Admin Order 58-97-01-F (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

EXHIBIT E TO /ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER N0. 55-97-02-F-2 ;, Findings As indicated in Finding E.'ofAdministrative Order No. 58-97-02-F-2, numerous written comments were received. Many of the comments raised broad policy issues that are considered outside of the scopeofthis administrative rule. The Eugene City Council established a basic policy framework when adopting the first - SDC.Methodology in 1991. The staff position is that modifications to that policy framework would occur .:based upon direction from the Council, and administrative updates are generally done to keep the Methodology consistent with Council' goals and policies. Therefore, several of the public comments which were directed at those original policy decisions are not addressed through this effort, and it has been noted below, where appropriate. Nineteen written responses were received during-the public comment period which ended February 20, 1997. In general, nine indicated the rates were too low, three indicated the rates were too high, and the remaining seven requested delayed implementation to allow further review. tr C®mment 1: Several written comments stated that construction cost increases experienced by the private sector are much less than those described by the City. Other comments stated that the costs are too low, .based upon rates and project costs in other cities. Finding: The SDC rates proposed are generally based on recent local construction costs experienced by the City for public projects with elements that would be eligible for SDC funding..In addition, the transportation ,SDC has been adjusted to reflect updated information on the transportation system characteristics (trip length, distribution of arterial and collectorstreets) and non-assessable costs (wetland mitigation, right of way limitations due to the Dolan decision, etc.). Finally, for some components of the Stormwater and Transportation system costs, where local cost information is not available, the 1996 rate is updated by 2.3%. Where comparable costs for privately constructed public improvements are available, such information has been used in the rate setting process: The Local Wastewater SDC is not being adjusted at this time. - The construction cost information used to update the rates has been reviewed in detail by members of the original SDC task force. They were consulted because of the policy issues they raised in correspondence they submitted and their experience in creating the current methodology. A majority of the members agree with the rates as currently proposed. C®mrnent 2: The proposed increases will have negative impacts on affordable housing-, rental rates, and the feasibility of development projects. In addition, the rates conflict with: other City land use policies, such as encouraging redevelopment or infill, because the charges'could render small projects unprofitable. Findin°: The SDC's are intended to provide a financing tool such that the necessary infrastructure capacity to support growth is available when needed. In addition, the'policy goals are to maintain the level ofservice existing within the community for the eligible systems by establishing. a rate structure that provides the revenues. necessary to sustain that standard. The rates are established to recover the incremental non-assessable cost of providing the infrastructure and are intended to represent the impact - created by the development. C®mment 3: The proposed SDC rates do not fully recover the costs to the community created by growth.. l'he City should review studies on this topic by Ron Chastain and Eben Fodor (commissioned by Eugene Planning Commission, Fall 1996)._ - Exhibit 6 to Administrative Order Na 58-97-02-F-2 '- Page 9