My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3A - Minutes Approval
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 04/11/05 Mtg
>
Item 3A - Minutes Approval
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:07:31 PM
Creation date
4/7/2005 8:39:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/11/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
project went forward. Subsequently, the City Attorney determined that could be done. <br /> <br />Mr. Papfi suggested the City faced a "chicken and egg" situation. He asked how the City Council was to <br />proceed. City Manager Taylor suggested one approach was to set aside a certain amount of money each <br />year that the City would use on a council-initiated LID based on better information about the exact design. <br />That was a substantial departure for current practice, however. Mr. Papd asked if the City could offer <br />neighborhoods the option of lessening the cost and increasing the environmental impact with context- <br />sensitive design standards that left ditches in place, for example. Mr. Schoening suggested the design <br />standards could increase the cost and lessen the environmental impact. A ditch may require additional <br />right-of-way and could cost more to design and construct. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor suggested the question before the council was the degree of risk it was willing to <br />take in initiating projects that may not end up in an LID that would survive the remonstrance process. <br /> <br />Mr. Papfi asked how the council could work with the department discussing alternatives to the standards <br />that were currently in place for local streets. Mr. Schoening said as mentioned during the Crest Drive <br />work session, the City had the flexibility within the current standards to do something different. However, <br />determining what that was and how it would affect individual properties required the initiation of the <br />design, funded up front. Staff estimated it would cost $240,000 to tell residents what the streets would <br />look like and how the drainage system would work. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly clarified that there was a potential that the council could fund the design work for the Crest <br /> Drive area before the formation of the LID, assuming the risk those design costs would not be recovered. <br /> Mr. Schoening concurred. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly said he was willing to look at potential changes to the street assessment system, but the council <br /> committee he and Mr. Papfi served on had worked extensively to develop the current system. It was not <br /> perfect, but it was the best the committee could do. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly discussed the staff-proposed options for initiating street improvements outside a petition poll; <br /> he said the assessment for local streets was a targeted fee on property owners living adjacent to the street. <br /> In the case of arterials and collectors, which have an area-wide benefit, he could understand why the <br /> council might need to make a politically unpopular decision and force the assessment. However, in the <br /> case of a local street, the condition of the street had the most impact on local residents, and he wanted to <br /> ensure that those streets used the petition poll system. If those residents did not feel the improvement <br /> necessary, he did not think the council should impose the improvement. Mr. Kelly would consider <br /> exceptions in cases where a street's function bordered between local and collector and there was a wider <br /> area benefit. Another exception he would consider was the situation the council faced in the West <br /> University Neighborhood, where there was a wide disconnect between those that used and those that <br /> owned a property. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for Mr. Kelly's comments. She said one of the options prepared by <br /> staff involved the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars and she was not prepared <br /> to support that given the other demands on those funds. She said staff referred to the Acorn Park project <br /> in the presentation and the use of CDBG dollars in that case was to facilitate pedestrian access to the park. <br /> That raised another issue for her, which was the City's ability to ensure that infrastructure was in place <br /> when low-income, high-density housing was built. She said the City may have to start looking at those <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.