Laserfiche WebLink
The motion passed 5:0:1, Mr. Papd abstaining from the vote, because he had recused <br /> himself. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to suspend the council's operating rules <br /> and continue the meeting until 8 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />D.Work Session: Recommendations of Council ad hoc Committee on Street Improvement Funding <br /> <br />City Engineer Les Lyle reported that the council committee had met several times to discuss a number of <br />options (14), and now was seeking further direction about the options the subcommittee narrowed down to. <br />He noted that the values and criteria guiding the committee process were included in the meeting packet. The <br />committee was seeking feedback on 1) assessments--local improvement districts; 2) street improvement fee; <br />and 3) general obligation bond. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly reported that the committee started out with 14 funding mechanisms and had narrowed that list to <br />three broad categories. He requested the council's feedback on each option, and asked councilors to respond to <br />the three policy issues identified in the background material: <br /> <br /> 1. Does the council agree that it is a council goal to have a fully improved street network <br /> within the urban growth boundary within a specific period of time (20 years')? <br /> <br /> 2. Is the council willing to subsidize improvement costs' to facilitate the process of d~hlly <br /> improving all streets'. Alternative funding sources would need to be identified. <br /> <br /> 3. Is &e council willing to move from a voluntary improvement policy for local streets' to a <br /> mandatory or council-initiated policy framework? <br />Mr. Kelly noted that there were residents in the community who would like to see the council make some <br />decisions so that the source of the funding for projects such as Garden Way could be determined. <br />Mr. Papd concurred with the remarks of Mr. Kelly, adding there were some real community equity issues the <br />committee had heard from the public about, and resolution was needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if the reference to a fully improved street network included local streets. Mr. Kelly said <br />yes. He said that the policy question was related to the street improvement fee discussed by the committee. If <br />the council was to get to a sustainable situation of maintainable roads, it needed a fully improved network. <br />Mr. Meisner said that he was somewhat troubled by that because he believed the committee's charge had been <br />to address special assessment policies related to arterial and collector streets. He said that in some areas of the <br />community, such as the River Road area, there were miles of unimproved streets, and a change in the nature of <br />the program from voluntary to mandatory would make a tremendous difference in the funding strategy the <br />committee developed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly clarified that both local streets and alleys were within the committee's charge. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that the topic was very complex and it would likely take a considerable amount of time to <br />work through all the issues. Regarding the first policy question, Ms. Nathanson said that she would not be <br />able to answer in the affirmative for every neighborhood in the urban growth boundary. Some might interpret <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 8 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />