HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4 - PH on River Ave.LIDEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Public Hearing: Resolution 4831 Forming a Local Improvement District For Paving,
Constructing Curbs and Gutters, Sidewalks, Pedestrian Medians, Street Lights, and
Stormwater Drainage on River Avenue From 200 Feet East of River Road to 100 Feet
West of Beltline Highway
Meeting Date: April 11, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 4
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Michelle Cahill
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-6855
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
The public hearing is to gather testimony in advance of the consideration of the River Avenue
Transportation Improvements by the City Council on April 20, 2005. The public hearing is continued
before the City Council as required by code when a remonstrance is made by the owners of property that
would bear more than half the amount estimated to be assessed to finance the improvement. The first
public hearing for the improvements was held July 28, 2004, and closed August 3, 2004, and owners of
property that would bear 51.4% of the estimated assessable amount remonstrated. The minutes from the
first hearing, dated June 28, 2004, (minutes date is incorrect, meeting held July 28) along with copies of
the remonstrances are included in Exhibit A. The resolution providing final approval of the
improvements, forming a Local Improvement District LID for paving, constructing sidewalks, curbs,
gutters, pedestrian medians, street lights, and stormwater drainage on River Avenue from 200 feet east
of River Road to 100 feet west of Beltline Highway and authorizing award of the construction contract
is Exhibit B. This resolution is scheduled for adoption April 20, 2005. Additionally, two property
owners submitted information to be submitted for consideration at the April 11, 2005, Public Hearing.
This information is included as Exhibit C. A vicinity map is included as Exhibit D.
BACKGROUND
This project was initiated by City Council action on June 26, 2000, by adoption of the 2001 Capital
Budget and pursuant to Section 7.160(5) of the Eugene Code (EC), 1971.
This improvement project has been included in the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan first
adopted in 1986 and subsequently updated and adopted.
This project is designed in accordance with the adopted Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan
(ACSP). The standards outlined in the ACSP for this street are the same as Lane County standards.
In September 2004, the council considered annexation of the ten unincorporated properties subsequent
to Lane County denial of providing the City the authority to include unincorporated properties in the
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050411\S0504114.doc
LID. The council voted against pursuing an island annexation. Lane County has subsequently
(February 2005) authorized the City to include unincorporated properties in the LID and be assessed per
Eugene Code.
The total project cost is estimated at $2,269,502.16, and is funded from several sources in the following
approximate amounts:
Assessments $1,067,627.86 (47%)
City of Eugene $1,201,874.31 (53%)
Assessments are anticipated to be levied following the completion of construction. Following the levy
of assessments, ten-year financing through the City of Eugene will be available for owners of properties
being assessed for this local improvement.
The City of Eugene funding includes transportation and stormwater system development charge funds,
and stormwater utility funds.
River Avenue is major collector located on the north side of Eugene, running parallel to and then
connecting to Beltline Road. River Avenue also connects to River Road, Division Avenue, and Beaver
Street, and is one of only three ways to cross Beltline Road between the Northwest Expressway and the
River. As a result of increased use, the existing roadbed is deteriorating and needs to be upgraded. In
addition, development in this general area and two connection points to the Ruth Bascom Riverbank
Trail System is creating a need to accommodate a variety of transportation users, including bicyclist, bus
riders, pedestrians, and motorists for current and future needs. The land use is primarily commercial,
government (MWMC Water Pollution Control Facility) and multifamily residential.
Bids were opened on July 7, 2004, with Babb Construction Co. (dba Delta Construction Co. and dba
Delta Concrete) as the apparent low bidder. The contractor has agreed to extend time for consideration
of the bid, keeping the 2004 contract prices, until May 2005. The initial LID formation hearing was
held on July 28, 2004, to review the bid information, confirm whether the LID should be formed and to
identify any special conditions that should be included in the resolution forming the LID. Eight property
owners attended the hearing. At the request of the property owners, the hearing was left open until
August 3 and on that date the City received remonstrances from owners of property that would bear
51.4% of the proposed assessments. Eugene Code states when the owners of property that would bear
more than half the amount estimated to be assessed to finance the improvement remonstrate the public
hearing is continued before the City Council. The property owners were notified of the pending LID
hearing ten days prior to the hearing as required by Eugene Code.
If the LID is approved by City Council, the improvement project is expected to commence this
construction season and property owners will not be assessed until after the completion of the project,
anticipated to be fall 2005.
All necessary steps have been completed as prescribed by the Eugene Code for the initiation and
formation of an LID. The council is scheduled to consider the resolution April 20, 2005.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050411\S0504114.doc
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Improvement to River Avenue from 200 feet east of River Road to 100 feet west of Beltline Highway
addresses the council goal for Safe Community by improving street safety for the current and future
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular needs along River Avenue.
OPTIONS
Not applicable; this is a public hearing only.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable; this is a public hearing only.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Not applicable; this is a public hearing only.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Hearings Official Minutes and remonstrances
B. Resolution
C. Submittals from property owners
D. Vicinity Map
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Michelle Cahill
Telephone: 682-6855
Staff E-Mail: michelle.r.cahill~ci, eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050411\S0504114.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Exhibit A
MINUTES
Local Improvement District Formation
Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Pedestrian Median, Street Lights,' and Stormwater
Drainage on River Avenue from 200 feet East of River Road to 100 feet west of Beltline
Highway.
June 28, 2004 Public Hearing
The hearing began at 6:15 after an initial wait for all the expected members of the
public to appear. Hearings Official Milo Mecham began the hearing with an introduction
outlining the purpose of the hearing and tho expected process after the hearing. Present at
the hearing representing the City of Eugene were Principal Civil Engineer Michelle
Cahill and Project Engineer'Joe Ramirez.
Principal Civil Engineer Michelle Cahill described the project, which involv'es
street improvements, the installation of sidewalks, curbs and gntters,:streetlights,
pedestrian medians and stormwater drainage along River Avenue. Ms. Cahill explained
that the project was initiated when the Council included it within the 2001 Capital
Budget. The City Engineering Department developed a preliminary design and
introduced it to the property owners along River Avenue in a series of informational
letters and a local meeting in the area. Ms. Cahill explained that River Avenue is
classified as major collector street, with traffic volumes in the mid range ofmaj0r
collector standards on the west end. Despite the volume, River Avenue is a narrow,
deteriorating and dangerous street. In addition to the vehicular traffic, there are
pedestrians, persons in wheelchairs and bicyclists using the street, even though there are
no sidewalks.
Ms. C .ahill also provided information about the proposed Local Improvement
District. There are fifty properties along River Avenue adjacent to the improvement area.
Ten of the properties are in Lane County, but not within the City. Assessment of these
properties must be approved by the Lane County Commissioners.
Principal Civil Engineer Cahill described the intended progress of the proposed
improvements. It is expected that the project will begin this year, but will not be
completed during this construction season. Work will commence again next construction
season (2005) and should be completed during 2005. Final assessments will be
calculated in late 2005 or early 2006. Ms. Cahill characterized the main public concern
that had been expressed as Centering around the fact that ODOT has recently announced
that it will' begin to study the question of improvements to Beltline in 2008.
Principal Civil Engineer Michelle Cahill concluded her remarks by describing the
proposed distribution of costs for the project. The total cost of the project is estimated to
be approximately $2,269,502. Properties along River Avenue will be assessed for a
portion of the proposed pavement improvements, related to the zOned use of the property.
Residentially zoned properties will be assessed for the cost of seven feet of the pavement
improvements, and for sidewalk improvements. Commercial, industrial and public
property will be assessed for a ten foot pavement width, and for sidewalk improvements.
Ms. Cahill indicated that just over half of the total cost of the project would paid by the
City of Eugene, using revenues from transportation systems development charges.
Several of the property owners, or their representatives, were present at the
hearing. Property owners present included Gordon B. Howard, Michael Keamey (an
attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Meeker), Lloyd Henson, Theresa Slocum, Charles Meeker and
Patt Meeker. Present representing the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission were Todd Anderson (City of Eugene) and Steve Templin (City of
Springfield). As Ms. Cahill was concluding her remarks about the City's proposed share
of the cost of the project, Mr. Lloyd Henson pointed out that developers in the City,
including property owners along River Avenue had akeady paid a portion of the cost of
the project by paying SDCs. In response to a question as to what SDCs were, Ms. Cahill
explained that SDCs were charges levied on development within the City to have these
developments pay a portion of the costs of the public infrastructure that the development
would use. Ms. Cahill acknowledged that any recent development along River Avenue
would have contributed to the City's SDC accounts. Ms. Cahill reminded the audience
that these SDC cllarges served many purposes, so SDC payments by development along
River Avenue would have contributed to infrastructure improvements throughout the '
City, and developments elsewhere would be contributing a portion of their payments to
the River Avenue improvements.
A general discussion of several aspects of the project followed, with property
owners quickly making statements and asking questions on a range of issues, and Ms.
Cahill and Project Engineer Joe Ramirez answering each question in turn. The first
question concerned why the costs were to be divided in the way proposed, with property
owners paying nearly half the cost of the project. Ms. Cahill explained that the process
for division of costs was set by the Eugene Code, which states that property owners
adjacent to a major collector will pay for either seven or ten feet of pavement width,
depending on the zoning of the property, and which calls for the City to pay for many of
the improvements that are called for by established street improvement standards. This
led to a question about the need for many of the improvements. The questioner wondered
about the need for amenities such as sidewalks, when there were no pedestrian oriented
businesses along the street. Ms. Cahill explained that the street improvements were
designed according to established standards, some set by federal regulations, others
adopted standards of the City. These standards called for the installation of sidewalks,
curbs and gutters, street trees and other design elements incorporated into the project.
Ms. Cahill also pointed out that there were many pedestrians along a portion of the street,
as well as many bicyclists who used River Avenue as a means to gain access to the
Willamette River and the bicycle path along the River.
Ms. Cahill was asked about the presentation that was made to the Lane County
Commissioners, and what would happen if the Commissioners said that the properties
outside the City limits could not be assessed. Ms. Cahill characterized the discussion
before the Commissioners as being concerned primarily with the differences in
philosophy toward street assessments. Ms. Cahill acknowledged that if the
Commissioners chose to not allow the properties outside the City to be assessed, it would
cause the City to re-examine the project as a whole. This might or might not delay
.further work on the project. Ms. Cahill indicated that the City might still have options
that would allow the project to move forward, such as a delayed assessment on the
properties that are outside the City but will eventually be brought inside the City limits.
One property owner announced that he was concerned because of what he
perceived to be the excessive amounts of the City's estimated costs. He announced that
he had gotten a contractor's 'estimate for the proposed first seven feet out f~om his
property that was considerably less than the City's estimate. Ms; Cahill and the Hearings
Official explained that the proposed assessment was not for the first seven feet of the
City's right of way, but, for residentially zoned property, was for seven feet of the total
pavement width of the major collector street. Other property owners insisted that it was
inevitable that the City's costs would be higher than the cost of a private contractor. Ms.
