CCAgenda-4/12/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor stated she was opposed to assessing people for something they did not want, particularly if all the costs were assessed. She said she liked the concept of using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for neighborhood improvements instead of assessing home owners. She said the amount of assessment could cause some people to lose their homes. Ms. Nathanson discussed the issue of access, which she said was not a factor in any of the five methods. She commented that a property owner might not have access currently because of a choice to not use the alley for a variety of reasons; however, if the lack of access was because of the poor condition of the alley and subsequent to improvements the property owner used alley access, it was not fair to have others bear the cost. She said it was not clear how to fairly factor in access. She asked if the Planning and Develop- ment Department (PDD) had analyzed how the alley assessment apportionment methods would encourage or discourage compact urban growth objectives. Mr. Schoening said he did not think PDD had conducted an analysis of impact. Ms. Nathanson asked that PDD conduct such an analysis and the information be provided to the council. Mr. Poling complimented the quality of the information provided in the agenda packet and agreed with previous speakers that the proposed method should be adjusted. Mr. Kelly asked how staff wanted to move forward in view of the unanimity on the need to modify the recommended method of apportionment. Mr. Schoening said it appeared a majority of the council supported assessment of all costs and inclusion of a land use factor in the methodology. He said he was unclear how to proceed with the issue of access because it was counter to the land use issue in that many of the larger multi-family properties did not obtain access from the alley and if costs were not assessed to all properties along the alley, the properties that were assessed would pay a significantly higher amount. Mr. Kelly said that the issue of access was equally difficult in the case of street improvements and eventually access was factored in so that a property that did not currently have access, but later chose access, would be assessed when the permit was issued. He said that identifying later alley access would be much more difficult. He asked for a memo from staff on ideas for capturing information on alley access after improvements were made. Mr. Meisner agreed that it was difficult to accommodate access in a formula. He said he would not support the first part of the motion and he wanted a land use factor in the methodology. He also agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments that the issue went beyond paving and supported her suggestion that PDD be consulted because it was a community development issue. Ms. Bettman remarked that she understood the points that were made about the difficulty of including access in the methodology, but people should have the opportunity to opt out of access. She suggested that a curb could be installed along those properties that did not want alley access. Ms. Bettman withdrew item 1 relating to changing the method of apportionment from her motion. The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Poling as the second. Referring to the memorandum from Mr. Schoening dated February 28, 2004, Ms. Nathanson noted that complexity of apportionment methods stemmed from the City Charter requirement that public improve- ment procedures and assessments could not go into effect until six months after the council's action, MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 5 Work Session