Corvallis staff present preliminary transportation SDC overhaul; maximum allowable estimated at about $8,275 per person‑trip
Loading...
Summary
Consultant and city staff described a comprehensive update to transportation system development charges (SDCs): methodology changes, filtered TSP project list, and preliminary maximum allowable fees. Council discussed potential impacts on housing affordability and next steps for outreach and fee-setting.
Corvallis staff and consultants on Tuesday presented a preliminary overhaul of the city’s transportation system development charge (SDC) program, including methodology changes and draft fee calculations that yield a preliminary maximum allowable cost of about $8,275 per future person‑trip.
Greg Gesher (retired city director) and consultant Deb Galardi reviewed the methodology used to convert the transportation system plan (TSP) project list into SDC‑eligible costs, explained the statutory framework and described the policy choices available to the council. “SDCs are a critical funding source for transportation and other public improvements,” Galardi said, summarizing the purpose of the update and the need to align fees with the 2019 TSP.
Key methodological changes presented include measuring impacts in person‑trips rather than vehicle trips, using PM peak‑hour trip generation rather than average daily trips, consolidating and simplifying nonresidential land‑use categories, and introducing a scaled residential fee structure that charges different amounts by dwelling‑unit size tiers (the staff proposal used four residential size tiers, with the smallest tier keyed to 900 square feet). Those changes reflect new industry trip‑generation data and prior stakeholder recommendations.
Galardi summarized the cost basis: the city filtered roughly 206 multimodal projects in the TSP to identify those primarily city‑led and related to growth; the filtered list reduced total TSP cost but retained the majority of smaller city projects. Staff estimated a city‑eligible cost basis of about $302 million and identified $274 million of that as SDC‑eligible capacity costs; an additional reimbursement component for existing system capacity was estimated at roughly $57 million, producing a combined basis of about $331 million. Dividing that amount by the projected growth of roughly 40,000 person‑trips yields the preliminary maximum allowable figure of approximately $8,275 per person‑trip.
Under the preliminary calculations, the updated average residential SDC would be about $12,000 per dwelling unit — higher than the city’s current $3,700 per dwelling unit, because the current fee is based on a 1996 plan — but the proposed approach includes four size tiers so smaller units would pay materially less than the $12,000 average while larger units would pay more. Staff emphasized this number is a legal maximum under the methodology; council will decide final fee levels in a later, holistic discussion that considers water, sewer and parks fees together.
Councilors raised questions about housing affordability and how scaled residential fees interact with accessory dwelling units and attached housing. Galardi and staff said the methodology supports scaling based on occupancy and trip generation but that some data limitations remain for very small or unconventional unit types; they also reiterated that developers can pursue independent studies to justify a different fee for a particular project.
Staff outlined next steps and required public process: a methodology report, updated project list and fee schedule will be released to stakeholders; Oregon statute requires notice and a 90‑day pre‑hearing notice with documentation available 60 days before the first hearing. Staff said they expect further stakeholder outreach and public hearings before any fee adoption, and that the council will later consider a combined SDC strategy (transportation plus water/sewer/parks) so the total fee impact on development can be balanced.
No fee changes were adopted at the meeting. Council asked staff and the consultant to continue stakeholder engagement, refine assumptions, and return with a draft methodology report, fee schedule and public‑engagement plan.
