on ~ to ~ any~~~rappl icati~~an~~~~~~~~~orW perms t fee required by sec- ts on 1.405, when the owner of real property i s required to abtai n a curb cut perms t to take access onto a street for which the city has gi ven a credi t under subsections 1.1303} and 1.1304} based upon the size of the street improvements that would be assessable under subpart 1.1152}fib}1, the owner shall pay to the finance officer an equivalent assessment and any other fees required by the city before taking access to the street. If the property has delinquent 1 ocal improvement assessments against s t, before issuing the curb cut permit, all delinquent assessments shall be brought current. The equiva- l ent assessment shall be determined by the city engi Weer, taking into account the city policies regarding size of streets assessed to benef i tted property, based on the greater of the credit given under subsection 1.1303} or ~4} for the street to which access i s proposed or the cost at the time of taking access of 1 ocal improvement assessments for similar streets. As used i n thi s subsection "cost" includes the expenses identified i n section 1.170. Any person aggrieved by the city engineer's determi Hats an of the equivalent assessment may seek its review before a hears ngs off i ci a1 by fol l Owi ng the procedures in section 3.064 of this code, The petitioner shall have the burden of proof i n such review. ~2} In lieu of paying the equivalent assessment at the time of issuance of the curb cut permit, the owner of the real property to take access to the street may execute and deliver to. the f i Hance officer an agree- ment to pay the equivalent assessment i n i nsta1l ments . The finance officer may accept the owner's agreement to pay only i f i t i s conss stent with the l ims is established under subsection 1.160 ~2} and ~3} . Equivalent assessments paid as provided in this subsection shall be charged snterest on the unpaid principal balance as prav i Jed i n section 2.022 of this code and are hereby decl ared a 1 i en against the real property and shall be Jacketed s n the 1 s en docket of the city and may be foreclosed in the same manner as other assess- ment liens. Ordinance - 5 ~3} Nothing in,this section shall prevent the city from creating a l acal improvement d~ strict for street improvements under sects an 7.115 upon a determination that an existing street improvement for which the city has given credit under subsection 1.13a~3} and ~4} is determined to specially benefit property that did not pay far the street improvements . Such assess - ments shall be calculated upon the greater of the amount of credit given by the city or the cost of constructing a similar street improvement at the time of the formation of the 1 ocal improvement district. if a property has been given an equivalent assessment under subsection 1.4011} it may not be assessed again for the same street improvements. ~4} The equivalent assessment required by this section shall be used for street purposes and shall be i n addition to al 1 other fees and assessments required by this code. Section 5. Chapter 1 of the Eugene Cade, 1911, i s amended by adding the following Sections 1.100, 1.702, 1,1x5, 7.71x, 1.115, 1.120, 7.125, 7.130, 1.135, and 1.140 thereto, to provide: 1.100 SDC -Purpose. The purpose of the systems development charge is to impose an equitable share of the public cost of capital improve- ments upon those developments that create the need for ar increase the demands on capital improvements. 1.102 SDC - Sco ale. The systems development charge imposed by sections 1. l00 to 1. l40 i s separate from and i n addition to any appl i cabl e tax, assessment, charge, fee i n lieu of assessment, or fee otherwise provided by law ar the cost of complying with requirements or conditions imposed upon a 1 and use development . A systems development charge i s to be considered i n the nature of a charge for service rendered or to be rendered, a service hookup charge, or a charge for facilities provided or t0 be provided. 1.105 SDC - S stems Devel o ment Char a Establ i shed. ~1} Unless otherwise exempted by the provisions of sections 1.100 to 7.140 or other 1 ocal or state 1 aw, effective July 1, 1991 a systems level - opment charge i s hereby imposed upon al 1 new level apment within the city, and any structure inside or outside the boundary of the city that connects to or otherwise uses the sanitary sewer system or storm sewer system of the city. ~2} Systems development charges far each type of capital improve- ment provided by the city may be created and shal 1 be established as provided i n section 2.020 of this code. When required by council resolution or counci 1 authorized intergovernmental agreement a systems development charge far a capital improvement provided by another government shall be established as provided i n section 2.020 of this code . 7.110 SDC -Methodology. ~1} The methodology used to establ ish a reimbursement fee shall Ordinance - ~ consider the cost of then-existing facilities, prior contributions by then- existing users, the value of unused capacity, rate-making principles employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements, and other relevant factors identified by the city manager. The methodol agy shat 1 promote the objective that future systems users shall contri bute~ an equitable share of the cost of then-existing facilities. ~ Z } The methodo1 ogy used to establish the public improvement charge shall consider the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is related and shall provide for a credit against the improvement fee far the construction of any qualified public improvement . ~3} The methodology may also provide for a credi t as authorized i n subsection 1.1304}. ~4} Except when authorized in the methadol agy adopted under sub- section 1.1103}, the fees required by this code which are assessed or col- lected as part of a local improvement district or a charge in lieu of a local improvement district assessment, or the cost of complying with requirements or conditions imposed by a 1 and use decision are separate from and i n add i - ti on to the systems level apment charge and shall not be used as a credi t against such charge. Nothing i n this subsection shall prevent the cal 1 ec- t i on of a system development charge i n connection wi th a 1 ocal improvement assessment or charge in lieu of a local improvement district assessment. ~5} The methodologies used by the city manager for estab1 fishing the systems development charge shall be established by administrative order adopted fall owi ng the procedures i n section 2.020 of this code and may be adapted and amended concurrent with the establishment or revi si an of the systems development charge. 1.715 SDC - Com l i once With State Law. ~ 1 } The revenues received from the systems development charges shall be budgeted and expended as provided by state law. The accounting of such revenues and expenditures required by state 1 aw shall be included i n the city's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report required by URS chapter 294. ~2} The capi tat improvement plan required by state 1 aw as the basis for expending systems development charge revenues far capital improve- ments shall be the Eugene Capital Improvements P1 an ~CIP} and the Metropoli- tan Area General Plan as adopted by the counci 1 ~P1 an} , or the capi tai im- provement plan adopted by another governmental body which was used by the city manager i n establishing the methadol ogy for the systems development charge provided such capital improvement plan is consistent with the CIP and the P1 an. 1.120 SDC - Co11 action of Charge. ~ 1 } After adoption of the applicable methodo1 ogy, a systems level - apment charge is payable upon issuance of: ~a} A building permit; fib} A deve1 opment permit for development not requiring the issuance of a bu i 1 di ng permit; ar ~c} A permit to connect to the water, sanitary sewer ar storm sewer systems or i n anticipation of the issuance of such a permi t at the time of 1 evying a 1 ocal improvement district assessment for 4rdi Hance - T sanitary sewer or storm sewer. ~2} If development is commenced without an appropriate permit or connection i s made to the water system, sanitary sewer system ar storm sewer system without an appropriate permit, the systems development charge is ~mmed~ately payable upon the earliest date that a permit was required. 43} The city manager or the manager's designee shall collect the systems development charges from the permittee. The city manager or the manager's designee shall not issue any permit ar allow connection described i n subsection 1.120 ~ 1 } unti 1 the charge has been paid i n full or anti 1 pro- vision for installment payments has been made within the limits prescribed in subsection 1.1902}. ~4} Except as provided i n this subsection, the obligation to pay the unpaid systems development charge and interest thereon sha11 be secured by a 1 i en against the property upon which development i s to occur. Such 1 i ens sha11 arise upon issuance of the permit requiring the system development charge and shall be entered an the city's 1 i en docket and the debt secured thereby may be collected i n the same manner as al 1 owed by 1 aw for street improvement assessment 1 fens. In 1 ieu of such 1 ien, upon application of the permittee the obligation to pay the unpaid systems development charge and interest thereon may be secured by property, bond, deposits, 1 etter of credit or other security acceptable to the city manager ar the manager's designee. ~ 5} When the obligation to pay the unpaid systems development charge i s imposed at the time of 1 evyi ng a 1 ocal improvement district assess- ment for sanitary sewer or of paying an equivalent assessment for sanitary sewer and the obl i gati an i s secured by a 1 i en against the real property being developed, the person paying the systems development charge i n i nstal i ments may apply for deferral of the payments as provided i n section 1.195. 1.125 SDC -Exemptions. The fallowing are exempt from the systems devel- opment charge imposed in section 1.105: ~a} Except for the systems development charge attri butabl e to the sanitary sewer system and the storm sewer system, all level - apment which existed or for which the city had recei ved a compl eted building permit application an or before June 30, 1991 ar far which a bui 1 di ng permit was issued before that date. fib} Any conducting of a bui 1 di ng or mining operation, or mak- i ng of a phys i cal change i n the use or appearance of a structure or land, which does not increase the usage of any capital improvement or which does not create the need for additional capi tat improve- ments. Except for the initial connection to the sanitary sewer by an existing single f ami 1 y dwelling, any modification to a s i ngl e family dwelling that does not increase the number of dwel 1 i ng units within the structure or does not change the use of the structure i s exempt under this provision . 1.130 SDC -Credits. ~ 1 } As used i n this section and i n the definition of "Qualified public improvements" in section 1.014 the word "contiguous" means: in a public way which abuts. ~2} When development occurs that must pay a system development Ordinance - S charge under section 1.105 of this chapter, the system development charge far the existing use shat ] be calculated and i f it i s 1 ess than the system development charge for the proposed use, the difference between the system level opment charge far the existing use and the system development charge far the proposed use shall be the system development charge required under section 1.105. If the change in use results in the system development charge for the propased use being 1 ess than the system development charge for the existing use, no system level opment charge shall be required, how- ever, no refund or credit sha]1 be given. {3} The 1 imi tati ons on the use of credits contained i n this sub- secti on shal 1 not apply when credits are given under subsection 1.130 {4} of this section. A credi t shall be given for the cost of a qual i f i ed publ i c improvement associated wi th a level opment . I f a qual i f i ed public i mprave- ment i s located parti a1 ly on and partially off the parcel of 1 and that i s the subject of the approval, the credit shall be given only for the cost of the portion of the i mpravement not 1 orated on or wholly cant i guous to the parcel of 1 and. The credit provided for by this subsection shal 1 be only far the public improvement charge imposed for the type of improvement being constructed and shall not exceed the public improvement charge even if the cost of the capi tat improvement exceeds the applicable public improvement charge. {4} When establishing the methodology, the city manager may pro- vide for a credit against the public improvement charge, the reimbursement fee, or both, for a capi tat improvement constructed as part of the level op- ment that reduces the level ailment's demand upon existing capital improve- ments or the need for future capital improvements ar that would otherwise have to be constructed at city expense under the then-existing counci 1 pol i - cies. {5} Except to the extent that a capital improvement for which a credit is given is part of the phasing of a larger project and that the credit received against the systems development charge i s greater than the charge for the phase where the capita] improvement i s constructed, credi t shal 1 not be transferable from one development to another. {5} Credit shall not be transferable from one type of capital im- provements to anather. 1.135 SDC - Appeal Procedures . ~_1} As used in this section "working day" means a day when the general offices of the city are open to transact business with the pub1 i c . {2} A person aggrieved by a decision required or permitted to be made by the city manager or the manager's designee under sections 1.100 to 1.130 or a person challenging the propriety of an expenditure of systems development charge revenues may appeal the decision ar the expenditure by f i 1 i ng with the city manager's of f i ce a wri tten request for consideration by the hearings officer and by paying the fee for an appeal established under section 2.020 of this code. Such appeal shall describe with particularity the decision or the expenditure from which the person appeals and shall com- ply with subsection {4} of this secti an. {3 } An appeal of an expenditure must be f i 1 ed within two years of the date of alleged improper expenditure. An appeal challenging the metho- dal ogy