Laserfiche WebLink
throughout the City that tied into arterials. He said the context sensitive process set aside the issue of <br />functional classification and focused on design. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark favored looking at creative ways to finance the project without adding substantial new tax <br />burdens, but he was reluctant to classify the street as an arterial or collector when the intent was to minimize <br />the amount of traffic on that street. He said the project should be put into the mix of priorities that would be <br />balanced during the budgeting process. He asked if the design included sloped curbs. Mr. Schoening <br />replied that the design included a combination of vertical, flat and sloped curbs. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark expressed concern with sloped curbs in a narrow street environment and the possibility that a <br />vehicle could travel onto a sidewalk and injure a pedestrian or bicycle rider. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said her concern was with the cost to property owners who would be assessed. She asked what <br />consequences there would be if construction was completed and a property owner could not pay the <br />assessment. Mr. Schoening said there was an income-based subsidy program or payment could be deferred <br />until the property changed hands; however, a lien was placed on the property and the City could foreclose if <br />payment was not made. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor felt the assessment was unfair, particularly since those who would benefit, such as properties in <br />cul de sacs, would not have to pay as only property abutting the street would be assessed. She asked if the <br />City could accept donations to help pay for the assessments of those who could not afford to pay. Mr. <br />Schoening said the City could find a way to accept funds. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked why the neighborhood wanted four-foot sidewalks. Mr. Schoening said the consensus was <br />that they better met the themes and values that the community team established. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the sidewalk could be located on the uphill side of the street for its entire length. Mr. <br />Schoening said there was no physical reason the sidewalk could not be on the uphill side. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if properties along Friendly Street would be assessed for parking. Mr. Schoening said <br />those properties would only be assessed for lane width, not parking, as residents felt parking needs could be <br />met with mountable curbs. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated that Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funds would be available for the <br />project. Mr. Schoening said STP-U funds could only be used if streets were arterials or collectors. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the original intent was to reclassify streets after there was agreement on a design. She <br />said there was no guarantee the council would move forward with a general obligation bond in May 2008 or <br />the bond could fail. She said the council's transportation subcommittee did not anticipate the project when it <br />recommended transportation funding options. She objected to placing the project on the list for funding <br />from traditional sources. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor clarified that funding would pay the City's share of project costs and not be used to assist <br />residents to pay their assessments. She asked if Mr. Schoening's reference to pushing out the construction <br />timeline referred to the Crest Drive project. Mr. Schoening said it did as reclassifying the streets would <br />place the project in competition for funding with many other projects that were further along in the planning <br />and implementation process. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />