Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION <br /> Street Assessment Policy <br /> <br />City Engineer Mark Schoening used a slide presentation to provide an overview of the City’s street <br />assessment process, changes in 2000-2001, application of those changes and issues identified by the council. <br />He noted there were 75 miles of unimproved streets in Eugene. He described the regulatory authority for <br />street assessments and stated that the assessment procedure was governed by ordinance adopted by a two- <br />thirds council majority and effective six months after adoption. He reviewed details of the local improve- <br />ment process and formation of a local improvement district (LID). Owners of property bearing more than <br />half the estimated cost could oppose the LID and the council would make the final determination. He said <br />property owners could pay their assessments with personal financing or City financing and financial <br />assistance was available to qualified owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening explained changes in the assessment process to achieve greater fairness, including the <br />assessable costs, assessable frontage, equivalent assessments, street subsidy program, corner lots, primary <br />access and vacant or partially developed lots. He said the council had raised the following issues: <br /> <br />? <br /> Financing – extend payment period beyond 10 years, defer until sale of property <br />? <br /> LID boundaries – identify travelshed, include cul de sacs, include properties that must use street to access <br />property <br />? <br /> Individual properties – consider depth of property, benefit is the same regardless of frontage <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy thanked Mr. Schoening for explaining the assessment process. She said the City had made <br />efforts to be fair, but many people were facing difficult financial circumstances and property owners were <br />very concerned about the amount of their assessments. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor objected to the assessment methodology, which she felt was unfair and unjust. She said most <br />property owners would not qualify for the financial assistance options because of the low income require- <br />ments. She noted that assessments were levied at completion of a project and asked why changes to the <br />ordinance could not be enacted now, since the effective date in six months would still occur before the <br />completion date of projects begun this summer. City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the council could <br />change the code; the question was when the change would become effective. According to the Charter, code <br />changes became effective six months after adoption and would not apply to any improvements authorized by <br />the council prior to that effective date. He said if the council wished to make changes to the code that would <br />apply to projects like Crest Drive, those projects would have to be delayed until next summer. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Ruiz said that the council could change the assessment <br />methodology, but in order for them to apply to the Crest Drive project, that project would need to be <br />postponed until 2010. Mr. Schoening added that no-interest loans were possible, but a funding source for <br />the City to carry the interest was an issue. He said the City would sell bonds to finance the assessable <br />portion of the project and there would be interest on those bonds, but the City could pay the interest if a <br />funding source was available. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if federal stimulus funds could be used to finance the project. Mr. Schoening said they <br />could be used for street improvement projects, but were limited to streets classified as collectors and above. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />