Laserfiche WebLink
paid off. Mr. Schoening acknowledged that staff had not discussed that question. Mr. Poling was <br />concerned about that as he expected other projects would require such subsidies. <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Ortiz about changing the program rules and indicated his opposition to the <br />motion. <br />Mr. Clark shared the concerns expressed by Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Poling but he also acknowledged greater <br />job volatility in the community. He was generally in favor of adjusting the criteria to account for a <br />person's current economic status. However, he was challenged by the fact the resolution appeared to <br />address one area of the community and a single project. Mr. Clark indicated he could support the motion <br />if changed to read ". . . for property owners subject to any future street improvement project assessment <br />to qualify for the Street Subsidy Program. " Mr. Klein indicated that would require another resolution <br />because there were no other street assessment projects where income as of April 11, 2011, was an <br />important factor. If the council chose that approach, it needed to direct staff to produce another <br />resolution, which would result in further delay to the Crest Drive assessments. He indicated the council <br />would act on the actual assessments once applications for the subsidy had been approved. <br />Mr. Clark said he was unsure about his position on the motion given his concern about changing the rules <br />as proposed and his concern about the affected residents. <br />Mr. Zelenka suggested the council could adjust the dates for future street assessment projects to <br />accomplish what Mr. Clark wanted to see happen. Mr. Schoening indicated that City policy would have <br />to be changed to accomplish that. Mr. Zelenka recalled that the council had recently changed the code to <br />increase the categories of those who could defer street assessments, which he suggested was also <br />changing the rules in midstream. He did not see much difference between that action and what the <br />council was considering now. <br />Mr. Zelenka thanked Ms. Taylor for bringing the issue up because it was a real issue for many residents <br />who had lost their jobs. <br />Mr. Farr determined from Mr. Schoening that 24 people affected by the Crest Drive project had qualified <br />for the subsidy for a total of $171,000. Mr. Farr determined from Mr. Schoening that there was no <br />difference between the project in question and the Elmira Street project in terms of the project assessment <br />structure. Some residents on Elmira qualified for the low- income subsidy while others financed the <br />improvement through the City. Mr. Schoening acknowledged those residents' financial situations could <br />have changed in the meantime. <br />Mr. Pryor thought the City's basic policy was a good one. He agreed that it was not usually a good thing <br />to change the rules in mid- stream because it created an appearance of inconsistency, but believed that <br />extraordinary economic circumstances justified the resolution in this instance. He would want more <br />discussion if additional changes were to occur. <br />Ms. Taylor said the proposal merely required the City to consider current, not past income. She <br />advocated for additional discussion of the subject. <br />The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. <br />Brown voting yes; Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Clark, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Poling voting no. Mayor <br />Piercy cast a vote of support and the motion passed a final vote of 5:4. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 27, 2011 Page 5 <br />Work Session <br />