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

Home Browse Search

it in some areas as improvements ahead of development. However, she supported careful examination of areas where street improvements were needed or the street network needed to be completed. Mr. Lyle said that he had assumed staff would develop criteria for such improvements in a manner similar to the Sidewalk Improvement Program. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson about the values and criteria used by the committee, Mr. Kelly confirmed that the values and criteria had helped the committee to avoid looking at options in isolation. Ms. Nathanson commended the values and criteria in general. She requested clarification of the wording in values 5 and 6, which Mr. Kelly provided. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the committee consider further defining the wording "environmentally protected." Mr. Lyle noted the primary focus of the value was on the wetlands in west Eugene, and other sites in the community that would be precluded from development due to "protection" of wetlands. Regarding value 8, Ms. Nathanson suggested that the comparison to the Sidewalk Improvement Program be reconsidered because the sidewalk program was largely aspirational rather than accomplished at this time since funding is not available. Ms. Nathanson asked if the reference to a wide lot deferral in value 9 was to defer in the sense of delay, rather than forgive. Mr. Kelly said yes. Mr. Rayor said that he did not have that much of a problem with the current system of assessments. He believed that it was an equitable system, which ensured that the people who bought houses on unimproved streets were liable for the costs improving their street. The fact was well-known to engineers, although perhaps not to home buyers. Mr. Rayor suggested that the solution was not one of the three options, which represented major programmatic changes, but adjustments to the current system that included a low-income subsidy, 10 to 20 year financing, a wide lot deferral, and single side assessments for comer lots. He said that those living on collectors who object when nearby development triggers a street improvement project were still only buying their share of a local street, which was everybody's liability at some point. Mr. Rayor did not want to shift the cost from the individual to all taxpayers. Mr. Rayor indicated opposition to the general obligation bond approach. He suggested that an educational program focused on home buyers and realtors could be useful. Mr. Lyle noted that several of Mr. Rayor's suggestions touched on elements of the assessment system the committee was addressing. Mr. Rayor said he would like to return to the County and determine what it would take to get the Board of County Commissioners to support the City's assessment system. He believed the wide lot deferral would address many of the County's concerns. Mr. Rayor suggested the problem with a street improvement fee was that there were both County and City residents with unimproved streets inside the city's boundaries, and imposing the fee would require County concurrence. Mr. Pap~ agreed. He added that the committee's thinking when it considered general obligation bonds and the street improvement fee was whether the entire community benefitted from a completed street system. He said that the committee was seeking a funding mechanism that would enjoy the support of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m.