CC Minutes - 07/21/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

entire council because the City needed to also get acceptance of the mechanism from the County and Springfield. Mr. Papd noted that the general obligation bond approach had enjoyed success in Salem. Responding to a question from Mr. Papd regarding his reaction to the options as they related to collectors and arterials, Mr. Rayor indicated his conclusions were essentially the same given that the residents were responsible only for the local street equivalent. Mr. Kelly emphasized that the street improvement fee would be assessed against unimproved frontages only. He agreed with Mr. Rayor that the assessment system, if fine-tuned, could work. He noted, however, that while the committee continually heard that everyone who lived on an improved street had already paid their fair share, several residents had pointed out to him that recent capital projects, such as the Willow Creek street project, had not been assessed. In response to Mr. Kelly's last statement, Mr. Meisner said that those projects were the exception. Traditionally, residential properties have paid assessments. He concurred with Mr. Rayor's remarks regarding the current assessment system. He did not support the general obligation bond approach. Regarding the street improvement fee, he said that he could not support if it were designed to include all unimproved County streets inside the urban growth boundary. Mr. Meisner said that several residents had raised the issue of "sticker shock" when it came to assessments, but all residents living on improved streets paid that cost as a proportion of the value of the property they owned. He believed the cost had dropped as a percentage of the cost of a house over time. Mr. Meisner said the City had exemption and loan program to address the concerns of the elderly and low-income residents. Regarding the three policy issues, Mr. Meisner said he was unlikely to vote in support of a statement that it was a council goal to have a fully improved street network inside the urban growth boundary within a specified period of time. He did not support a public subsidy of street improvement costs. Mr. Meisner said that he hoped to one day have an answer to the question of how the City could charge systems development charges to those who commute using existing streets because of new development. Mr. Rayor questioned how adjusting the method of payment for a street improvement would address the problem of local opposition to street improvement projects considered detrimental to livability by existing residents. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the committee to further evaluate the assessment funding option. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the committee to further evaluate the street improvement fee funding option. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the committee to further evaluate the general obligation bond funding option. The motion failed unanimously, 0:6. E.Work Session: Public Safety Coordinating Council Revenue Sharing Package Proposal MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 10 5:30 p.m.