Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ----------- <br />e Answering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Lyle said traffic studies have <br /> demonstrated that traffic is adequate to justify a signal at this time. He <br /> anticipated that the traffic situation would worsen without a signal. Due to <br /> confusion regarding the percentage of the total cost that each organization <br /> would be required to pay, staff was recommending assessing per a negotiated <br /> agreement which was supported by the Hearings Official. <br /> Mr. Lyle indicated that staff would return to the council with a proposal to <br /> establish a clearer definition of assessment practice for traffic signals in <br /> the future. <br /> Mr. Bennett asked whether there is a City policy to recover City costs <br /> associated with development within the urban growth boundary or within the <br /> City's jurisdiction. He suggested that it may be appropriate to consider the <br /> provision of employment opportunities and other benefits of development when <br /> determining what costs should be recovered. Mr. Gleason responded that the <br /> Council Committee on Infrastructure is examining those practices and policies <br /> and how well the current fees and structures work. <br /> Mr. Lyle affirmed that while the City's assessment policy is based on benefit <br /> and usually recovers an equitable share of signal cost, in this particular <br /> situation, the lower recovery ratio was proposed as part of a negotiated <br /> agreement based on earlier commitments the City feels obliged to honor. He <br /> pointed out that the City has the ability to modify the assessment formula <br /> for this particular case prior to initiation of construction. <br />e Mr. Boles stated that his objection was based on the fact that the engineer's <br /> order specifies that the parties had agreed to a <not to exceed) 97 percent <br /> cost recovery which was determined to be appropriate by the traffic analysis <br /> and while that may not actually be City policy, he recommended not assigning <br /> more of the cost to the public. <br /> Mr. Holmer observed that no attempt is made to recover all public costs from <br /> developers in the urban renewal district. He supported reimbursement of an <br /> increasing proportion of the costs of public investments related to <br /> development, but urged the council to move cautiously toward that goal. <br /> Mr. Lyle explained that should the council specify a different assessment <br /> apportionment ratio, another hearing would be conducted after construction is <br /> completed to determine the final assessment amount. <br /> Answering a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Lyle said that the estimated cost <br /> was higher than originally calculated due to the bidding climate and <br /> additional requirements for Coburg Road (underground conduits, etc.). <br /> Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to approve the <br /> Hearings Official's findings, recommendations, and minutes of <br /> November 21, 1989, and to approve the improvements for a <br /> traffic signal at the intersection of Coburg road and Chad <br /> Drive, with the assessment rate specified as follows: <br /> Costco--53 percent; Shopko--44 percent; and City of Eugene--3 <br />e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 4, 1989 Page 15 <br />