Cahill acknowledged that the City set high standardS for street construction, but also
noted that the City had put the project out for bid and was using the low bid submitted.
One property owner indicated his opinion that it was unfair to assess commercial
property for ten feet of paving, but to also remove parking opportunities along the street.
He indicated that he felt that arriving customers should be able to park on the street, and
that the effect of the proposed design, with its curbs and gutters, would limit street
parking in front of his business. Ms. Cahill responded by indicating the Project
Engineer's willingness to meet with property owners on design refinements. The
property owner responded that he did not feel that many of the design decisions that the
City had made were appropriate. While he acknowledged such requirements as the
Disability Act, he did not feel that the City needed such wide sidewalks as proposed
because he felt no one ever used the sidewalk. Ms. Cahill indicated that the City was
required to follow the design standards for a major collector street. The property owner
disputed the assertion that it was a major collector. Ms. Cahill indicated that this was
based on traffic counts along River Avenue.
The next series of questions was sparked by a question fi'om Theresa Slocum
concerning the perceived danger of making improvements now only to have them
displaced by a decision by ODOT to close the River Avenue Beltline interchange. Ms.
Cahill acknowledged that in the past here have been suggestions that ODOT would want
to shut off the River Avenue Beltline interchange. Ms. Cahill pointed out that even
though this has been talked about in the past,' the newest proposed study will not be
started until 2008. Ms. Cahill noted that the proposed improvements to River Avenue
had been delayed in the past by this same speculation, which had not proven valid. Ms.
Cahill felt that it was unlikely that ODOT would decide to close the River Avenue
entrance, because of the importance of the entrance for local businesses. Ms. Cahill also
noted that the high rate of use of River Avenue, not only by vehicles but also by
bicyclists and pedestrians, and the unsafe conditions of an unimproved River Avenue,
were unlikely to change no matter what steps ODOT took. For that reason, the City had
determined that it was appropriate to start improvements on River Avenue.
The final series of general questions concerned the remonstrance process.
Property owners asked if this was the meeting where remonstrances were expected. Ms.
Cahill and the Hearings Officer responded that it was. Other property owners asked what
the remonstrance process involved. The Hearings Official explained that the
remonstrance process was described in the Eugene Code. Remonstrance was a formal
process of a property owner expressing a written objection to the proposed local
improvement district. The Code also provided guidance on the impact of the
remonstrance. If property owners representing half the proposed assessment sign
remonstrances, the hearing will be concluded and the matter will be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration of the proposed improvement and the remonstrances that have
been filed. Ms. Cahill explained that remonstrances do not require the Council to delay
or deny the project, they only require special consideration by the Council.
To make certain that each property owner had a chance to speak, the Hearings
Official then asked each property owner to take tums speaking or asking questions. The
Hearings Official asked Mr. Gordon Howard to begin. Mr. Howard began by asking that
the hearing be extended to allow time for additional consideration of several matters. Mr.
Howard expressed concern that property owners along River Avenue had not understood
that the hearing was the appropriate time to file remonstrances, and that the hearing
should therefore be extended. The Hearings Official deferred a decision on this matter
until other property owners had had an opportunity to speak on this matter.
Mr. Howard also asked that the hearing be extended because his estimated
assessments had recently been increased. Mr. Howard had requested the installation of a
storm drain system to allow storm drainage runoff to be captured from his house. He had
recently been told that the amount of the proposed assessment would increase, and had
only the day before learned that the proposed increase was because of a change in the
preliminary design of the proposed storm drain manhole. Project engineer Joe Ramirez
acknowledged that the storm drain extension had been redesigned. Mr. Ramirez
explained that the storm drain had been moved to avoid conflicts with other utilities in
the ground. Mr. Howard stated his objection to having to pay an additional amount
because the City had chosen to shift the location of the storm drain system.
Mr. Howard also explained that he would like a postponement so that he could
have a final determination of whether he was actually required to put in a storm drain.
Mr. Howard explained that he had been told by the City Permit and Information Division
that he would have to install a storm drain to capture runoff when the property was
developed according to its zoning designation as commercial. At the same time, Mr.
Howard explained, he had been told by the engineers that a storm drain for his property
was not necessary because of the flat topography of the area. Mr. Howard requested that
he be given a straight answer about the need for a storm drain. Ms. Cahill and Mr.
Ramirez responded that they could not guarantee any particular answer from the Planning
Division, but that they understood that the need for stormwater system connection for Mr.
Howards's property was necessitated by the current Eugene Code. Ms. Cahill offered to
· work with Mr. Howard to try to get what he would accept as a definitive answer from the
Planning Division.
Mr. Howard also objected that his property was being assessed because it was
zoned, commercial even though it had always only contained a residence. Ms. Cahill
explained that the assessment was based on the intended use of the property., and not a
temporary use. Just as Mr. Howard was having storm water assessments directly charged
to his property because of the potential for future development, so the City sought to
assess the drainage charged based on the likely maximum use of the property, as
specified in the Eugene Code.
Mr. Howard also objected to the fact that he was being charged an additional
amount because of the street trees and other improvements that were not the subject of
general assessment. Ms. Cahill acknowledged that it was established policy that in
circumstances where direct charges were assessed, there was a component of charges for
all project costs. Mr. Howard had requested the storm drain be installed at this time
because it would avoid the potential of larger charges in the future when the property
developed. This request led to a direct charge for Mr. Howard's property, and the direct
charges reflected a proportional charged based on the total improvement costs. This
process was set forth in the Eugene Code.
With the exception of the question of remonstrances, the Heatings Official did
grant the requested extension of time to file remonstrances. After hearing additional
details concerning Mr. Howard's request for an extension of the hearing, the Hearings
Official was of the opinion that a resolution of the matters would not affect the process,
and, for that reason an extension would not be appropriate. The Hearings Official stated
that there were alw~tys a series of changes to be expected in a project as it moved
forward. Therefore the proposed assessment was not a final and binding amount on the
project. Final assessments and charges would be resolved after the project was
completed. Resolution of some of the particular concerns were a matter of policy- such
as the assessment according the property's zoning - which could only be resolved by the
City Council. Resolution of some questions, such as whether a storm drain extension was
necessary for Mr. Howard's property, would have to be resolved by the Planning
Division. Ms. Cahill's offer to request clarification would help, but ultimately Mr.
Howard must decide the matter for himself, as he has done on a preliminary basis by
.requesting the storm drain lateral extension.
Mr. Charles Meeker was the next property owner to respond with specific
questions. His initial concern was with the matter of the utility relocation. Mr. Meeker
was concerned that property owners would be 'assessed for a City choice as to which trees
would be cut down. Ms. Cahill and Mr. Ramirez explained that the City was not being
charged for EWEB movement of the utility poles. The City had not actually decided
which trees should be removed. The trees that were "spared" were on the grounds of the
MWMC plant, and had been retained at the request of MWMC because of their
relationship to the operation of the wastewater treatment plant. Ms. Cahill reviewed the
utility charges that were listed among the project costs, and determined that these charges
were for new utility meters for the street lights, and did not involve the relocation of the
power lines.
Mr. Lloyd Henson raised concerns about the design of the street, especially the
proposed curbs and gutters. He felt that a more appropriate design would be the
elimination of the curbs and gutters, to be replaced by swales and "dry wells" to deal with
stormwater runoff. Mr. Henson sited the example of the development of Highway 99 as
an indication of the value of alternative stormwater systems. Eugene Principal Civil
Engineer Cahill discussed the Highway 99 improvements, acknowledging their use of
swales, and discussed some of the other methods besides curbs and gutters for useful
stormwater management. Ms. Cahill explained how the City must follow state
regulations, which have changed recently with regard to storm drainage. Mr. Hensen
went on to question the reasonableness of the project. He doubted the need for pedestrian
and bicycle amenities, stating that there are few pedestrians and that bicycles would only
be encouraged to use the sidewalks and thus endanger pedestrians. Mr. Hensen also
questioned the need to put in a street developed to the highest City standards.
Property owner Theresa Slocum asked why the City has already started the
project when it was unsure of the funding for the project. She pointed to the engineering
and predesign work that had gone on even though the local improvement district had not
been formed. Ms. Cahill explained that the project had been approved and the City did
know how it was going to be paid for. Ms. Cahill explained that the Council allowed the
design work to be done in advance of the question of formation of an LID so that the
project could be appropriately designed, and so that public input could be taken on the
project scope before the bids were let and the local improvement district formed.
Ms. Slocum indicated that she felt that it was inappropriate to move forward with
the project until questions were resolved about what ODOT would do concerning the
Beltline, River Avenue interchange. Ms. Slocum felt that changes by ODOT could affect
the status of River Avenue and could result in it being down-graded from a major
collector to something less. Principal Engineer Cahill acknowledged the concern, and
reiterated the City's conclusions that the project was appropriate even if ODOT made
changes to Beltline four or five years from now. Ms. Slocum also suggested that
sidewalks were only necessary along one side of River Avenue. She indicated that, in her
opinion, the businesses along the north side of the Avenue are not pedestrian oriented and
it is unlikely that this would change even in the long term. Ms. Slocum acknowledged
that the portion of River Avenue closer to River Road needed sidewalks for pedestrians,
but felt that the eastern portion did not need sidewalks.
Finally, Ms. Slocum indicated that she agreed with other requests to postpone
further consideration of the proposed local improvement district. Ms. Slocum felt that
the notice had not explained in enough detail what property owner's rights of
remonstrance were, so that she had not come prepared to file a remonstrance.
The final property owner represented at the hearing was the MWMC, represented
by Steve Templin, a civil engineer from the City of Springfield, and Todd Anderson from
the City of Eugene. Mr. Templin explained the MWMC position, which was that the
project represented a desirable upgrade in the area around the MWMC plant.
The one remaining issue was the question of remonstrances. No property owner
submitted a remonstrance. Several property owners indicated that they had not
understood that the time of the hearing was their opportunity to do so. The Hearings
Officer and the property owners discussed the nature of a remonstrance, the language of
the notice of the hearing, the proper form of a remonstrance and the need for additional
opportunity to file remonstrances. It was agreed that the word remonstrance is not a
commonly used or understood phrase. The property owners acknowledged that they had
not attempted to investigate the process or ask what the reference to remonstrances in the
notice meant. The Hearings Official allowed property owners some additional time to
file remonstrances, allowing property owners until 5 p.m. on Tuesday August 3 to file
remonstrances. An acceptable remonstrance was defined as a written statement of
objection to the proposed local improvement district formation. The remonstrance should
· indicate which property is owned by the signatory. If there are multiple Owners of a
property, a signature by one owner will be counted proportionately to the owner's share
of ownership. Husbands and wives can sign the same remonstrance.
In response to questions, the Hearings Official and the property owners discussed
the ramifications of remonstrances. The Eugene Code sets the threshold for a meaningful
number of remonstrances to be remonstrances reflecting fifty (50) percent of the
proposed assessments. Remonstrances at or above this level do not have a particular
guaranteed effect on the project. That many remonstrances mean that the hearing will be
referred to the Council for special consideration. The Council may decide to continue the
process or not. Property owners need to understand that remonstrances may only have
the effect of delaying the project and the assessments, which may mean that the final cost
will be higher.
There being no further questions, the hearing ended at approximately 8:50 p.m.
14:16 FROM:SHILO I~4 THE DRLLES 5418g~4675 ~. T0:$416888942 P.1/1
Notice of Remonstrance
Notice of Remonstrance
City of Eugene Public Works Department
Attn. Michelle Cahill / Joe Ramirez
City of Eugene Public Works Department 244 East Broadway
At~ Michelle Cahill / Joe Bsrn~rez Eugene, Oregon 97401
244 East Broadway
Eugene, Oregon 97401
I ~)0F4'~c .~ -~-2~,2]4'' ~-~ ~-q~', do hereby remonstrate against the City of
Eugene project'S693 which proposes to form a Local Improvement District on River
I 1-.>P~,~ ~ ~1. 14,ut_ . do hereby remonstrate against the City of Avenue in Eugene Oregon. The road improvement project as currently drawn is excessive
Eugene lxojecr i~ 3693 which proposes to form a Local Improvement District on River
Avenue in Eugene Oregon. The road improvement project as currently drawn is excessive and un-wammted. I hereby state that I am the owner of the affected land set forth below
and un-warranted. I hereby state that I am thq owner of the affected land set fo/th below and I oppose this project.
and I oppose ~ project.
15::>~ex--I-4. I~lcl_. OwnerName kD (Please Print) OwnerName ~ (PleasePrin0
Owner Name (Please Print) Owner Name (pleaSe Print)
~l ~,'d'~C' ~ , Eugene, Oregon.
~' ~:~.~$ C..~_. , Rugene. Oregon. Property Address
Property A. ddress
~-~t'~qI3- oo~, I -'/~o~- iS - 2Z - oo-,'oz_ Phone Number Tax LotNumber (If Known)
Phone Nnmber Tax Lot Number (If Known)
Owner Sil~a~e (Date} Owner Si~ (Dat~}
River Avenue Exhibit A
Notice of Remon.qtranee Notice of Remonstrance
~ ofEu_g~ P~lio Wodra D~}ara~ City of Eugene Public Works Dep~ent
A~ ~ ~ / l~ R~ A~. ~chelle C~I / Joe ~ez
~ ~~y 2~ ~t Broadly
~ ~ 97~1 Eugene, O~gon 97401
I ~ ~ ~t~ ~G do herebyremo~e ~mt ~e Ci~of
Eugene projec~ 3693 w~ch presses to fo~ a Loc~ ~provement D~ct on ~ver
Avenue ~ Eugene Orego~ ~e m~ ~provement proj~t ~ c~enfly ~ ~ ex~ive
~d ~-w~t~. I h~eby s~te ~t I m ~e omer of~e ~ l~d set fo~ ~low
~d I oppose ~s projec[
Prope~ Ad&ess
~ql- H~l-ova~ /?Oqlg2Z Iloo
Phone Nmber T~ ~t Nmber ~o~)
g~r Si~a~ ' ~) O~r Si~ ~)
River Avenue Exhibit A
Hot'ice of Remonstrance Notioe of Remonstrance
. City of Eugene Public Works Department
City.ofEugc-ue Pub/lc.Works Depamnefit ~ Attn. Michelle Cahill / Joe Ramirez
Atm. Miehelle Cahill / Joe Ramin~ 244 East Broadway
244 East B~y Eugene, Oregon 97401
Eugene, Oregon 97401 ' ·
~ , y against the City of
I . '~-w~ vA~rrkv'Ll,C , do hereby remonstrate aga/nst the City.of Eugeneprojeet#3693whiehproposestoformaLoeallmprovementDistfietonRiver
. Eugene proje~ # 3693 which proposes to' form a Lueal ImproV~nent Dkcaiet off River Avenue in Eugene Oregon. The road improvement project as currently drawn is excessive
Avenue m Eugeae Oregon. The roadrmprovement project as etm-ently drawn ih excessive and tm-warranted. I hereby state that I am the owner of the affected land set forth below
a~l un-vannmte& I hereby slate.that I am the owner ofthe affe6tetl'.land set forth below and I oppose this project.
and t oppose tttis p~ojeet
CHARLES E ~ PATr L ~ OWner Name (Please Print) ~Owner Name (Please P~t)
Owner Name '~lease Print) Owner Name (Please Print) '
309 RIVER AV:~,IUE , Eug_ene..t'gre_~On Property ,~d~ess
Proporty Address ' '
Phone Nnmber Ta~. Lot Nmnber (lfKaown).
Owner Signature ~ (Date) ier Signature (Dat~) '
River Avenue Exhibit A
Notice of Remon~qtmnce,' Notice'ofRem0nstmnce
City'°f Eugene Public,Wouks Department - ,- City of Eugen* Publi~ Works'Dqmrtment
Attm Mich~lle Cahiil / Joe Rmuirez At~. Miehell¢ Calzill / Jo~ Ramirez '
244 Eas~ Broadway , .244 East Broadway
Eugene, Oregon 9T401 . -. .. Eugene, Oregon 97401'
ME~KER FAMILY LLC
5~1 688 5483 -
541 688 5483 17 04 13 21':008~
River Avenue Exhibit A
Notice of Remonstrance lqo~ee of R~mon.qtrance
~i,.'y of £ug*ne Iqtbli* Works
CiW of Eugene ~b~c Wor~ Dep~ent ~. ~11o ~11 t Joe
A~, ~che~e C~ / Joe Rami~z 2~ ~ B~y
2~ ~ Bro~way Ea$~ ~a 9'1401
E~ene, ~gon 97401
I . ~ ~ , do h~eby ~mo~ate ag~t ~e Ci~ of ~venu* ~ guano O~ua, ~
Eugene proj~ ~ 3693 w~ch proposes m fo~ a ~cfl ~provement Dis~ct on ~ver ~01 op~ ~as
Avenue ~ Eugene Oregom ~e ro~ ~pmvement proj~t ~ c~nfly ~ is excessive
~d ~-mte& I he.by ~ ~t I m ~e omer of ~e ~ected ~d set fo~ ~low
~d I oppose ~s project. ~-~
Omer Nme ~le~e ~t) Omer Nme . ¢l~e P~t) ~~ ....
~ope~ Ad&ss
Phone Nmb~ T~ ~t N~ber ~om) ~ Si~= ~~)
ate) Omer 8i~ ~)
River Avenue Exhibit A
Notice of Remonstrance Notice of Remonstrance
City of Eugene Public Works Department City of Eugene Public Works Department
At~. Michelle Cahill / Joe Ramirez Attn. Michelle Cahill / Joe l~amirez
244 East Broadway 244 East Broadway
Eugene, Oregon 97401 Eugene, Oregon 97401
I J~)/~L£ ~- /~77<1~.~ ,doherebyremonstrateagainsttheCityof I ~%~<~ ,doherebyremo~e~mt~eCi~of
E~ene pmj~t 8 3693 w~eh propo~ m fora a ~ ~provement D~et on ~ver Eugene proj~t 8 3693 w~eh propos~ to fora a Loe~ ~provement DiVot on ~ver
Avenue ~ Eug~e ~gom ~e mM ~pmvement pmj~ ~ c~nfly ~m ~ ex~ive Avenue ~ Eugene Oregom ~e mM ~provement proje~ ~ e~enfly ~m ~ ex~ssive
~d ~-w~t~ I h~by ~e ~ I m ~e omer of~e ~t~ l~d ~t fo~ ~low ~d ~-w~t~. I hereby s~ ~ I m ~e omer of ~e ~t~ l~d set fo~ ~low
~d I op~ ~s project ~d I oppose ~s proj~t.
~er Nme ~1~ ~t) 0~ Nme elm ~t) Omer N~e ~le~e P~t) Omer Nme ~l~e ~t)
~ Ad.ss Prope~ Address
P~one ~m~r T~ Lot Nm~r ~o~) Phone Nmber T~ ~t Nmber ~o~)
River Avenue Exhibit A
Notice of Remonstrance 'lq'otie~ of Remonstrance
City of Eugene Public Works Department City of Eugene Public Work~
Attn. Michell¢ Cahill / Joe l~ amirez ~)~.:'. . Aaa. Miche!le Caiaill I $~e
- - 244 ~'Bmaflway
244 East Broadway . Eugene, Oregon 9 ? 401
Eugene, Oregon 97401
_ Eugene projexa #,3693 which proposes lo form a Local Improvement Di~Iriet on River
I . D,4~L~ -~../~-ff/df,~ , do hereby remonstrate against the City of Avenue in EUgene Oregon. Tho ~oad improvement project as cUnently drawn is
Eugene project # 3693 which proposes to form a Local Improvement District on River and un-wananted. I bemby state tb~t ! am tlg'owner of the ~ffeeted land set forth below
Avenue in Eugene Oregon. The road improvement project as currently drown is excessive and I oppOse this l~reject. .
and un-warranted. I hereby state that I am the owner of the affected land set forth below
· ' (Plekse. Print) ' OwnerName (Please Print)
Phone Number "' Tax Lot lqumber (If Known)
~hone~Number Tax Lot Number (IfKnowa) 7 ~,
Owner S~gnatme I, uate) Owner Signature (Date)
River Avenue Exhibit A
~uu-uo-~uu~ ~uc u~,uo rn uaD~e~ rroper~es r, uz
Jul.29, 200& 2:28PM 541 688 8942 No,5875 P, 2
~ofi~ nfRmons~co Notice of Remons~ce
ci~ of ~e ~o Wor~ D~on~ Ci~ of Eugene ~b~c Wor~ D~ent
'A~ ~e ~/Joe ~ A~ ~chelle ~1 / Joe ~
2~ ~ Bw~y 2~ ~ Bro~way
~g~e, Ore~n 97401 E~ene, Oregon 97401
A~n~ ~ E~ Oregon. ~o m~ ~ovom~ pmj~ m ~y ~ h ex.sire Eugene pmj~t ~ 3693 w~ch propo~ m fern a ~ ~provement D~ on ~ver
Avenue ~ Eugene Oregom ~e ro~ ~pmvement proj~ m c~nfly ~m ~ ex~ive
~ ua-~. I h~¢by ~ ~t I ~ ~o o~ of ~ ~ ~d set fo~ ~low
~d I oppo~ ~s project. · ~d ~-w~t~ I h~by ~e ~ I m ~e omer of ~e ~ l~d ~t fo~ ~low
~d I oppose ~ proj~C
O~s~ N~e ~ ~t) ~c~ N~¢ ~]~
/~' o~_/x- ~- /~o 777 ~v~ .~ , ~n~,O~on
/~- ~- 1~- ~- I~oo Pro~Ad~
~hone ~mber T~ ~t Nm~r ~ ~om)
~er Si~ ~) ~er Si~ ~m)
River Avenue Exhibit A
NOTICE OF REMONSTRANCE
City of Eugene Public Works Department
Attn: Michele Cahill, Joe Ramirez
244 East Broadway
Eugene, OR 97401 Notice of Remonstrance
I, Theresa Slocum, do hereby remonstrate against the City of Eugene Project #3693,
which proposes to form a Local Improvement District Formation on River Ave in City of Eugene Public Works Department
Eugene, Oregon. Attn. Michelle Cahill / Joe Ramirez
1. The road improvemem project as currently drawn is excessive and unwarranted. 244 East Broadway
2. The road improvement project does not take into consideration that ODOT will be Eugene, Oregon 97401
meeting in 2006 to improve/change the Belt Line east entrance to the freeway
tiom River Avenue and the Belt Line East traffic due to excessive traffic and ~.~ ..~4~/~__~~~
unsafe merging from River Avenue entrance. This may cause the work done on
this project to be redone by ODOT. This may also change the classification of the _ . .
road as a major collector. I //~ ~'2~ (_~/ I,~F---c// ,XVdo hereby remonstrate against the City of
3. The road improvement project does not take into consideration the businesses that Eugene project # 3693 which(proposes to form a Local Improvement District on River
have been on River Avenue east of the US Post Office, as not obtaining customers Avenue in Eugene Oregon. The read improvement project as currently drawn is excessive
from pedestrians and bicyclists. These businesses are accessed by vehicles and un-warranted. I hereby state that I am the owner of the affected land set forth below
bemuse of the nature of the business and their services, and I oppose this project.
I hereby state that I am the owner/trustee of the affected land set forth below and I oppose
thisproject. F_. ~t~'~-t,/~ ~ i'J~,~..- ~'T'E.F' ~ttd'~,~- ~ / ~,{,~
Owner Name (Please Print) O(vner Name (Please Print)
Theresa Slocum
621 River Avenue
Eugene, OR 97404 /o ~7 ,~ )~'~r ~qt/~. , Eugene, Oregon_
Phone Number: 689-8441 Property Address
Tax LOt Number: 1704130003502 ~"¢l-~r'[~{~'~0 I7-o6'-15
Signature: ~-~~ Phone Number Tax Lot Number (If Known)
Date: 7~7t~ ~ .
Owner Signature (Date) Owner Signature (Date)
River Avenue Exhibit A
NoTIcE OF REMONSTRANCE NOTICE OF REMONSTRANCE
City of Eugene Public Works Department City of Eugene Public Works Department
Attn: Michele Cahill, Joe Ramirez Arm: Michele Cahill, Joe Ramirez
244 East Broadway 244 East Broadway
Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene, OR 97401
I, Theresa Slocum, do hereby remonstrate against the City of Eugene Project #3693, I, Theresa Slocum, do hereby remonstrate against the City of Eugene Project #3693,
which proposes to form a Local Improvement District Formation on River Ave in which proposes to form a Local Improvement District Formation on River Ave in
Eugene, Oregon. Eugene, Oregon.
1. The road improvement project as currently drawn is excessive and unwarranted. 1. The road improvement project as currently drawn is excessive and unwarranted.
2. The road improvement project does not take into consideration that ODOT will be 2. The road improvement project does not take into consideration that ODOT will be
meeting in 2006 to improve/change the Belt Line east entrance to the freeway meeting in 2006 to improve/change the Belt Line east entrance to the freeway
fxom River Avenue and the Belt Line East traffic due to excessive traffic and from River Avenue and the Belt Line East traffic due to excessive traffic and
unsafe merging from River Avenue enhance. This may cause the work done on unsafe merging from River Avenue entrance. This may cause the work done on
this project to be redone by ODOT. This may also change the classification of the this project to be redone by ODOT. This may also change the classification of the
road as a major collector, road as a major collector.
3. The road improvement project does not take into consideration the businesses that 3. The road improvement project does not take into consideration the businesses that
have been on River Avenue east of the US Post Office, as not obtaining customers have been on River Avenue east of the US Post Office, as not obtaining customers
from pedestrians and bicyclists. These businesses are accessed by vehicles from pedestrians and bicyclists. These businesses are accessed by vehicles
because of the nature of the business and their services, because of the nature of the business and their services.
I hereby state that I am the owner/trustce of the affected land set forth below and I oppose I hereby state that I am the owner/trustee of the affected land set forth below and I oppose
this project, this project.
Theresa Slocum Theresa Slocm
621 River Avenue 621 River Avenue
Eugene, OR 97404 Eugene, OR 97404
Phone Number: 689-8441 Phone Number: 689-8441
Tax Lot Nmber: 17 04 13 00 03500 Tax Lot Nmber: 17 04 13 00 03501
Si na e: Silage: & Cr-O
River Avenue Exhibit A
Notice of Remonstrance Notice of Remonstrance
City of l~ugene Public Works Department City of Eugene Public Work~ Department
Attn. Miebelle Cahill /Joe Ramirez Atm. Michelle Cahill /Joe Ramir~z
244 ~ast Broadway 244 East Broadway
Eugene, Oregon 97401 Eugene, Oregon 97401
Eugene l~je~ # 3693 ~h proposes to form a Local Improvement Dislriet on River Eugene project # 3693 which proposes to form a Local Improvement District on River
AWnn~. in Eugene Oregon. The mad im~o¥om~a~t projeot as cun'ently drown is mfiv¢ Avenue in Eugene Oregon. The road improvement project as currently drawn is excessive
m~4..~m-wammtecl- I h~r~by ~ that I am the owner oftbe ~lt'ected land set forth below and un-warranted. I hereby state that I am the owner of the affected land set forth below
~ t ~ this proj~t/ and I oppose this project.
6wrier Name (Please Priht)" Owner Name (Ple~e Print) Owner Name (please Print) Owner Name (Please Print)
7,,Q.5~ (~,C~,vL_ ~V~_~:. , E~enerOreg~n~ ...... 7~]5- ~- e'~/x'~ ' , Eugene, Oregon.
Property Address Property Address
Phone Number Tax Lot Number (If Known) . Phone Number Tax LOt Number (If Known)
..... ' ' - . (Date) OwnerS~igl~ture ~ (Date) Owne~S~:gnature '(D~e)~ Owner Signature (Date)
River Avenue Exhibit A
Notice of Remonstrance Notice of Remonstrance
City of Eugene Public Works Department City of Eugene Public Works Department
Attn. Michelle Cahill / Joe Ramirez Atm. Michelle Cahill / Joe Ramirez
244 East Broadway 244 East Broadway
Eugene, Oregon 97401 Eugene, Oregon 97401
I F~ff.,t.-~ ~.q,/.(~.,~-~J,,~ ~.-~, /,,'"2 '~/-:~. , do hereby remonstmte against the Cityof I fi:2~~~< , do hereby remonstrate against the City of
Eugene l~ject # 3693 which proposes to form a Local Improvement District on River Eugene l~oject # 3~9J-which proposes to form a Local Improvement District on River
Avenue in Eugene Oregon. The road improvement project as currently drawn is excessive Avenue in Eugene Oregon. The road improvement project as currently drown is excessive
and tm-warranted. I hereby state that I am the owner of the affected land set forth below and un~warranted. I hereby state that I am the owner of the affected land set forth below
and I oppose this project, and I oppose this project.
O'~vner Name (Pl~[ase Print) Owner iqame (Please Print) Owner Name - (Pl~se Print) Owner'Name (Please Print)
Property Address Property Address
Phone Number Tax Lot Number (If Known) Phone Number Tax Lot Number (If Known)
~v~ Signature (Date) owner Signature (Date) Owner~Signature (Date) Owner Signature (Date)
River Avenue Exhibit A
Notice of Remonstrance Notice of Remonstrance
City of Eugene Public Works Department City of Eugene Public Work~ Department
Attn. Michelle Cahill / Joe Pmmirez Attn. Michelle Cahill / Joe Ramirez
244 East Broadway 244 East Broadway
Eugene, Oregon 97401 Eugene, Oregon 97401
' I~ ~,~_t.. ~ ,t.,_.l,./O/f~,.f~,/~oherebyremonstrateagalnsttheCityof I ff~~ff~ ,doherebyremo~~eCi~of
Eugene proj~t ~ 3693 w~c~ proposes ~ fo~ a Lo~ ~provemem Di~ on ~ver Eug~e p~e~ ~ 3693 ~ch pro~ses to fern a ~ ~provement D~ on'~v~
Avenue ~ Eugene Omgom ~e ro~ ~provement project ~ c~enfly ~m is ex~ive Avenue ~ Eugene Omgom ~e m~ ~provement proje~ ~ c~enfly ~m is ~ive
~d ~-w~t~. I hereby s~ ~ I m ~e omer of ~e ~ec~ l~d set fo~ below ~d ~-mt~. I h~by ~e ~ I m ~e omer of ~e ~t~ l~d set fo~ ~low
~d I oppose ~ projec[ ~d I oppose ~s proj~t.
~ N~e ¢l~e ~t) d~er N~e ~ ~le~e P~t) O~ N~e ~1~ ~t) O~& N~e ' ~1~ ~t)
Prope~ Ad.ess Prope~ Ad.ess
Phone Nmber ~T~ ~t Nmber ~ ~o~) Phone Nmber T~ ~t Nmb~ ~ ~o~)
~at~) ~ O~i~=~ ~) 0~= Si~=~ ~at~) O~r Si~ ~)
River Avenue Exhibit A
~J. ~an Office
"'~z, Fumkm'e & OEflce Suppli~ .... .
7/30/2004 . ·
Al~an ~ Furniture ' ~ofice of Remons~ce
333 River Ave.
Eugene, OR 974~
~1-686-3037 C[~ ofEug~o ~o Wor~ Dcp~cnt
A~ ~chcUe ~ / ~o~ ~.mimz
Dear.Planning Comm~ee for River Avenue road Improvement; 2~ ~t
Al~an offi~ ~m~um be~me a ~nant at 333 River Avenue in November Eugonc, O~egon 97401
of 2003. This ~mmercial Io~fion provides our customem ~ go~ ' '
accessibil~ and gives us ~e visibil~ we need to be su~l. We are a tenant
of the Meeker family, o~em of Clemens Madna Io~t~ adja~nt to our building.
~en we Iook~ at ~is Io~fion in July 2003, ~e real es~te broker
no~ us of ~e planned improvement on R~er Avenue and ~e $17,000.00 ~st I~v~o~ ~ ~;~ ~, do hereby rcmo~c ~ ~o Ci~ of
that ~e new tenant would incur. Now we are told by ~e ci~ planning ~at ~is Eugene project ~ 3693 w~ch pm~s~s ~ fo~ ~ ~ ~rov~t D~ct on ~v~
odginal estimate has ~pl~ in o~er to ac~mmodate a la~e bike lane, lighting Avenue ~ Eugene Orcgo~ ~c m~ ~provcmcnt proj~t ~ c~cndy ~ ~ ~ivc
and pedes~an thoroughfare. These improvemen~ will cause our rent to increase ~d ~-w~ I hereby ~ ~ I ~ ~c'o~er of~c ~ ~d sot fo~ ~low
which will for~ us to increase our re~il pd~s. ~d I o~osc ~ ~roj~L , - · -," ",
The elaborate add~ons to ~e odginal plan seem ex.salve and ·
unne~ssa~. Many small businesses like oum have s~ered ~e ~llout of 9/11,
and have su~iv~ by c~ng'~s~ to a minimum. ~ ~e c~ in a budget
sho~all I expe~ the ci~ to m~gn~e and consider the fa~ ~at ~e businesses 0~ N~c ~1~0 ~t) 0~ N~c ~1~ ~t)
on River Avenue are in a budget sho~all as well. This is not ~e ~me for
ex.salve planning, but for ~m~l planning and maximum e~ciency Ewe am to
for the improvements. River Avenue businesses east of ~e Post Offi~ will ~ ~. [/'~' ~ ~ ~ ~-'
pay
Euffene.
not benef~ from having a bike lane. Our clientele drives to us or ~lls us to ' - -
pumhase furniture. ~e furniture is eider picked up by the customer or we deliver Propo~ Ad~ss
the order.
Please see ~e intelligent decision in making the ne~ssa~ improvements
not the ex.salve improvements.
~o~ ~be~ T~ lot N~r ~o~)
Sin~rely,
David Airman ~esFdent
Peter Davis General Manager
~O~rSi~"' ~ - ~) . '-~ '- O~&Si~. ~)
River Avenue Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION FORMING A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR
PAVING, CONSTRUCTING CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS,
PEDESTRIAN MEDIANS, STREET LIGHTS, AND STORMWATER
DRAINAGE ON RIVER AVENUE FROM 200 FEET EAST OF RIVER
ROAD TO 100 FEET WEST OF BELTLINE HIGHWAY. (JOB #3693)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. After proper notice of the hearings required by Sections 7.165 and 7.166 of the
Eugene Code, 1971 (EC), and after receiving the hearings officer's minutes, and conducting a public
hearing on April 11, 2005, the City Council hereby declares it is in the public interest to construct the
local improvements described in Section 2 of this Resolution and assess part of the costs thereof to
the specially benefitted properties on River Avenue from 200 feet east of River Road to 100 feet west
of Beltline Highway, subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this Resolution.
Section 2. The Council hereby orders the establishment of a local improvement district on
River Avenue from 200 feet east of River Road to 100 feet west of Beltline Highway and in that
district to pave, construct or install curbs and gutters, sidewalks, pedestrian medians, street lights,
stormwater drainage and related improvements ("the Improvements').
Section 3. The costs of the Improvements shall be borne by and assessed to the properties in
the district in accordance with EC 7.175 and Section 4 of this Resolution. Included in the cost shall
be the overhead costs specified in EC 7.170 and whatever other special costs, such as acquisition of
interests in real property, are necessary to make the Improvements. Upon completion of the
Improvements, the final costs therefor will be calculated and the owners of benefitted property shall
be notified and the property assessed as provided in E.C. 7.185 to 7.240. The assessments to be
levied for the Improvements are hereby characterized for purposes of the property tax limitation in
Section 1 lb, Art. XI of the Oregon Constitution as assessments for a local improvement, not subject
to the constitutional limitation of $10 per thousand of real market value. Notice of the intent to so
characterize the assessments was sent to the affected property owners prior to the adoption of this
Resolution.
Section 4. Several of the properties proposed for inclusion in the local improvement district
are located outside the boundaries of the City. Under provisions of state law, the concurrence of the
Lane County Board of Commissioners is required for inclusion of the properties in the local
improvement district. On February 9, 2005, Lane County Board of Commissioners issued Board
Order 05-2-9-5, concurring that the following properties be included in the local improvement
district: Neely, Tax Lot #17041300 02900; Bimbo, Tax Lot #17041300 3000; Atkins, Tax Lot
#17041300 03200; Eugene Bible, Tax Lot #17041300 03400; Slocum, Tax Lots #17041300 3500
(vacant property, future equivalent assessment), #17041300 03501, and #17041300 03502; Store N
Resolution- 1
ATTACHMENT B
Lock, Tax Lots # 17041300 03600 and # 17041300 03601; and Rucker, Tax Lot # 17041322 00902.
On March 30, 2005, the Lane County Board of Commissioners reconsidered and made no changes to
Board Order 05-2-9-5.
Section 5. The City Council hereby declares that the construction of the Improvements, as
well as acquisition of rights-of-way or easements necessary for the construction, is for a public
purpose, is necessary for the public welfare, is authorized under the laws of the State of Oregon and
Charter and ordinances of the City of Eugene, and is directed by this Resolution.
Section 6. The City of Eugene, Oregon expects to make expenditures from its available
funds to pay for the costs of improvements to River Avenue from 200 feet east of River Road to
100 feet west of B eltline Highway (the "Project"). The City reasonably expects, and hereby
declares its intent, to issue bonds or other obligations (the "Reimbursement Bonds") and to use
the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for the expenditures made from
the City's available funds for the Project. The City expects that the principal amount of the
Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $1,174,440.15, which represents the estimated assessment
amount plus a margin of 10%.
Section 7. Improvement warrants, short-term promissory notes and other evidence of
indebtedness authorized by Chapter 902, 1991 Oregon Session Laws, issued to finance the
construction of the Improvements shall be indebtedness for them. When improvement warrants are
issued they may be general obligation warrants or limited general obligation warrants or other similar
instrument. Such indebtedness shall bear interest at a rate set by Council resolution authorizing the
debt. The interest shall be paid upon redemption.
Section 8. Proceeds from unbonded assessments, improvement bonds, foreclosure of liens
based on the Improvements and from other budgeted funds including ad valorem taxes, if levied, to
pay the debt shall be deposited in the Short Term Debt Fund until the indebtedness issued to finance
the Improvements is redeemed. Proceeds so deposited may be used only to pay the indebtedness
issued to finance the Improvements.
Section 9. The Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Officer may sign the evidence of
indebtedness herein authorized by facsimile signature with a check signing machine. The Finance
Officer shall cause the seal of the City to be printed on the evidence of indebtedness when required by
law or by the purchaser.
Section 10. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the 20th day of April, 2005.
City Recorder
Resolution - 2
ATTACHMENT C
River Avenue Project #3693
Hearing Date: 4-11-05
Eugene City Council
Submitted by
Gordon Howard (River Avenue Property Owner)
4-01-05
Please distribute to Mayor & City Councilors
River Avenue Exhibit C
4-1-05
River Avenue Project #3693
Dear Mayor and City Councilors:
My name is Gordon Howard and I am a property owner on River Avenue. I am
submitting my testimony in writing because I will not be able to attend the April 11, 2005
City Council Meeting due to prior contractual obligations out of town. I hope you will
consider my submittal before you render a decision on the River Avenue proposal. Also
attached for your review are documents relevant to this proceeding which I hope you will
take the time to read.
City Management demonstrated first hand for the Board of Commissioners at the 3-30-05
meeting, the dismisSive and arrogant attitude property owners have experienced when
they announced that they did not care whether ODOT closes off one end of River Avenue
or not, they still intend to build the project as designed. This statement was made after
again, heating public opposition to the plan design, hearing Commissioner concerns
about the plan design, and with full knowledge that ~ to date, has gone on the
record in favor of this plan except city. staff. It is my understanding that there may be a
last minute workshop scheduled next week by staff, although I have received no notice.
Even though I have serious concerns about the credibility of City Management at this
point, given their recent track record, I would attend additional meetings if I were in
town.
The City Council has reached a defining moment in time, and the credibility of the sitting
Council and Mayor,. as well as the former Council Members and Mayor are all on the
line. At the September 13, 2004 Council meeting the Mayor and Councilors all talked at
length (see attached minutes) about listening to the people in the River Road area and
about not wanting to create additional."ill will". The Council then proceeded to vote
unanimously 8-0 against forced island annexation of the River Avenue properties. The
only thing that has changed is that this project was revived by talks between
Commissioner Green and Public Works Director Kurt Korey. The fact that this project is
grossly over-built and that it has no support from anyone except staff remains the same.
ODOT will not commit itself on paper that it will not revert back to it's former position
of closing the east end of River Avenue which would result in a road far below the
standard required to be designated as a collector road. Staff has admitted, on the record
that River Avenue only marginally meets that standard now while it is open on both ends.
Apparently standards don't matter to City Management, as evidenced by their statement
before the BOC on 3-30-05 when they stated that they don't care whether ODOT closes
River Avenue or not~
The integrity of this Council and the Mayor are on the line. If you vote on April 11, 2005
to oppose this project as you did at the September 13, 2004 meeting, you demonstrate by
your actions that you meant what was said. In the alternate, if you now approve this
project it will be equally clear to everyone that the comments made previously were
simply "window dressing".
River Avenue Exhibit C
Please listen to us aga~ and kill this project for good or demand that City Management
and staff bargain in "good faith" with the affected property owners who continue to stand
united in opposition to this project.
In closing, I would ask you to take the time and review the materials I have submitted,
and before you vote on this project, ask yourself this question. Would I want to be treated
the way the property owners on River Avenue have been treated?
Please do not choose "Process over Principal ".
Respectfully submitted,
P.O. Box 775
Pleasant Hill, OR 97455
River Avenue Exhibit C
Document Receipt
I, the undersigned do here by acknoMedge receipt of ~ / Remonstrance Documents
and one letter of opposition to the proposed road improvement plan #3693 from a
business owner who currently leases property on river avenue.
River Avenue Exhibit C
Notice of Remonstrance ~
city of Eugene Publio Works Del:ummeut
Attn. Miehelle Cahill l Joe Ram~z
7.44 F.s~ RrnMway
Eugene, O~egon 97401
Eugeixe project # 36~3 ~ propoSe~ ~o form a Local Improvement Distri¢~ on River
Av~nua in Eugene Oregon. Tt~ road improvemont pro, eot ~ ourrently drawn is excessive
and un-wm't'~tcd, I h~reby stac that I am tho owner of the affected land set forth below
and I oppose this txojeet.
OvfiierName -- (l:I~lhint)
Owner Name (Please Print)
Properr~ Address
Phono Number Tax Lot Numbor (If'Known)
er Signa~mr~ / C/ ' (Date) Owner Signature (Date)
River Avenue Exhibit C
I have had the opportunity to review the new materials City Management has submitted to
the BOC for this meeting. City Management still appears to be in denial that they
mis-represented the City Council's position on the River Avenue project when they
appeared before you at the February 9, 2005 meeting. The record is clear, on
September 13, 2004 the City Council voted unanimously 8-0 in opposition to the staff
proposal for island annexation on River Avenue.
Next, City Management floated the idea that this was really just about property owners
not wanting to pay assessments. In fact, two property owners identified defects in the
original plan design which, when corrected by City Engineers resulted in voluntary
increased assessments to those property owners.
Finally, City Management has retreated to a position of asking the BOC to use River
Avenue as a "bargaining chip" to insure future cooperation on road improvement projects
in area's of joint jurisdictions, which is evidenced in their submittal to the BOC
reminding the BOC of past, present, and future joint road improvement projects.
The facts of this case are clear:
1. The road improvement plan as currently drawn, is grandiose and not good use of
limited road improvement funds. Examples include dual bike paths, excessive planting
strips, and 6 1/2 foot wide sidewalks.
2. There is no demand for sidewalks in this area which is zoned for commercial and light
industrial use and is made up of business' such as mini-storage units, office equipment
sales, a landscape supply yard, and a boat sales outlet.
3. City staff has acknowledged that ODOT has previously discussed terminating the east
end of River Avenue which could result in a wide road to nowhere as early as 2008. It is
irresponsible to spend over 2 million dollars and create acre's of impervious surface for a
road that is not needed or wanted by anyone except city staff.
Please revoke the Board Order authorizing the formation of an LID which was granted to
the City of Eugene on February 9, 2005.
Thank you.
River Avenue Exhibit C
3-29-05
River Avenue Re-Consideration
Dear Commissioners:
First, I would like to thank the Board of Commissioners for agreeing to re-consider the
River Avenue issue and allowing the property owners an oppommity to provide input,
which is important to us since 32 of 33 private property owners have now signed
remonstrance forms in opposition to this project.
Second, I would like to acknowledge that I made a "typo" on a previously submitted
"Public Hearing Process Outline". I incorrectly listed the project number as #3695 instead
of the correct number which is #3693 and I am including the corrected text along with my
apology.
For your ease of review, I am also submitting an up-dated listing of property owners who
previously signed remonstrance forms in opposition to this project along with an
additional property owner remonstrance form, bringing the total to 32 of 33 private
property owners.
We are informed by Kurt Corey, via the City Council, that the original remonstrance
forms previously signed and submitted by private property owners are valid and do not
need to be up-dated, however several property owners have chosen to submit additional
testimony in opposition to this plan.
Please remember, all 10 County property owners and all City property owners except
MeDonalds (who took no position) signed remonstrance forms in opposition to this
project, and even the Eugene City Council voted in unanimous opposition to an island
annexation at the September 13, 2004 meeting. Please put an end to this redundant
process and revoke the Board Order authorizing the formation of an LID which was
signed after the February 9, 2005 meeting. If you have any questions or concerns that I
can help you with regarding this request, please feel free to call me at 541-747-8206.
Thank you for your consideration.
~ord~n B. Howard (Ri~ver Avenue Property Owner)
P.O. Box 775
Pleasant Hill, OR 97455
541-747-8206
River Avenue Exhibit C
Proposed River Avenue Project #~5~ _~ ~ ~)--~
Public Hearing Process Outline
April 7, 2004
Public information meeting held at City Wastewater plant on River Avenue, by City staff.
July 13, 2004
City schedules meeting to discuss formation of LID per Municipal Code and review
project bids. Meeting is canceled by city staff.
July 28, 2004
County Board of Commissioners 9:00 AM meeting to decide whether to approve City's
request for authority to assess property outside the City for the proposed River Avenue
project.
*** BOC voted to wait for public input and report from hearings official before taking
action. Meeting is re-scheduled for August 4, 2004.***
July 28, 2004 (6:15 PM)
Hearings Official Milo Meacham holds public heating to review bids, confirm if a LID
should be formed and hear objections or opposition from the public. Heatings Official
announces that if the BOC does not approve the City request to assess outside the City, he
will not be able to send forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council on this
project. Heatings Official grants a request from the public for a time extension for filing
objections and/or remonstrance forms to 5:00 PM on August 3, 2004. (one week).
August 3, 2004
Michelle Cahill (City of Eugene) accepts signed remonstrance forms from 31 of 33
privately owned property owners. One additional remonstrance form was received after
the August 3, 2004 cut-off date. The only private property owner on River Avenue who
did not sign a remonstrance form was McDonalds, and we were un-able to get an answer
from the company given the short 1 week time frame.
August 4, 2004
Lane County Board of Commissioners holds heating in the matter of authorizing the City
of Eugene to Assess outside City limits for the River Avenue project. Re-scheduled from
the original July 28, 2004 meeting. City staff gives presentation. Commissioners are
presented with Remonstrance Forms signed by 31 of 33 privately owned property owners
on River Avenue, in addition to public testimony all in opposition to the proposed project
for a variety of reasons (See next page for Commissioners comments).
River Avenue Exhibit C
August 4, 2004 (Continued)
Commissioner Comments:
Anna Morrison: Personally inspected street and observed commercial and light industrial
business. Who would want to walk or bike past a sewer plant? Has doubts whether this
street should even be classified as a collector street. Expressed concern with ODOT past
and future plans which may include closing River Avenue. If the MWC has excess money
to spend, then they should pay for and install a sidewalk or bike path on the south side of
River Avenue. Small business' on the North side of River Avenue (storage, boat sales
landscape rock etc.) are not supported by walk-in type trade. Not a fan of this project.
Don Hampton:
Plan doesn't meet local needs or desires. No support.
Bill Dwyer:
Current and future ODOT concerns, looks like this could well end up as "a road to no
where". This is another case of it being really easy (for the City) to spend someone else's
money. The improvements are excessive and not needed. I do not support this plan.
Peter Sorensen:
Does anyone support this project ??? Answer from crowd: Staff
Bill Dwyer: Motion to not approve City request.
Anna Morrison: Second
Motion is passed unanimously. 4-0 (Bobby Green absent).
September 13, 2004
Eugene City Council Meeting on River Avenue Project. Following public testimony and a
staff presentation, the City Council votes unanimously (8-0) against the proposed island
annexation on River Avenue. Mayor Jim Torrey and the full Council opposed this action
for many different reasons. Councilor Kelly questioned staff over ethical practices called
into question by staff requesting the Hearings Official not to issue a report as is the
normal city practice. (See City Council minutes and addendum attached hereto)
River Avenue Exhibit C
February 9, 2005
Lane County Board of Commissioners meeting for "Discussion and Direction / River
Avenue Assessments". Commissioner Bobby Green reviewed intergovermnental road
process and concluded by framing this issue as being based on "assessments".
Commissioner Green further stated that he still has project design concerns, but that he
does not want it to be Lane County's fault if this project does not go forward. The
Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director and City Engineer then proceeded with a
presentation and comments. None of the City Officials bothered to inform the Lane
County Board of Commissioners that the Eugene City Council with the full support of the
Mayor had previously voted in unanimous opposition to this plan at the September 13,
2004 meeting after making extensive comments about not wanting to create "distrust"
and "additional ill will" in the River Road area. Commissioners asked several questions
and then voted
3-1 in favor of the request from the City Officials. Anna Morrison opposed the motion
and Bill Dwyer was absent.
River Avenue Exhibit C
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Regular Session
Council Chamber---City Hall
September 13, 2004 7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty
Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Scott Meisner, Gary Papd (via telephone).
His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
1. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum.
Bill Northrup, 939 Laurelhurst Drive, spoke against the resolution before the council to oppose Ballot
Measure 36, which sought to prevent gay couples from getting married. He believed marriage is the
relationship between a man and a woman that produces children. He likened it to the relationships
between non-profit organizations and churches, as there was also a distinction there. He said, in marriage,
the relationship between a man and a woman was a "special thing." He felt it need not be redefined. He
recognized that some people felt that universal benefits were being withheld from committed couples of
the same sex. He thought a common ground could be found and other ways to extend benefits could be
pursued at the legislative level. He recommended that the City Council not take a stand on a statewide
referendum prior to the election.
Bob O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, spoke regarding the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the
West Eugene Parkway (WEP). He related that he had obtained his information from the County web site
and the information indicated that the WEP would be broken into two parts, one of which would be the
responsibility of the City of Eugene, meaning the City would be required to maintain it. He said this
would cost the public money and asserted that voters did not have that understanding when they approved
the WEP. He opined that, though an MOU was not a binding agreement, politically, it could be a "slippery
slope."
In closing, Mr. O'Brien thanked councilors Nathanson and Meisner for taking the time to meet with him
and several other people. He noted that while he disagreed with Mayor Torrey on many issues, he
appreciated how fairly the Mayor had mn the meetings.
Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, provided testimony in writing. He urged the new mayor of Eugene to visit
Corvallis and look at its Chamber of Commerce booklet. He called the downtown Eugene flyer, printed by
the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, "a disgrace." He noted that only 14 businesses in downtown Eugene
had paid to be listed. He circulated a parking supplement. He suggested that Russ Brink of Downtown
Eugene, Incorporated, move to Pullman, Washington.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 1
Regular Session
River Avenue Exhibit C
Mary O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, asked, regarding information on the MOU for the WEP, what
"facilitate delivery of a new city street" meant. She noted that County Public Works Director Ollie
Snowden had asked who would pay for the cost of this new city street if the $17.7 million approved by the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) did not cover its total cost. She related that he also
wondered which agency would be responsible for constructing the separated connection of the WEP to
Highway 99. She recommended getting the answers to these questions and holding a public hearing prior
to signing an MOU. She said, should a new city street be needed for the WEP project, the whole process
should be opened to alternative street approaches, but to date, these approaches had been kept off the table
as it had been presented to the voting public as a state highway. She thought the City, should it enter into
the MOU, could be forced to pay for part of the construction and maintenance of the project.
Gordon Howard, 425 River Avenue, was present to speak to the council on what he considered to be
unethical behavior regarding the formation of a local improvement district (LID) to improve River
Avenue. He related that City staff had asked the Hearings Official, Milo Mecham, not to send his report to
the City Council. He thought this was due to staff having received signed remonstrance forms fi.om 31 of
the 33 land owners that would be affected by assessments for street improvements. He thought that staff
was withholding the Hearings Official report and other information. He opined this was unethical
behavior. He likened the proposed annexation to an "end run" around the will of the people.
James Reed, 990 Crest Drive, spoke on behalf of a large group of people in his neighborhood concerned
with and opposed to the designation of Crest Drive as a collector street. He asserted the plan could just as
easily be executed with local street designations. He said staff had yet to answer most of the questions
asked at the neighborhood meeting with City staff and elected officials. He asked the council to consider
the merits of the anonymous web-based comment form and weigh the comments against the active public
comment that has gone on throughout this issue. He also asked staff to provide the agenda for the next
neighborhood meeting at least a week prior to the meeting date. He recognized, on a positive note, that
City staff had met with neighborhood representatives on street designs and pedestrian amenities that were
in accordance with what neighbors believed would be acceptable. He conveyed the neighborhood's desire
for some level of commitment on these ideas.
Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, president of Friends of Eugene, called the alleged shift of the
WEP fi:om a State highway to a city street a "fundamental change." He asked why this conversion was
suggested to occur. He asserted that "shuffling" a project fi:om one jurisdiction to another without any
public input would not solve transportation issues in West Eugene. He predicted that the project would not
come to fruition because of fundamental federal, State, and local problems with it. He recommended
asking questions first and signing the MOU when the time was appropriate.
Phillip Farrington, 1160 Monroe Street, vice president of the Oregon chapter of the American Planning
Association, spoke in support of the resolution to oppose Ballot Measure 37. He said just compensation
laws were already on the books for the regulatory taking of property. He predicted that the passing of the
Ballot Measure would present an exorbitant cost to the State of Oregon and local jurisdictions and would
cause irreparable harm to planning and land use.
Chuck Meeker, 309 River Avenue, owner of Clemens Marina, conveyed the opposition of the property
owners on River Avenue to the proposed street improvements. He explained that they were not opposed to
street improvements per se, but could not afford the assessments, projected to be more than $1 million. He
called the project "over-built" and extreme. He reiterated Mr. Howard's statement that 31 of 33 property
owners had signed letters of remonstrance. He stressed that no businesses relied on pedestrian traffic for
their business and felt this indicated that large sidewalks on either side of the street were unnecessary. He
MINUTES---Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 2
Regular Session
River Avenue Exhibit C
noted that one more property owner, the owner of the Riviera Shopping Center, had submitted a letter of
remonstrance since the others had been submitted, for a total of 32 such letters. He underscored that the
majority of the people that would be required to participate in the LID were opposed to it.
Tim Smith, 2664 Kincaid Street, encouraged the City Council to adopt the resolution in opposition to
Ballot Measure 36, which sought to amend the constitution to prevent same-sex marriages. He
acknowledged that it was reasonable for people to have a difference of opinion on a variety of issues
including marriage, but differences of opinion did not belong in the State Constitution. He noted that he
and his partner of 13 years had been the first to register for domestic unions and one of the fkst couples to
be married under the aegis of a marriage license from Multnomah County. He said, should this measure
pass, his legal marriage along with those of approximately 3,000 other couples may well be rescinded. He
asked why the State would want to do that. He added that he and his partner had found Eugene to be a
tolerant, friendly, and welcoming place. He suggested that approval of the resolution to oppose the
constitutional amendment would complement the image of Eugene as a welcoming and tolerant place.
Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, suggested those present type "Congress of the New Urbanism" into
a search engine and then type the word "definition." He said it would indicate that full connectivity,
implementation of context-sensitive design, among others were part of the de£mition. He asserted it was
part of "smart growth" and this was endorsed by the United Nations. He reiterated past concerns about the
principles underlying the concept of "smart growth." He suggested the council consult the web site "Take
Back Wisconsin" for further information. He said otherwise Eugene would become "Portlandized."
Mr. Vishanoff also expressed concern about homeland security research and nanotechnology research. He
asserted that the University of Oregon wanted to build a facility near the riverfront. He said it was a
controversial thing to do and that the University should hold public hearings and should convene a
nanotechnology advisory committee.
Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and called for council comments.
Councilor Bettman thanked those who testified. She requested information on the status of the answers to
the questions resulting from the neighborhood meeting at Crest Drive. City Manager Dennis Taylor
responded that the information had not yet been compiled. Councilor Bettman encouraged staff to get the
information out as soon as possible. She also noted the request that the agenda be provided a week in
advance. City Manager Taylor stated that he would ensure that it would be made available one week prior
to the next meeting.
Councilor Bettman averred the neighbors should have written assurance that once a design that everyone
agreed upon was determined, it would be accurately reflected in the end result. She applauded the efforts
of the neighborhood group to work on the livability of their neighborhood. She suggested that cooperating
with them would expedite the process.
Councilor Kelly thanked everyone who came before the council and testified. He echoed Councilor
Bettman's comments regarding the Crest Drive neighborhood.
Councilor Taylor congratulated the Crest Drive/Friendly Street/Storey Boulevard neighborhood residents
for their consistent advocacy. She wondered why it took so long to provide the answers to questions that
were asked at the neighborhood meeting.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council September ! 3, 2004 Page 3
Regular Session
River Avenue Exhibit C
Councilor Nathanson commented that, as she had worked on this issue for some time, she already knew
she would not support the ballot measure. She asked if the work session would be cancelled should the
council vote to uphold the resolution to oppose it. City Manager Taylor responded that the work session
would be held regardless of the present vote as the measure contained stringent requirements that would
force council action.
Councilor Nathanson asked if it would hurt to postpone action on the resolution.
Councilor Kelly felt the measure was a "rem" of Ballot Measure 7, which had been discussed extensively
by the council over the course of a number of meetings. He noted that the legislative policy document
from 2003 had policies that were clearly in opposition to the measure. He opined that, to the extent that
council opposition had any value, it was of value to the people who were campaigning against the measure
statewide. He preferred to take action at the regular meeting in order to stand behind them in their
opposition as soon as possible and help the campaign.
Councilor Pap6 said he was prepared to vote in favor of the resolution to oppose the ballot measure, but
was willing to table the issue if it would provide councilors with an opportunity to learn more about it.
Councilor Taylor felt there was not much time. She predicted the measure would be financially
devastating to the City.
Councilor Bettman opposed the motion to table.
Councilor Meisner also opposed the motion. He recommended to staff that the text of the ballot measure
be included in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). He added that, due to changes in the law and its
interpretation, appointed commissioners are now considered as if they were employees and, therefore,
although individual commissioners may take a private position, City commissions such as the Planning
Commission and Human Rights Commission may not longer consider and take positions on such
measures. He felt this placed more responsibility on the council to take a stand on the issues raised by
ballot measures 36 and 37.
Mayor Torrey supported tabling the motion as it would provide more opportunity for the council to discuss
the issues raised by the ballot measure. He opined that passing the resolution at the present meeting would
not impact the campaign as much as passing it closer to the election.
Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4.'4 tie; councilors Poling,
Pap6, Solomon, and Nathanson voting in favor, councilors Bettman,
Meisner, Kelly, and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey voted in
favor of tabling the motion until September 29, the motion passed on a
final vote of 5:4.
3. ACTION:
Adoption of Resolution 4811 Furthering Annexation to the City of Eugene of Three River
Avenue Islands
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to adopt
Resolution 4811 furthering annexation to the City of Eugene of three
River Avenue islands.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 7
Regular Session
River Avenue Exhibit C
City Manager Taylor asked Michelle Cahill, Engineer for the Public Works Department, to speak on the
item.
Ms. Cahill described the location of the proposed annexation and noted that it had been identified in the
TransPlan as a street that should be brought up to urban standards. She said that since the City Council
initiated the project, preparatory work had been done on the street and it had undergone the bidding
process. She explained that funding was going to come from systems development charges (SDCs) and
less than 50 percent of the cost would be assessed to the property owners. She related that the City had
requested the authority fi-om the Lane Board of County Commissioners to assess the properties that were
outside of the City's jurisdiction and the commissioners denied it. This had changed the scenario for
funding. She conveyed staff's recommendation that the City initiate the annexation of the properties so
that the properties could be assessed to pay for part of the road.
Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments and questions.
Councilor Taylor commented that the council was talking about annexing properties belonging to people
who did not want to be annexed.
In response to a question from Councilor Poling, Ms. Cahill said there were approximately $1 million in
assessments, 52 percent of which would be assessed to privately owned properties.
Councilor Poling thought canceling the project for the time being would be prudent. He felt to do
otherwise would anger the property owners and give them the impression that the City did not care about
their opposition.
In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, Ms. Cahill stated that the City had not spoken to the
property owners about the annexation at this point because staff wanted to determine how much interest
there was on the part of the council in proceeding with it first. City Manager Taylor added that there was
no requirement to discuss annexation with the residents at this point.
Councilor Pap6 wanted to know what the property owners thought prior to voting. He opined that the
repercussions would go far beyond this street project. He suggested that it was not the highest priority
safety item in the City and it would mm back some of the good will the City had worked so hard to
establish with the residents in that area should the City force annexation.
Councilor Bettman agreed with the comments of councilors Pap6 and Poling. She asked what grounds
there were for the Lane Board of County Commissioners to deny the City authority to assess the
properties. Ms. Cahill replied that the conunissioners' decision was based on the number of letters of
remonstrance they had received.
Councilor Bettman opined that it was not necessary to ask the property owners how they felt about
annexation as annexation would mean the properties would be assessed for the road improvements. She
questioned why commercial development had occurred on an unimproved road. She thought there should
be a plan that prevented further commercial development from being built there if it would generate
increased traffic on an unimproved street. She opposed piecemeal annexation, however.
In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Cahill explained that staff had directed the Heatings
Official to discontinue work the day after the testimony period closed as the City did not have the authority
MIN TES---Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 8
Regular Session
River Avenue Exhibit C
to move forward with the funding scenario that had been planned for the improvements, due to the County
commissioners' decision.
Councilor Kelly believed the standards were reasonable and the improvements were warranted, but said he
would oppose the resolution because of the ill will it would create.
Councilor Solomon said the property owners had not opposed the improvements in their entirety so much
as they felt the planned improvements were excessive for the street. She agreed that much good will had
been created with the River Road/Santa Clara area and this forced annexation could harm the progress that
had occurred. She noted that a resident there had suggested an "Annexation Amnesty Day," adding that
she thought it was an idea with merit.
