Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

process to change the design. He said if anyone who had bought their house in the last five years did not know they would be assessed for the road improvements, they should talk to their realtor. He would like to thst see the area residents pay their fair share and bring their roads “into at least the 20 century if not the 21.” He was proud to live in a democracy, but he thought the “Crest Drive juggernaut” had taken too much of the City Council’s time. He opined that the people in that area were wealthy and that was why they would not take no for an answer and would not give up. He wanted the council to work harder for the poor of Eugene. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing and opened the floor for comments from the council. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their testimony. She recalled that the Crest Drive area residents had come forward and asked that the council not designate Crest Drive as a collector because they wanted to have control over the design. She said at the time she had felt hesitant because of the high traffic use of the road, but she had voted to support it because that was what the neighborhood residents had wanted. She related that in listening to the testimony, it seemed to her that people did not want to pay at all for road assessments. Regarding the suggestion that the whole city be assessed for road improvements, she pointed to the recent testimony in opposition of the garbage hauler fee, which would have cost residents approx- imately 98 cents. She did not believe that a citywide assessment would get any traction at all. She also did not think a “no build” was an option. She felt the question was how to offset the costs and indicated that she would look to giving direction, pending legality, as to how cul de sacs could be included for assessments when the policy was revisited. She said they should also determine how others could donate for an LID they were not being assessed for and whether a change in the assessment structure could be retroactive to the present projects. She asked staff also to look into how the interest rate on the loans from the City to help with assessments could be lowered. Councilor Solomon asked why the changes in the estimate were distributed differently between the City and the neighborhood residents. Mr. Schoening replied that the City had first developed the cost estimate of $5.75 million two years earlier based upon a conceptual design and costs in the past. He related that as the City moved forward with construction, it received bids from contractors who based their bids in a more forward-looking way. He stated that the project consisted of “over a hundred different items” in the bid schedule. He said the items in the City’s share were different from the items that were assessable. He explained that following a complex code, as had happened after the project was opened for bids, resulted in the total project costs going down, with the City’s share and the assessed share both decreasing, but the assessed share by a smaller percentage. He commented that there was no easily explainable answer. City Manager Jon Ruiz asked if there was an example of an item for which the City would pay 100 percent. Mr. Schoening could not think of a specific example, but one example of a shared cost was asphalt. He said when the estimates were developed the asphalt prices had skyrocketed but, at present, the prices were at their lowest in years. Councilor Clark expressed appreciation for everyone’s testimony. He asked staff to review for him the ramifications of delaying the road improvements so that the policy could be revisited. Mr. Schoening explained that the City Charter required that changes to the assessment code be done by general ordinance and that they do not go into effect for six months after enactment. He said they would not be able to form an LID under a changed policy until after it had been in effect for six months. Councilor Clark underscored that delaying the project would mean it would not be initiated until the next year. He then asked if it was within the council’s purview to direct that the initial money budgeted be restored to the project and to use the extra monies to help buy down assessments. Mr. Schoening responded that this was part of the discussion the council engaged in at the work session in March, 2009. He stated MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 9 Public Hearing