Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

to pay more in assessments. He felt he should receive full credit for the SDC, but was only receiving partial credit. Mr. SameI' said he also had developed property. He stated that the SDC funds come from a larger pool and not a direct assessment. Mr. Hill clarified that SDCs were charged to builders and were project specific. Ms. Damron pointed out that property values would likely increase with improvements. She reiterated her question of whether the River Avenue issue was an assessment issue that should motivate the group to look for ways to reduce costs or whether it was an issue for what was the best action to take for the greater good of the community. Mr. Meeker said given that the group did not know if the road was going to be continued east into Beltline Highway over the long term, he would support building a three-lane road that stopped at the eastern boundary of the Post Office property. He underscored that the issue for him was how much the City should spend given that ODOr plans were as yet unknown. Mr. Hill agreed that property owners \-vould realize an increase in property values with road improve~ ments. He called the first proposal for rebuilding the road "overkill." He said, given that it was largely an industrial area, he did not see the point in building a bicycle path to the Beltline Highway. He believed that River Avenue could some day be a major thoroughfare, but would not become a major focus for bicyclists and pedestrians. Mr. Howard wanted to see fiscal responsibility in government projects. He opined that too many government projects were generated at a staff level without common sense. He repeated concerns about the future actions of ODOr as this could dramatically increase or decrease traffic on River A venue. He thought the City could create a bottleneck if it did not work with ODOr. Mr. Hoobyar observed that the group had a certain level of unanimity regarding a design option in which the road would be built out to the Post Office boundary or a little farther. He asked the group what idea made best sense to them. Ms. Damron asked that the property owners comment on the assessments. She suggested that the group go around the table and give comments. Ms. Rojas surmised that the group was not just concerned about assessments. She felt the larger concern revolved around the large cost of the project as currently proposed and whether the community was truly served by this. She noted that Mr. Meeker had indicated his willingness to pay the assessment if he was able to see the reason behind it. She supported designing a scaled back project on the portion of the road between the area that saw the greatest amount of activity and Beltline Highway. Mr. Howard supported creating a "reasonable" road design and opposed building something that could wind up being tom up in five years. Mr. Austin said it was both about assessment and design. He thought should ODOr close the onramp to Beltline Highway from River Avenue, there would be no need for three lanes on that end of the road. He MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group - Public Works Department August 30, 2005 Page 6