Item 6: Resolution Forming LID for Crest Drive

Home Browse Search

I overheard a non-homeowner stranger in the eugene public library bragging about getting the remonsterance through and stopping how the city currently assesses & funds public road projects and get it changed. some of you councilors know the petition is due to a wish to change the funding structure of road improvements and want the structure to change, so you may be motivated to vote no to going forward on the project, Please don't take it out on the citizens. Accept responsibility for the past lack of city management and city councilor foresight to direct and take proactive steps to change that funding structure. Start now with a separate and distinct work group that is focused on changing the funding structure. Do not give up this over 6 year project and reduce the trust in contact sensitive design process and the city's integrity in fiscal responsibility and keeping their word (in a time when integrity and transparency are both important). we've heard that the person that started this remonstrance petition may stand to either be assessed because the chose to purchase alot of land/lots, and or they own land near the urban growth boundary - if the funding changes, they won't have to pay....look at this motivation be hind the petition. the longer you wait to take care of the roads, the more the cost increases.... oil, labor, insurance - you name it. don't increase the cost burden any more by further delays. This project was supposed to have been started in March 2009. If you had kept to the plan, this remonstrance would not have happened in the first place. the remonstrance motivation appears to be atleast 3+ fold (1) the city has not done it's job by proactively changing how road improvements are funded (look to best practices and I'd bet Eugene's practice is on the bottom of the list- lets get that on an internal auditor or state auditor's list...) (2) current practices in homeownership: finances of homeowners to be assessed- no home owner sets aside 500/mo to pay for eventual future road improvements... they pay mortgage payment, homeowners insurance, interest and property taxes... how can the city expect any homeowner/landowner to come up with 20k without a common practice in our country of doing that. (that's the cost of a college education, etc) the city's current funding model has unrealistic expectations given current societal homeownership practices (3) the person(s) who started it may stand to gain personally from a business (vs homeowner) perspective - if you stop this project, they won't get assessed and the city(someone else) will pay for improvements that allow them to gain when they develop their property and sell it... (4) i also heard a rumor that Mark Shonig's (sp) boss, who does not know the history of this project, is waiting for it to fail, so they can start over and go back to the beginning (collector) which is what started all the hoop-la in the beginning. Don't go there please. we are concerned that this vote comes at a time where there are new councilor who may lack sufficient history and awareness of this project. please review the files if you are a councilor that has not been watching this develop for the past 8 years - read everything from the beginning which includes having to move the assigned city staff Gary McNeal off the project because he wanted a neighborhood collector designations which the entire neighborhood (from those voting for the remonsterance and those who did not sign) and at that time did not have sufficient skills to work on the contact sensitive design