Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioners approved the City's proposed improvement of River Avenue and authorized the City to assess benefiting properties outside the City limits for a portion of the improvements. Since this time, the board had received a number of contacts from land owners whose properties abutted River Avenue. These individuals had raised questions about the size, scope, and cost of the project. She reported that the board had revisited the ordinance in response to these comments on March 30, 2005, and during that review, City of Eugene Public Works Director Kurt Corey had assured the board that the council would hold a public hearing and could make modifications to the planned improvements if necessary. She stated that, after discussion, the board decided not to rescind the order, but did express its concern over the design and the overall need for the project. She conveyed the board's concerns: A) There was insufficient community involvement associated with the project; B) The project was premature, given the potential for the size and scope changes that could result from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) decisions on the Beltline Road and/or from conclusions of the River Road/Santa Clara Study; C) The size and scope of the project are greater than warranted by current and future conditions; D) The location of the bicycle path was inappropriate. Ms. Morrison thanked the council for the inter-governmental privilege. Paul Spain, 1112 Valley Butte Drive, explained that he owned property at 409 River Avenue. He was not opposed to fixing River Avenue, nor was he opposed to being assessed for improvements. He opposed the overall cost of the project. He cited, in particular, that of the $2.2 million it was slated to cost, $404,639 was included for engineering charges and another $87,965 was included for administrative fees. He questioned the validity of spending over $490,000 on "soft costs," given that the bid itself was just over twice that amount. He believed the City staff time to be valuable but thought some of that time was already paid for in tax moneys. He asked if the "soft costs" were part of the non-assessable portion of the project that was being funded by systems development charge (SDC) fees. He wondered if these costs were reduced or eliminated whether the larger amount of the SDC funding and property owners' dollars being used would go for the "hard costs." Mr. Spain did not think the project should wait until ODOT had conducted a study of the interchange, as he had heard the department would not get to it until 2008, if that. Realistically, he asserted, it could be many years before results of such a study were analyzed and construction could be planned. He predicted the costs would increase while the City waited. He felt the opportunity to cost-share the project had already passed, given that the water treatment plant had completed its water reclamation project involving some street reconstruction. He thought it unfortunate that only one design had been presented and alternate designs were not developed. He reminded the council that the dollars that were to be assessed did not grow on trees. Theresa Slocum, 621 River Avenue, owned three lots that bordered River Avenue. She reported that ODOT had already contacted the property owners in the 1990s to tell them that the entrance to Beltline Road from River Avenue did not meet safety regulations and that it was slated to be closed. She observed that the planned improvements were based on a classification of maj or collector, but ODOT was drawing up a plan to make it a dead end. In looking at the businesses on the east end of the avenue, she underscored that they were not the sorts of businesses that people walked to. She maintained that there was no bus service on River Avenue because there was no need. She cited as most important to her that the government agencies work together. She asked that the City not engage in a project that ODOT might later come in and undo. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session