Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Medford council adopts ordinance requiring proportionate-share traffic mitigation from developers
Summary
A new Medford ordinance establishes a proportionate-share formula for developer-funded traffic mitigation, including a minimum payment of 5% and a calculation that multiplies a developer's share by 1.5 to account for engineering and contingencies.
Medford’s City Council unanimously approved council bill 2025-102 on Dec. 3, adding a new section (10.462) to the city’s development code that establishes rules for proportionate-share transportation mitigation tied to development impacts.
Planning staff explained that proportionate share requires a developer to pay a portion of the cost of a required transportation improvement (for example, a signal or roundabout) equivalent to the development’s share of future intersection trips. The proposed calculation uses development trips divided by total future intersection trips times 1.5; staff said the 1.5 factor accounts for engineering, construction management, contingency and cost escalation, and the policy sets a minimum payment threshold of 5%.
"The minimum that someone would pay would be 5%. We do round up to the nearest whole percentage point," Palladino said. Staff said payments would be due before building permit issuance or final plat and that funds would be held in an interest-bearing account dedicated to the facility; interest would not be refunded to the paying developer.
Staff described categories of mitigation (major vs. minor) and said the rule applies to city-jurisdiction transportation facilities; they also summarized outreach to the Transportation Commission, the Planning Commission, the Building Association of Southern Oregon and ODOT, which provided comment and engaged during drafts.
Councilors asked whether payments could be deferred or collected at certificate of occupancy; staff and legal counsel advised that deferrals are legally challenging and that the ordinance is designed to ensure funds are collected prior to permit issuance. The council approved the ordinance by roll call (8-0).