may only be f i 1 ed within 15 working days of the city manager's deci - s i on, thereafter unless modified by the counci 1 ar a court the methodal ogy 4rdi Hance - 9 shall not be an issue when taking an appeal . Appeals of any other decision must be filed within 15 warki ng days of the date of the decision . ~4} The appeal shall state: ~a} The name and address of the appellant; fib} The nature of the determination being appealed; ~c} The reason the determination i s incorrect; and ~d} What the correct determination of the appeal should be or how the correct determination should be derived. An appel 1 ant who fails to f i 1 e such a statement within the time permitted waives his/her objections, and his/her appeal shall be dismissed. 45} Unless the appellant and the city agree to a longer period, an appeal shall be heard by a heari ngs officer within 15 working days of the receipt of the notice of intent to appeal . At 1 east ten working days prior to the hearing, the city shal 1 mai 1 notice of the time and 1 ocati on thereof to the appellant. ~ fi} The heari ngs officer shat l hear and determine the appeal on the basis of the appel ]ant's written statement and any additional evidence he/she deems appropriate. At the hearing the appellant may present testi- mony and oral argument personally ar by counsel . The rules of evidence as used by courts of 1 aw do not apply. ~7} The appellant shal 1 carry the burden of pravi ng that the determination being appealed i s i ncvrrect and what the correct determination should be or how a correct determination shaul d be derived. ~8} Except as provided i n subsection 1.135 ~9} , the heari ngs aff i - cer shat 1 i ssue a wri tten decision within ten working days after the hearing date and the decision of the hearings officer shall be final. ~9} When the appeal challenges the methodol vgy adopted by the city manager, the heari ngs officer shat 1 prepare a wri tten report and recom- mendati on and submit i t to the city manager within ten working days of the hearing date for presentation to the council at its next regular meeting. Further testimony regarding the appeal may be received by the council only with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the counci 1. By counci 1 reso1 uti on the report and recommendations of the heari ngs officer shall be approved, modified or rejected and different methodology adopted. The im- pl ementati on of any change i n methodology that i s appealed shall be suspended unti 1 the counci 1 has acted. Any 1 egal action contesting the counci 1's deci - s i on an the appeal shall be filed within fi0 days of the counci 1's decision . 1. loo SDC -Prohibited tary sewer systems development has been applied far Connection . No or storm sewer system charge has been paid or and approved . person may connect to the sani - of the city unless the appropriate the installment payment method Section fi . Notwithstanding the provision i n Section 7.110 of Section 5 of this ordinance, the methodologies for sanitary sewers, storm sewers, trans- portati on, parks and recreation published i n the report dated May 8, 1991 entitled "METHODOLOGIES: City of Eugene Systems Development Charges" are Ordinance - to hereby adopted. Hereafter the City Manager or the Manager's designee may modify the methodologies as provided in Section 1.710 of Section 2 of this Ordinance. Section 1. The City Manager shal 1 review the methodologies established under this Ordinance after i t has been implemented far 12 months and report the result of that review to the City's Bui 1 di ng Canstructi on Advisory Com- mi ttee or such other public body of the City concerned with the impact of City imposed charges and the cost of capital improvements financed i n whole ar i n part by the system development charge. Thereafter such reviews shall be con- ducted at least tri-annually, Section 8. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurW rence of the City Attorney, i s authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or i n other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1911, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein . Section 9. Repeal. Sections 1.115~2~~b~5.d,, 1.245, 1.215, 7.211, 1.279, 7.281, 7.283, and 1.285 of the Eugene Code, 1911, are hereby repealed. Section lo. Because of the need to have new development bear its equi t- able share of the cost for public facilities? the matters contained herein concern the pub1 i c health, welfare and safety, and i n order to allow its orderly implementation an emergency i s hereby dec1 ared to exist, and Section 6 of this Ordinance shat 1 become effective upon enactment of this Ordinance and the remaining sections shal 1 became effective July 1, 1991, Passed by the City Counci 1 th.i s 13th day of May, 1991 ~~ ~~ City Recorder Approved by the Mayor th i s 13th day of May, 1991 /A Mayor f Ordinance - 11