06/13/1983 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Keller noted for the record that the following people had asked to speak with other comment: e Richard Weinman, 1062 West 18th Place. Lucia McKelvey, 1337 Polk Street. Respondi ng to a question from Mayor Kell er, Ms. McKelvey said that she was opposed to funding for Roosevelt Boulevard and in favor of alternative ideas. Dee Tucker, 89813 Sprague Road. The time alloted for public testimony having expired, the public hearing was closed. Councilor Holmer asked how the timing of the Jobs Bill grant and allocations would fit in with the City's regular Community Development Block Grant. Mr. Byrne responded that the standard grant application had previously been approved by the council and submitted and that funds should be available by July I, 1983. He said that the Jobs Bill funds would also be available at that time. Councilor Lindberg asked if work on Roosevelt Boulevard could be phased. City Engineer Bert Teitzel responded that the paving would need to be done in one phase, at a cost of $520,000, but that the $80,000 for the si gnal at Highway 99 could be done as a separate phase. Mr. Lindberg noted that the Roosevelt Boulevard proposal included a subsidy of assessments that would normally be charged to abutting property owners. He asked if a lesser subsidy could be e made and still enable the project to be accomplished without raising the cost to the City. Mr. Teitzel responded that the $150,000 amount of the proposed assessment was about half the amount that would normally be assessed. He sa i d that if assessments were made at the full rate, approximately $150,000 to $200,000 in funds would be made available. Councilor Ball asked when the Roosevelt Boulevard project might be accomplished if Jobs Bill funds were not used. Mr. Teitzel responded that although the project was budgeted for FY84, funds would probably not be available until FY85 or FY86. Councilor Wooten asked if staff had considered requesting funds fUr Roosevelt Boulevard improvements through Economic Development Administration funds which focus on infrastructure. Mr. Byrne and Mr. Teitze1 responded that such an application had been made for another portion of Roosevelt Boulevard but that the request was denied. Respondi ng to further questions from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Teitzel said that the subsidized cost proposed per front foot for the Roosevelt project was $21.50, as compared with a standard assessment of $45 per front foot. Councilor Schue asked what the staff's rationale was for subsidizing this particular assessment. She said she could not recollect any precedent for assessing less than the standard residential street rate. Mr. Byrne said staff had felt that the neighborhood in question qualified for support through the CDBG Jobs Bill as a low-to-moderate income area. Ms. Schue asked if most of those who would benefit from the subsidy were landlords rather than low-to- e moderate income residents of the area. Mr. Byrne said that he did not have figures on owner-occupied versus rented residences. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 1983 Page 7