Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

streets and consciously develop a project so that one street was not assessed repeatedly. Mr. Clark thought that seemed fundamentally inequitable. Mr. Clark did not favor bringing unimproved streets into the city without a plan to improve them. Mr. Poling noted that the streets the subcommittee examined were already inside the city. Mr. Clark continued to question how property owners living on cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets were not paying twice. Mr. Poling said the subcommit- tee’s recommendation was based on the fact that the only way those residents could reach their homes was via the improved road, so they benefitted from the improvement. City Attorney Kathryn Brotherton clarified that such residents were not paying twice for the same thing; they had paid for the construction of their own cul-de-sac or dead- end road, and were now being asked to share in the costs of improving a street that their property’s accessibility depended on. Mr. Clark suggested the approach was arbitrary based on the fact that staff could select the scope of the project. City Attorney Brotherton did not believe the approach was arbitrary; she said she was hearing from staff that when it scoped projects, it would attempt to be as equitable as possible. Ms. Solomon reminded Mr. Clark that the City Council approved the parameters of the LID and could make adjustments to the LID boundaries. She suggested that removed any arbitrariness from the process. Mr. Poling did not think the City could create LIDs with overlapping boundaries. Mr. Schoening concurred. Mr. Zelenka joined the meeting via speakerphone. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Schoening acknowledged the possibility that in the example given, someone living on the improved cul-de-sac would be included in the LID but would not witness any construction on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Pryor did not want to see someone have to pay twice. He suggested in such cases, the RAU be fractionalized to recognize that. Mayor Piercy arrived. Mr. Pryor observed that given the City paid half the cost of improving an unimproved collector, all properties in Eugene were sharing in the cost. At the request of Mr. Brown, Mr. Schoening identified the properties that would be assessed in the Jeppeson Acres example. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Schoening said that it would staff’s intent that unimproved cul-de- sacs were improved at the same time as unimproved collectors. Mr. Zelenka asked if Mr. Schoening could imagine a situation where that would not be the case. Mr. Schoening said no. Ms. Ortiz thanked the subcommittee for its work. She observed many cul-de-sacs were paved but lacked curbs, gutters, and sidewalks and asked if property owners living on such facilities who did not want those amenities would have to pay the same for their improvement as those living on the unimproved collector. Mr. Schoening indicated that the council would decide whether to accept the staff recommendation or exclude the cul-de-sac. He suggested the council would exclude the cul-de-sac from the improvement but not the assessment. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that generally, people did not walk around cul-de-sacs and she envisioned that the council could direct staff to modify the project to eliminate sidewalks. She asked if the level of assessment would be commensurate to the improvement enjoyed by the property owner or if all property owners in an LID would be assessed equally. Mr. Schoening said that if the facility was defined as fully improved so that no further modifications were envisioned, all would share equally in the cost. Mr. McVey indicated it was possible to have a variable assessment dependent on the types of improvements associated with individual lots; while all may share in the overall cost of the main street improvement, MINUTES—City Council September 22, 2010 Page 3 Work Session