05/10/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ---- ~ - Public hearing was opened. Phyllis Early, 3945 Mill Street, proposed that no bids be let for the improvement of Willamette south of 40th until a Charter amendment with regard to changing the method of assessments was prepared. She thought a density formula should be used in calculating assessments - abutting properties should be assessed according to their use, i.e., single-family residential lots should not be assessed on the same basis as multiple- family or condominium properties generating more traffic. Also, assessment should be made in keeping with present development patterns, taking into account rectangular lots, cluster developments, funneling of traffic, etc. Jim Lemert, 10 East 40th Avenue; Robert O. Mansfield, 15 Brae Burn Drive; Jon Schultz, 40 Oak Court; Jerry Berjke, 4110 Oak Court; Ed Jordan, 40 Oak Court; and Father Louis ROdakowski, 4330 Willamette Street expressed concerns similar to Ms. Early. They re- minded the Council of objections presented at the previous hearing on this project _ traffic was generated from townhouse and condominium developments on other streets where abutting properties would not participate in the cost of this improvement, yet that traffic was the primary beneficiary of the proposed improvement. Also, many of the properties which will be assessed do not have immediate access to the portion that would beimproved; frontage abutting the street for some of the properties serve the equivalent of six single-family homes but generate ten times that amount of traffic; anticipated increased speed of traffic after the improvement would create a hazard for autos backing out of driveways. Mr. Schultz asked what the estimated cost was at this time. Both $25.00 and $27.00 per-front-foot cost had been quoted, he said. All were concerned that the assessment method was inequitable and urged Council re-evaluation. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mayor Anderson commented that the matter of making assessments had been under study by the Council over many years for all projects - sewers, sidewalks, storm sewers, etc. He noted the recent authorization for a Council subcommittee to study the assessments for street improvements, so the process is underway. Mr. Allen said the estimated cost as listed in the bid tabulation was $22.70 per front foot - $19.80 for paving, $2.90 for sidewalk. He added that the city does have a rather elaborate arterial street system, the improvement cost of most having been met through bond issues or a combination of bond issues and assessments. He said the only streets not paid for in this manner were those done by either the state or federal governments. Prior to the 1950s, he said, every owner of property abutting an arterial or residential street stood the full cost of improvement. Since that time, with the implementation of the crosstown street system, funds from bond issues have met the difference between the 36-foot residential street width and the wider arterial street. Also, from those funds came payment for the greater strength base required for arterials. He noted that the Council in 1964 reduced the standard residential street width to 28 feet. Mr. Allen continued that one of the difficulties encountered in developing a realistic assessment policy is the lack of funds. Bond funds authorized in 1972, he said, were being used now for arterial projects. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Hamel to award contract on the low bid _ Eugene Sand & Gravel for $257,444.15. Councilwoman Shirey asked if a new assessment method would be used on thiat project should one be developed by the assessment policy subcommittee. Mrs. Beal said that when the first subcommittee was organized the proposal was to base assessments on the number of living units. The subcommittee at that time was unable to develop a charter amendment other than one dealing with alley improvements. So at this time, she said, the only way the Willamette Street project could be assessed was under the present method, because that was the law and there was no basis for changing the law at this time. ~~~ 5/10/76 - 7