Laserfiche WebLink
the assessments for the proposed LID. He asked for more information about the bond sales and the interim <br />interest rates. Regarding any recent developments on cul de sacs, he was pretty sure they were built under <br />the process that did not require paying prevailing wage, which would increase costs. <br /> <br />Joe Collins <br />, P.O. Box 2411, Ward 8, commented that the only time public hearings garnered this much <br />interest was when the Crest Drive people were present to complain about the cost of road improvements. He <br />understood that in 2004, the residents had opposed the road design and had initiated the collaborative <br />process to change the design. He said if anyone who had bought their house in the last five years did not <br />know they would be assessed for the road improvements, they should talk to their realtor. He would like to <br />thst <br />see the area residents pay their fair share and bring their roads “into at least the 20 century if not the 21.” <br />He was proud to live in a democracy, but he thought the “Crest Drive juggernaut” had taken too much of the <br />City Council’s time. He opined that the people in that area were wealthy and that was why they would not <br />take no for an answer and would not give up. He wanted the council to work harder for the poor of Eugene. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing and opened the floor for comments from the council. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their testimony. She recalled that the Crest Drive area residents had <br />come forward and asked that the council not designate Crest Drive as a collector because they wanted to <br />have control over the design. She said at the time she had felt hesitant because of the high traffic use of the <br />road, but she had voted to support it because that was what the neighborhood residents had wanted. She <br />related that in listening to the testimony, it seemed to her that people did not want to pay at all for road <br />assessments. Regarding the suggestion that the whole city be assessed for road improvements, she pointed <br />to the recent testimony in opposition of the garbage hauler fee, which would have cost residents approx- <br />imately 98 cents. She did not believe that a citywide assessment would get any traction at all. She also did <br />not think a “no build” was an option. She felt the question was how to offset the costs and indicated that she <br />would look to giving direction, pending legality, as to how cul de sacs could be included for assessments <br />when the policy was revisited. She said they should also determine how others could donate for an LID they <br />were not being assessed for and whether a change in the assessment structure could be retroactive to the <br />present projects. She asked staff also to look into how the interest rate on the loans from the City to help <br />with assessments could be lowered. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon asked why the changes in the estimate were distributed differently between the City and <br />the neighborhood residents. Mr. Schoening replied that the City had first developed the cost estimate of <br />$5.75 million two years earlier based upon a conceptual design and costs in the past. He related that as the <br />City moved forward with construction, it received bids from contractors who based their bids in a more <br />forward-looking way. He stated that the project consisted of “over a hundred different items” in the bid <br />schedule. He said the items in the City’s share were different from the items that were assessable. He <br />explained that following a complex code, as had happened after the project was opened for bids, resulted in <br />the total project costs going down, with the City’s share and the assessed share both decreasing, but the <br />assessed share by a smaller percentage. He commented that there was no easily explainable answer. <br /> <br />City Manager Jon Ruiz asked if there was an example of an item for which the City would pay 100 percent. <br />Mr. Schoening could not think of a specific example, but one example of a shared cost was asphalt. He said <br />when the estimates were developed the asphalt prices had skyrocketed but, at present, the prices were at their <br />lowest in years. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark expressed appreciation for everyone’s testimony. He asked staff to review for him the <br />ramifications of delaying the road improvements so that the policy could be revisited. Mr. Schoening <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 9 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />