Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Taylor hoped the council would approve the ordinance in accordance with the committee's <br />consensus recommendations. In regard to the item on which the committee did not reach consensus, she <br />continued to prefer the area approach. <br />Councilor Poling asked if a resident living on an unimproved street would be assessed less for a <br />neighborhood collector than for a residential street. Mr. Schoening said the answer depended on the <br />nature of the improvement. The theory behind the methodology was that everyone paid about the same. <br />He acknowledged it was possible the assessment could be less because residents living on a collector <br />would be assessed for ten feet and residents living on a local street would be assessed the full width, <br />although the street width was likely to be 20 feet. <br />Councilor Clark indicated his preference for the frontage approach. <br />Councilors Ortiz, Pryor, and Zelenka indicated they had not yet reached a position on the issue of area <br />versus frontage. <br />Councilor Poling favored the half - frontage, half -area approach because it "struck a middle ground." He <br />referred to the examples provided by staff and pointed out there was not much difference in the cost of the <br />assessment to the property owner. Regarding the issue of dead end streets and cul -de -sacs, Councilor <br />Poling indicated he was willing to reduce the assessment but believed those property owners still <br />benefited because they had to use other streets to reach their houses. He proposed they should be assessed <br />75 percent of the full assessment. <br />Councilor Taylor believed the council should act before Councilor Solomon's term ended, given all the <br />work she had put into the issue. She agreed with Councilor Poling that residents living on cul -de -sacs and <br />dead -ends benefited from road improvement projects and further did not have to put up with the <br />construction involved. She supported charging those residents, and was willing to accept the combination <br />frontage -area approach described in the agenda item summary. <br />City Manager Ruiz indicated staff could return with three separate ordinances for the council to choose <br />from on December 13. <br />Councilor Clark was unable to support assessing residents who lived on already improved dead end streets <br />and cul -de -sacs because those residents had already paid for the street in front of their house. <br />Councilor Solomon indicated support for the combination frontage -area approach. She recalled the <br />subcommittee was in unanimous agreement that those living on cul -de -sacs and dead -ends served by road <br />that were to be improved should be assessed, and said she could support assessing those residents 75 <br />percent of what residents directly benefitting would pay. <br />Councilor Taylor did not think the assessment system would ever be totally fair. Referring to the Crest <br />Drive improvement, she said many of those most insistent on improving the street did not live on it and <br />did not have to pay anything. However, they had to use those streets to access their homes and benefitted <br />as much as anyone. <br />Councilor Pryor said he was tentatively inclined toward Ms. Solomon's position regarding cul -de -sacs and <br />dead -end streets. He asked how often there were improved cul -de -sacs served by unimproved streets. Mr. <br />Schoening indicated that was a fairly common situation. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 15, 2010 Page 3 <br />Public Hearing <br />