Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

of how many they traveled on. The code was modified to include a City-funded share of improvements to arterial and collector streets to address that issue. He said the City’s financing program for assessments was funded through bonds issued by the City and he did not think there was a statutory requirement to limit the period to 10 years. Mr. Clark asked for confirmation from staff that the financing period could be extended beyond 10 years. He agreed that people who had to use a street other than the one they lived on to gain access to major thoroughfares should be able to contribute to the cost of improvements, but requiring them to pay meant they would pay for improvements to two streets and that was not fair. He was interested in developing a voluntary participation process that was not too administratively burdensome, but not in compelling payment. He asked for clarification of the City Manager’s recommendation. Mr. Schoening said the recommendation was to add the option of council-initiated improvements to local streets, not replace the poll petition process. Mr. Ruiz said that option would allow the council to move proactively on local streets in the capital improvement program (CIP) process if it desired instead of only responding to a poll. Mr. Clark said he would be challenged by the idea of the council choosing a street, forming an LID and assessing costs without the participation of property owners. He noted that the amount of unimproved roads had increased from 48 miles in 2001 to 75 miles currently. Mr. Schoening said those roads had been annexed into the City. Mr. Clark said he was interested in how the process could be made more affordable to home owners. Ms. Taylor opined that some people paid more for street improvements than they paid for their property. She did not believe that people on cul-de-sacs paid for the street as they purchased their home after the street was constructed. She used Whitbeck Boulevard as an example of developers being allowed to build houses after an overlay had been completed; the street was damaged by heavy equipment and those who had paid for the overlay were left with a street in poor condition. She felt that flag lots should be assessed the same as regular lots for their access streets. She liked the concept of a travelshed. She asked if the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street project would proceed if the bond measure did not pass. Mr. Schoening said at this point, the City’s share of the road improvements was not funded and the project could not move forward. Mr. Ruiz said he was discussing with the neighborhood the option of reclassifying streets in order to use SDCs for the City share. Mr. Schoening added that it could be paid for in the capital budget only if another project was eliminated. Ms. Bettman said it did not seem there was sufficient cohesion to move forward with a motion. She said funding the Crest Drive project could be discussed during the council’s consideration of a bond resolution. She suggested reconvening the council’s subcommittee on transportation funding to examine the inequities in the assessment policies. She asked for a memorandum from staff on how the code could be changed to allow funding of an unclassified street. Ms. Solomon hoped the council would act thoughtfully, but expeditiously, to address the matter of assessments. She said the recommendations did not address street classification and LID limitation issues. She asked if the recommendation to include unimproved streets in the CIP meant the entire cost of the project or only the City’s share. Mr. Schoening said the idea was to initiate projects on local streets by council action in order to begin to reduce the 63 miles of unimproved streets; the CIP would front the cost of the entire project, with the non-City portion to be assessed. Ms. Ortiz remarked that many of the unimproved streets were in her ward and 70 percent of the residential properties were rentals. Her challenge was not with street improvements, but with all of the improvements MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 5 Work Session