Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

project went forward. Subsequently, the City Attorney determined that could be done. Mr. Papfi suggested the City faced a "chicken and egg" situation. He asked how the City Council was to proceed. City Manager Taylor suggested one approach was to set aside a certain amount of money each year that the City would use on a council-initiated LID based on better information about the exact design. That was a substantial departure for current practice, however. Mr. Papd asked if the City could offer neighborhoods the option of lessening the cost and increasing the environmental impact with context- sensitive design standards that left ditches in place, for example. Mr. Schoening suggested the design standards could increase the cost and lessen the environmental impact. A ditch may require additional right-of-way and could cost more to design and construct. City Manager Taylor suggested the question before the council was the degree of risk it was willing to take in initiating projects that may not end up in an LID that would survive the remonstrance process. Mr. Papfi asked how the council could work with the department discussing alternatives to the standards that were currently in place for local streets. Mr. Schoening said as mentioned during the Crest Drive work session, the City had the flexibility within the current standards to do something different. However, determining what that was and how it would affect individual properties required the initiation of the design, funded up front. Staff estimated it would cost $240,000 to tell residents what the streets would look like and how the drainage system would work. Mr. Kelly clarified that there was a potential that the council could fund the design work for the Crest Drive area before the formation of the LID, assuming the risk those design costs would not be recovered. Mr. Schoening concurred. Mr. Kelly said he was willing to look at potential changes to the street assessment system, but the council committee he and Mr. Papfi served on had worked extensively to develop the current system. It was not perfect, but it was the best the committee could do. Mr. Kelly discussed the staff-proposed options for initiating street improvements outside a petition poll; he said the assessment for local streets was a targeted fee on property owners living adjacent to the street. In the case of arterials and collectors, which have an area-wide benefit, he could understand why the council might need to make a politically unpopular decision and force the assessment. However, in the case of a local street, the condition of the street had the most impact on local residents, and he wanted to ensure that those streets used the petition poll system. If those residents did not feel the improvement necessary, he did not think the council should impose the improvement. Mr. Kelly would consider exceptions in cases where a street's function bordered between local and collector and there was a wider area benefit. Another exception he would consider was the situation the council faced in the West University Neighborhood, where there was a wide disconnect between those that used and those that owned a property. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for Mr. Kelly's comments. She said one of the options prepared by staff involved the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars and she was not prepared to support that given the other demands on those funds. She said staff referred to the Acorn Park project in the presentation and the use of CDBG dollars in that case was to facilitate pedestrian access to the park. That raised another issue for her, which was the City's ability to ensure that infrastructure was in place when low-income, high-density housing was built. She said the City may have to start looking at those MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 4 Work Session