CC Minutes - 09/23/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Tollenaar noted that the memorandums prepared by both the hearings officials, Lane Council of Government's (LCOG) Jim Carlson, and City Attorney Glenn Klein came to similar conclusions: "you can construct almost any kind of assessment system you want; it's up to the council to set the basic policy as to what kind of cost should be borne by what kind of property." Mr. Tollenaar said he has come to the conclusion that the only fair thing is to make every property responsible for the cost of the street that provides the direct access to that property. If that access is provided by an arterial or collector, the current practice should be applied, but in most cases, the cost of that direct access through an internal street network will have been paid initially by the developer and will be reflected in the price people pay for their homes. Mr. Tollenaar said he disagreed with staff that there is an assessable benefit for a subdivision in the arterial or collector street. His view, he said, is that the cost of that arterial or collector are costs associated with new development and property owners should not be assessed for a potential second access. He said property owners should be responsible for the appropriate portion of the cost of the street that provides direct access to their property. Mr. Tollenaar concluded that the City should assess only those properties that take actual direct access from an improved arterial or collector street, and that the non-assessable costs should be paid from the Systems Development Charge Fund. Assuming, he added, that half of the costs of arterials and collectors would have to be shifted from abutting property to the SDC Fund, that would result in a 21 percent increase in the transportation portion of the SDC but only a 5 percent increase to the total SDC for an average home and higher for commercial property and multiple units. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Tollenaar's view and said the basic question was: Is it fair for a homeowner to pay for two streets? She said it just did not seem fair. She noted a sentiment expressed at the public hearing that there is no special benefit from having two streets, and in fact the opposite might be true. Ms. Nathanson said she hoped to find a way of spreading the cost of the arterial to the entire subdivision. She add that the current system was unfair and she did not wish to have to defend it. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said there must be a better way of spreading the assessment beyond the "raw, front footage." She asked what the City's role was in addressing substandard streets in the Santa Clara/River Road area. Mr. Lyle said the area was within the urban growth boundary (UGB) and the City would become involved when that area was annexed. He added that Lane County has addressed some of those substandard roads, recently improving Irvington Road and already having improved River Road and Maxwell Street. Ms. Taylor said she has lots of sympathy for people in modest homes who suddenly find they owe $10,000 in street assessments and cannot possibly afford it. She said she strongly supports distributing the cost of street assessments to the entire subdivision and that new development should pay the cost of development. Ms. Taylor urged relief for property owners as soon as possible and asked staff to bring draft ordinances for a public hearing. She said the current practice on alleys was unfair as single dwellings were charged the same as apartment buildings, given the disproportionate use of the alley. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 23, 1998 Page 7 11:30 a.m.