CC Minutes - 06/23/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark asked why polls were rarely successful in initiating street improvements. Mr. Schoening said people were surprised at the cost of improving streets and the expectation that property owners abutting the street would pay. his experience was that failure was due less to the cost than to the payment options. He suggested there would be more successful polls if there were other payment options that made it more affordable for a property owner. He was interested in exploring some of those options, such as the ones he had forwarded to staff. He asked Mr. Schoening to explain those alternatives. Mr. Schoening explained that one option was expansion of the LID boundary to include more than just abutting property owners. He said that could be accomplished through a code amendment, but it was contrary to the City’s policy that everyone should pay once for the street where they took primary access, which was why corner lots were not assessed for two streets. He said another option was doing assessment projects for maintenance overlays, but the assessment process was fairly expensive and that would add to the cost of a project. Mr. Clark said a policy question for the council, if it decided to assess overlays, was who would pay for the administrative costs. He was interested in a scoping of the typical administrative costs associated with an assessment. Mr. Schoening said another option was deferral of the assessment until a property was sold. Mr. Clark commented that the deferral option would place a lien against a house that would be paid at the time of sale of the house, instead of requiring payment of the assessment over a ten-year period. He pointed out that the average home sold every seven years so the City might actually recover costs more quickly. He said the option made improvements more affordable for the property owners and thus polls were more likely to succeed. Ms. Taylor felt the assessment process was unjust and many communities used a different approach to pay for street improvements, such as a bond measure. She hoped the City would consider no-interest loans instead of charging for financing. She liked the idea of postponing payment of assessments until a property was sold, but said that should be optional. She said those who used the street should also pay for improve- ments and used the example of a street that had to be improved because a subdivision used it for access, but only those living along the street had to pay the costs. She noted that in the case of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street, there were a number of cul de sacs that had to use those streets for access, but the property owners were not assessed for improvements. She said the overlay assessment could be risky and invite development once improvements were completed. Ms. Solomon remarked another factor in the failure of polls was that many people on unimproved streets were renters, not owners. She said many people also objected to the scope of a project and felt that amenities like curbs and gutters were unnecessary. She asked Mr. Ruiz what his experience of these issues had been in other communities. Mr. Ruiz related that Fresno had chosen to invest $45 million in unimproved streets; no assessment of local property owners was involved. He said the project was funded through a variety of resources, including General Fund and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money. He said local improvement districts were used to some extent in each community in which he had lived and included both petition and council initiation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 3 Work Session