CC Minutes - 03/09/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark thought the council’s last changes to the assessment ordinance, with a couple of exceptions, had resulted in a fair policy because everyone paid for the curbs, gutters and roadbed in front of their property. He observed, however, that the assessment amounts were massively unaffordable and no one should lose their home or go bankrupt over a road improvement. He said neighbors could opt to not have the improve- ments done and as a councilor he would not override that decision. He preferred to have the council seek ways to make the project more affordable for property owners and favored strategies such as extending payment periods from 10 to 20 years and paying assessments upon sale of the property. He would support delaying the project until better financing mechanisms were in place. Mr. Poling did not feel the assessment policy was fair. He referred to a project on Arcadia Drive and said there were several neighborhoods that used Arcadia Drive for access, but they did not have to pay for any improvements. He wanted to see those who must use a street for access to share in the cost of improve- ments. He asked how a buyer would know if there was an irrevocable petition on a piece of property. Mr. Schoening said it would be shown on a title report. Mr. Poling said he was willing to delay projects until there could be changes to the ordinance to make the process more equitable. Mr. Zelenka commented that people living on improved streets had already paid for those improvements; people living on unimproved streets had yet to pay. He felt the policy was fair and owners would strongly object if they were assessed not only for improvement of the street in front of their property, but for improvement of nearby streets as well. He was willing to consider changes to the process, but there would always be those who thought the methodology was unfair, no matter what it was. He noted that fairness of the assessment policy was a completely different issue than the affordability of assessments and was willing to postpone projects while the council sought options to make it easier for people to pay assessment costs. He noted that the City wanted to classify streets in the Crest Drive project as collectors, which would have made them eligible for federal funding, but the neighbors had opposed that classification. Mr. Pryor distinguished between discussing assessment policies as they applied throughout the City and issues specific to the Crest Drive project. Regarding assessment policies, he was not certain whether it was fair as circumstances and costs had changed significantly since the ordinance was put in place. He was willing to review the assessment methodology to determine whether changes were necessary. He said the only option for the Crest Drive project was to postpone it until the council had an opportunity to review the current policies as he did not want to see people lose their homes. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Schoening explained that the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) would receive $6.5 million in federal transportation stimulus funds. He said the funds would be allocated among Lane County, Coburg, Springfield and Eugene. Staff had proposed funding $3 million in pavement preservation projects in the City of Eugene, consistent with council direction. He said the stimulus funds were subject to all federal requirements and pavement preservation projects were the easiest to get through the federal process because work occurred between the curbs of an existing, improved street and extensive environmental documentation was not required. He explained that property owners across the City paid for improvements on arterial and collector streets through transporta- tion system development charges (SDC) when a home was built; those funds were pooled to pay the community’s share of improvements on arterials and collectors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 8 Work Session