05/11/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e council reduced the assessment on arterials from a 36-foot standard assessment to a 28-foot standard assessment. The revenue was used in a general way to support all projects rather than specifically helping out individual projects in which the County was participating. Referring to the systems development tax, Mr. Teitzel said that when that tax was instituted in 1978, revenues from the tax were used to further reduce the assessment on arterials for existing single- family residences to a 20-foot width. e Mr. Haws asked if a decision to delay consideration of this item and to examine the assessment ordinance would mean that all projects would have to be delayed. Mr. Teitzel responded that if only the policy on assessing double-frontage lots is changed, then only double-frontage projects would be affected, but that if the council changes the entire assessment policy all projects will be affected. Mr. Lindberg asked if the council could postpone consideration of this single project without considering the assessment policy at this time. Mr. Teitzel said that if this occurred, staff would return to the council with this project next year. Mr. Lindberg said he felt it was important to examine the advantages of proceeding with the project now rather than later. He wondered if sidewalks and barriers to prevent rock slides are really needed. Mr. Lindberg asked how rapidly the area is developing and how soon the "crunch" might come when the work would really be needed. Mr. Teitzel responded that staff .felt that this point would be reached in the near future, especially when people begin moving into the houses on Goodpasture Island Road which are being constructed at this time. At that point, school children will be using the road to get to school. Ms. Schue asked if staff could estimate how much the cost of such a project goes up with each year.s delay. Mr. Teitzel said that this averaged about ten percent per year, but that the differential for this particular project could be as great as 15 percent from 1981 to 1982. Ms. Miller asked if staff could develop a mechanism for spreading the cost of such an improvement more widely. She referred specifically to the testimony that owners of three lots would bear the cost for improvements affecting 25 lots. Mr. Teitzel said that this issue had been addressed in the past when the assessment policy was reviewed, but that it had always been the council.s feeling that each person's share of the costs of the streets of Eugene is that piece which fronts on his property. Staff has therefore never tried to develop an assessment that spreads over a two- or three-block area. Mr. Gleason added that the cost to adjoining property owners of an arterial street was reduced both by the systems development fees and the City's fee relationship with the County. In this way, arterial streets have a two-phased cost. On residential streets which are not arterials, the assessment in focused on the individual lots. Ms. Miller asked what other double-frontage projects would be coming before the council in the next few months. Mr. Teitzel said that one of these is on Crescent Avenue between Gilham and Coburg roads, with a little over 1,100 feet of double frontage. The other is Bailey Hill Road from Warren to Bertelsen, e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1981 Page 8