Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

that all three of the projects had come in under the engineers’ estimate. He said some of the funding for the projects came from stormwater SDCs and transportation SDCs, which had City and state regulatory restrictions as to how they were used and could not be used to buy down assessments. He explained that a portion of the funds that had been appropriated for the Crest Drive LID, the county road funds and delayed assessments, could be used to buy down the assessment on one or all three of the projects. He noted that this amounted to $500,000. Councilor Clark thought that if they aided people in paying assessments on one project, they should do so for all three of the projects. He reiterated that the issue of affordability was significant. He felt that the policy in question was not as important as not putting a person out of their house in order to fix a road. Councilor Taylor averred that there must be a way to make the assessments less burdensome. She suggested that the City Manager and City Attorney should try to figure it out. She believed that the project needed to happen. She had been disappointed to learn that it would take six months for a change in the assessment policy to be enacted after the council voted to change it. She said area residents would welcome contribu- tions from anyone who wanted to help with their assessments. She noted that such a donation was a tax deduction. She understood that it would be possible to change the interest rate for the financing through the City. She said she would like to see the City provide loans with no interest. Mr. Schoening clarified that the eight percent interest rate that was established by administrative order was the interim rate from the time assessments were levied until the City sold bonds, approximately six months. He said for the remainder of the payback period, the interest rate would be based on what the market rate was. He said staff was committed to reviewing the interim interest rate so that it would relate more to the current market rate. Councilor Poling thanked everyone for their testimony, and also for their emails. He had appreciated the comments of councilors Ortiz, Solomon, and Clark. He asked if it would be legal to grandfather in existing projects if the council changed the assessment policy. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that it was not. He stressed that under the City Charter an ordinance could only be enacted six months after a vote and could not be retroactive. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Poling, Mr. Klein replied that citizens could remonstrate for any reason and did not have to be specific. He also clarified that there were no rules to govern how someone collecting signatures for remonstrance could or should present the issue. Councilor Poling understood that state laws and City ordinances dictated that the City’s portion could only be used for certain things in certain amounts. Mr. Schoening responded that this was true on the Maple Street/Elmira Road project and the Chad Drive/Old Coburg Road project because the City’s share of that project was from transportation SDCs. He said all three project utilized stormwater SDC funds. The SDC monies could not be used to help buy down assessments. Councilor Poling recalled that the first conversation he had on the City Council was in regard to the assessment policy and Arcadia Drive. He said a number of streets needed upgrading. He did not believe it was fair for a street to foot the whole bill when other side streets and cul de sacs only had egress via the street that was being assessed. He hoped that they could consider the policy and move to change it faster than some issues had taken in the past. Councilor Clark concurred. He also wanted to expedite the conversation on assessments. He said there were many streets in his ward that were unimproved. He recalled that if the owners of over 50 percent of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 10 Public Hearing