CC Minutes - 11/24/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor asked if the neighborhood residents had a choice about whether an LID was established, similar to the requirement that 50 percent of owners must agree to other types of improvements. Mr. Schoening replied that residents could remonstrate, but the council could initiate an LID and proceed with the project despite a remonstrance. Ms. Taylor said she agreed with the need to use concrete and requesting CDBG funds for the non-assessable costs, but was concerned about assessing property owners who did not want to spend funds for alley improvements or believe they were benefiting from the project. She asked if it was possible to exempt property owners who lived in the neighborhood if they did not wish to pay. Mr. Schoening replied there were no provisions in the code for such an exemption, although there was a subsidy program for low income residents. Ms. Nathanson said the project would benefit public safety, redevelopment potential, and general improve- ments in the neighborhood. She asked if improvement of an alley would result in an increase in value of the property. Mr. Schoening said that intuitively it would, but he had not seen such an increase documented from an LID. Ms. Nathanson asked if the assessment could be the impetus for some owners to sell their properties or others to begin a redevelopment project. She asked if it was possible to make the project more than just a paving schedule because of the social and land use implications of any project that improved the entire neighborhood. She said that alleys were used for many purposes, including primary access to a residence, recreation, storage, vehicle parking, and trash collection. She asked if thought had been given to how improvements could result in changes to land use development patterns by increasing access and providing other opportunities. She said the project was an urban development, as well as paving, issue. Mr. Schoening replied that a review of the improved alleys in the neighborhood might provide some answers. Ms. Nathanson asked if it was possible to design an LID that could have other potential uses, in addition to alley improvements, which would not be assessed at the present time, but be available for future projects. Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the task force report and the motivation behind improving alleys in the neighborhood. He said it was largely an investor-owned neighborhood with few owner-occupied homes and there were other neighborhoods with alleys in worse condition and higher alley-related crime rates. While not minimizing problems, he said that two riots in the West University neighborhood had prompted a City-initiated LID and use of CDBG funds, while other neighborhoods with greater needs had been attempting for years to get alleys improved. He said it was not equitable and asked when CDBG funds would be made available for comparable alley improvements in other neighborhoods. He noted he and the City Manager had received messages recently about an impassable alley at 3rd Avenue and Polk Street and the City was full of unimproved alleys in much poorer neighborhoods than the investor-owned West University neighborhood. He was uncertain whether he was willing to support the commitment of resources to the initiation of an alley improvement program for one neighborhood alone; it should be considered equitably throughout the city. Mr. Kelly noted the distinction between an improvement where 50 percent of the property owners agree and the rare instance of a City-initiated LID. He commented that the West University neighborhood consisted largely of rentals and many of those property owners did not necessarily feel any commitment to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2003 Page 8 Work Session