06/22/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- Councilor Wooten asked if the design for the Roosevelt Project had had to be altered to qualify the project for Community Development funds and for the assessment write-down. Mr. Allen responded that adjustment of the width of the project had been discussed with the neighborhood group but that he did not know of any cutback in the project to comply with HUD regulations. He noted that the only question may have been whether to include the intersection at Highway 99 in the proj ect. Ms. Wooten asked if the assessment write-down was an afterthought. Mr. Allen responded that the project had not been included in this year's capital projects list because after the neighborhood area hearing it was clear there would likely be a remonstrance if the full assessment was made. Respondi ng to further questions from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Allen said that the council had approved write-downs for other projects, including projects on East 11th Avenue, Augusta Street, and Coburg Road. Mr. Whitlow noted that there was a precedent for using CDBG funds for projects in particular neighborhoods that were of community-wi de val ue. Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Allen said that the State's contribution to the intersection project at Highway 99 and Roosevelt could be as high as $100,000. Responding to a question from Councilor Lindberg, Mr. Allen said that it was estimated the signals at Highway 99 and Roosevelt Boulevard would cost $80,000, 95 percent of which was for the signal hardware. Mr. Lindberg asked if the project would be phased. Mr. Allen responded it was possible that, depending on weather conditions, the initial paving would be done in the fall of 1983, with final work done in the spring to bring the street up to standard. He said that e the bids would include the fall completion date, and any phasing would be left to the discretion of the contractor. Responding to a question from Mr. Lindberg, Mr. Sercombe said that a motion to reconsider use of the $80,000 allocated for signalization would need to be made by a councilor who had voted on the prevailing side of the original motion regarding the Jobs Bill application. Councilor Schue said she believed the council had always followed a policy of assessing property owners, even property owners on arterial streets, at the fee for residential streets. She asked how much the City would save if curbs, gutters, and sidewalks for the Roosevelt project were assessed to property owners. Mr. Allen responded that only curbs and sidewalks were included in the proposed assessments. He said that City ordinances allow assessment of up to 20 feet of pavement and that this was what was being subsidized. Councilor Wooten said she had some serious concerns regarding the assessment wr i te- down. She said she had received figures that indicated that 35 percent of the 6256.45 front feet in the project were owned by the State, 13 percent by a corporate investment firm, 22 percent by businesses, 15 percent by absentee owners, and only 15 percent by owner-occupants. She suggested that the City a~plk to the Economic Development Administration for funds for this portion of t e ooseve1t project and reallocate the Jobs Bill funds to meet the needs of the commun i ty . e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1983 Page 5