CC Minutes - 11/22/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

had tried to provide an improvement to the current system and a generally more equitable system, particularly to single-family residential properties. He gave the following two examples of that: assessing by a uniform average frontage rather than calculating actual frontage, and the delay of excess frontage on partially developed and vacant property. Mr. Kelly said that he and Mr. Pap8 wanted as consistent a policy as possible across all classes of streets. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments about the difficulty of the process and the belief that these recommendations were more fair than the original policies. Mr. Pap8 said that he did not agree with the comment, reflected on page 19 of the Agenda Item Summary, that the committee did not support exclusive use of building permits as the tool to collect equivalent assessments. He said that he thought that some sort of development activity should be used or a building permit rather than a transfer to another family member of the property that would cause the collection of an equivalent assessment. Mr. Lyle explained that the committee was recommending that equivalent assessment be collected when a land use action was occurring such as a subdivision or land division, but not a sale. Mr. Pap8 said that he supported the recommendations. Ms. Taylor agreed that it was complex topic. She said that she thought that some inequities had been eliminated, but not enough. She said that everyone in a subdivision who went out onto a street should pay, not just the ones who were adjacent. She argued that the people who were not adjacent reaped more benefits without having to suffer the inconveniences of having more traffic go by their home. She said that she hoped that citizens would speak out at the public hearing and that it would still be possible to change this policy. Mr. Rayor complimented the committee for its work. He said that the policy changes addressed a lot of issues. He expressed concern that the policies would increase Service Development Charges (SDCs) and the price of development, and added that he did not know how to solve that. Mr. Lee asked about alley ways. Mr. Lyle said that the committee's intent was to focus next on local streets and then alleys. He said that those recommendations would probably be brought back before the council in February or March. Mr. Lee noted that the West University neighborhood had terrible alley ways and that something needed to be done. He added that he would be patient until February or March. Mr. Meisner acknowledged that the committee for its good work on a complex issue. He expressed the following concerns and questions: · That there would be no assessment against subdivision lots that had primary access on an internal street system. · Currently, a 16-unit apartment house would pay the same as a single-family dwelling. He hoped that the committee would look at density of uses. · What is the fiscal impact on the City? Mr. Lyle responded that existing subdivisions with lots that exit into an internal street system may not pay, but that new subdivisions would pay through an equivalent assessment and payment of SDCs. Mr. Meisner reminded Mr. Lyle of the principle of equal application historically and prospectively. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m.