Item 4 - PH on River Ave.LID - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Manager Taylor asked Michelle Cahill, Engineer for the Public Works Department, to speak on the item. Ms. Cahill described the location of the proposed annexation and noted that it had been identified in the TransPlan as a street that should be brought up to urban standards. She said that since the City Council initiated the project, preparatory work had been done on the street and it had undergone the bidding process. She explained that funding was going to come from systems development charges (SDCs) and less than 50 percent of the cost would be assessed to the property owners. She related that the City had requested the authority fi-om the Lane Board of County Commissioners to assess the properties that were outside of the City's jurisdiction and the commissioners denied it. This had changed the scenario for funding. She conveyed staff's recommendation that the City initiate the annexation of the properties so that the properties could be assessed to pay for part of the road. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments and questions. Councilor Taylor commented that the council was talking about annexing properties belonging to people who did not want to be annexed. In response to a question from Councilor Poling, Ms. Cahill said there were approximately $1 million in assessments, 52 percent of which would be assessed to privately owned properties. Councilor Poling thought canceling the project for the time being would be prudent. He felt to do otherwise would anger the property owners and give them the impression that the City did not care about their opposition. In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, Ms. Cahill stated that the City had not spoken to the property owners about the annexation at this point because staff wanted to determine how much interest there was on the part of the council in proceeding with it first. City Manager Taylor added that there was no requirement to discuss annexation with the residents at this point. Councilor Pap6 wanted to know what the property owners thought prior to voting. He opined that the repercussions would go far beyond this street project. He suggested that it was not the highest priority safety item in the City and it would mm back some of the good will the City had worked so hard to establish with the residents in that area should the City force annexation. Councilor Bettman agreed with the comments of councilors Pap6 and Poling. She asked what grounds there were for the Lane Board of County Commissioners to deny the City authority to assess the properties. Ms. Cahill replied that the conunissioners' decision was based on the number of letters of remonstrance they had received. Councilor Bettman opined that it was not necessary to ask the property owners how they felt about annexation as annexation would mean the properties would be assessed for the road improvements. She questioned why commercial development had occurred on an unimproved road. She thought there should be a plan that prevented further commercial development from being built there if it would generate increased traffic on an unimproved street. She opposed piecemeal annexation, however. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Cahill explained that staff had directed the Heatings Official to discontinue work the day after the testimony period closed as the City did not have the authority MIN TES---Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 8 Regular Session River Avenue Exhibit C