Councilor Nathanson said while it was obvious what the City stood to gain from the annexation, the City
needed to ask what the property owners stood to gain. She acknowledged that many people benefit from
living and working in the urban area without having to pay for the urban services or having to vote. She
supported annexation in most cases. She commented that the project was necessary and inevitable, but that
for the present, it would be better to select another project from the capital improvement project list.
Councilor Meisner stated that he had been working on the idea of an "Annexation Amnesty" day with
assistant City Manager Jim Carlson for "many months." He expressed hope that they would get a response
to it. He felt testimony had indicated that the opposition to the improvements was not absolute. He noted
that the Crest Drive neighbors had sought input on a different design of street changes and suggested that
the City look into a more flexible design for River Avenue. He said he would not support a forced
annexation.
In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Ms. Cahill said the interchange to Beltline Road would
not be improved in this plan as it was not under the jurisdiction of the City.
Mayor Torrey averred that, though the City largely focused on the River Road area, there were a number
of islands of non-annexed property. He observed that many people in the River Road area had signs on
their front lawns that expressed their extreme opposition to annexation to the City. He advised against
approving the forced annexation of the River Avenue properties as it would promote anti-annexation
sentiments. He recommended the City Council hold a discussion on its approach to annexation.
Roll call vote; the motion failed by a unanimous vote, 8:0.
Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute break ....
MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 9
Regular Session
River Avenue Exhibit C
March 11, 2005
River Avenue Deception Continues
Dear Commissioners:
Attached, please find the cover page of the March 1, 2005 property owner notification
from the City of Eugene. Please note at item # 2, "What actions have occurred since
last summer?" that no mention is made of the fact that on September 13, 2004 the City
Council voted unanimously 8-0 in opposition of the staff proposed island annexation. It
appears that City Management Staff wants Lane County to step up and do the
"dirty work" of imposing the authorization to form an LID on the River Avenue property
owners, since the City Council clearly rejected staff's recommendation of an island
annexation at it's September 13, 2004 public hearing. I would encourage the Board of
Commissioners not to allow the Board to be used as a surrogate for a "back door"
approach to a City project.
I would like to also take this opportunity to "thank you" for listening to our factual
presentation on March 9, 2005 and then agreeing to re-consider this case in a forum
where all affected parties are invited to provide input.
Sincerely,
~3ord~ B. Howard ~' x3
P.O. Box 775
Pleasant Hill, OR 97455
747-8206
River Avenue Exhibit C
(~ Public Works
Engineering
City of Eugene
March 1, 2005 244 East Broadway
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5560
(541) 682-8410 Fax
1704132100400000 93003693
HOWARD GORDON B & CONNIE R
P.O. BOX 775
PLEASANT HILL OR. 97455
Subject: River Avenue Street Improvement Project - Job #3693
Dear Property Owner and/or Resident:
Recent action by the Lane County Board of Commissioners has allowed the City of Eugene to continue to work
towards improving River Avenue to urban standards. This letter provides updates and information on a number of
issues related to the proposed River Avenue street improvement project. We've used a "question and answer"
format we hope you will fred useful.
1. Why is the City of Eugene continuing to work on improvements to River Avenue?
Improving River Avenue to urban standards has been identified for almost 20 years as a necessary
improvement to the street network in the metropolitan area. River Avenue provides access to River Road,
Beltline Highway, Division Avenue and the area north of Beltline in Santa Clara, as well as two connection
points to the Willamette River bike path system, 32 commercial parcels, four residentially zoned properties,
and the Regional Water Pollution Control Facility. As a result of increased use of the roadway, the existing
roadbed is deteriorating and needs to be upgraded. Development in this general area has created a need to
accommodate a variety of transportation users, including motorists, bicyclists, bus riders, pedestrians, and
individuals in wheelchairs. There are safety concerns for all street users, particularly pedestrians and
bicyclists, due to the existing shoulder widths being narrow and unpaved.
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County in 1986 adopted the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which included
this project. The project was included in an update of the plan in 2002. The Eugene City Council in 1999
adopted the Arterial and Collector Street Plan, which established the street design standards used for this
project. This project design Was initiated by the Council in June 2000 in the course of adopting the 2001
capital budget.
2.What actions have occurred since
last
summer?
Upon hearing of the receipt of remonstrances (objections) at the City's public hearing in July 2004, the Board
of County Commissioners (BCC) in August 2004 voted against giving the City permission to assess the 10
unincorporated properties adjacent to River Avenue. Without the ability to assess those properties for their
share of the project costs, the City did not have sufficient funds to go forward with the project. Subsequently,
the BCC agreed to discuss the issue again. On February 9, 2005, the BCC voted to allow the City to assess
the unincorporated properties adjacent to River Avenue.
3. What process will the City Council use to decide whether to proceed with this project?
The next step is a City Council public hearing regarding the formation of a local improvement district (LID)
for this project. That hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 11, 2005. You will receive formal notice of
the hearing, with the exact time and location, at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
River Avenue Exhibit C
Lane County Board of Commissioners
125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: River Avenue Action of February 9, 2005
Dear Commissioners:
My name is Gordon Howard and I along with my wife Connie Howard own property at
425 River Avenue and also at 65 Ross Lane, which is the solely accessed via River
Avenue. I had no notice of the February 9, 2005 BOC meeting until after the fact. A
reasonable person could assume that since both the BOC and the Eugene City Council
voted unanimously to oppose the River Avenue Plan, that is was a dead issue. Set forth
below, please find several other area's of concern for your consideration.
After speaking with Teresa Wilson (County Counsel) on February 17, 2004 (the date I
learned of the 2-9-05 BOC meeting) I decided to review the video of the actual heating.
As you know, Commissioner Green framed the River Avenue key issue as being about
"assessments" which I have to assume came from discussions with the Assistant City
Manager, Public Works Director, and the City Engineer who were all in attendance. The
City managers conveniently forgot to mention that 32 of 33 property owners signed
remonstrance forms, that the property owners consider the road design as
excessive(over-size sidewalks etc.), that staff has taken a rigid position and refuses to
consider plan alterations to alleviate property owner concerns, that ODOT may terminate
River Avenue in the not so distant future, and that nobody except staff went on record in
support of this project. It is my understanding that this issue was revived after discussions
between the Eugene Public Works Director Kurt Corey and Commissioner Green, which
is curious since Commissioner Green was the only Commissioner who was absent from
the August 4, 2004 hearing when public testimony was presented following which, the
BOC voted unanimously (4-0) to oppose the city request.
The other issue that jumped out at me after reviewing the February 9, 2005 meeting was
when Commissioner Green said" I do not want it to be Lane Countys fault if this project
does not go forward". No one at this meeting made that suggestion, so I can only assume
that assertion was made to Commissioner Green by city staff prior to this public meeting.
The fact that the Assistant City Manager, the Public Works Director, and the City
Engineer did not immediately disclose to Commissioner Green and the rest of the Board
of Commissioners that the City Council had already voted unanimously (8-0) against the
River Avenue project is "incredible" and certainly doesn't do anything to bolster a
trusting relationship between governmental bodies. The entire Board should be outraged
at this type of behavior on the part of City Officials!
River Avenue Exhibit C
The BOC should also know that ethical practices of city staff were called into question at
the Septemberl 3, 2004 Eugene City Council meeting after staff directed the Heatings
Official not to prepare a report for the City Council. The Heatings Official at the
July 28, 2004 public hearing announced that he could not send forward a favorable
recommendation to the City Council if Lane County did not allow for the formation of a
LID and allow the City to assess property outside the City. The BOC voted unanimously
(4-0) on August 4, 2004 not to approve the City request to assess property outside the city
limits (Commissioner Green absent). At the February 9, 2005 BOC meeting,
Commissioner Sorenson asked if the Board Order in the packet had been approved at the
August 4, 2004 BOC meeting and the answer was "no". Commissioner Green then stated
that "no action" was taken, which is simply incorrect. The BOC on August 4, 2004 voted
unanimously to oppose the City request to assess outside the City. The Eugene City
Council also voted (8-0) to oppose the forced island annexation.
This entire process has become tainted, which is exactly what the Mayor and the City
Councilors said they wanted to avoid when they met on September 13, 2004 and voted
unanimously (8-0) to oppose the River Avenue island annexation proposal. Please see the
attached outline of the public heating process to date, along with minutes from the
September 13, 2004 Eugene City Council meeting and a couple of written submittals in
opposition to this project which I retrieved from my files.
Therefore, I am requesting the Lane County Board of Commissioners to re-consider this
River Avenue issue again, and to reverse the action taken at your February 9, 2005
meeting and to revert to your previous position in opposition to the City's request which
was a unanimous vote against granting the City of Eugene authority to assess county
property owners outside the city. Please do not needlessly force the small business owners
on River Avenue to appear again before the City Council in a redundant process. Please
listen to us and put an end to this process now and revert back to your August 4, 2004
original decision to oppose the request from the City of Eugene. Both jurisdictions have
previously heard and taken action in opposition to this project.
I hereby request that the BOC provide a timely written response to this request, which I
will provide to the other small business and property owners on River Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Gordon B. Howard
P.O. Box 775
Pleasant Hill, OR 97455
541-747-8206
River Avenue Exhibit C
Commissioners:
My name is Gordon Howard and I am a property owner on River Avenue. On
February 9, 2005 City of Eugene Management re-presented a case for the River Avenue
Road Project #369~'. Property owners like myself were not made aware of that meeting
until after the fact. Just a reminder, 32 of 33 private property owners on River Avenue
opposed this project for a wide variety of reasons and ultimately signed remonstrance
forms. On August 4, 2004 after heating public testimony, the BOC voted unanimously
4-0 to deny the citys request for authority to form an LID for River Avenue. On
September 13, 2004 the City Council took similar action and opposed the staff
recommendation of an island annexation on River Avenue to force the project forward.
City managers deliberately with-held the fact that the City Council had already voted 8-0
against the River Avenue Project from the BOC at the February 9, 2005 meeting.
I would like to encourage the BOC to revoke the Board Order authorizing the formation
of an LID which was signed on February 9, 2005, and send the City of Eugene a clear
message. Tell the City of Eugene that in order to be good working parmers, that Lane
County needs to be able to trust City Managers to provide full and accurate information
and not enter into half truths and deceptions as was done at the February 9, 2005
presentation. Additional detail is provided in my written submittal provided to the BOC
on March 8, 2005.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to try to answer them at this time, if not I
will close by again urging the BOC to revoke the Board Order authorizing the City to
form an LID for the River Avenue project. Thank you.
River Avenue Exhibit C
8-3 -04
Lane County Board of Commissioners
125 East 8th Ave.
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Re: Proposed River Avenue Road Improvement Project #3693
Dear Commissioners:
My name is Gordon B. Howard and I along with my wife Connie R. Howard own two
properties commonly known as 425 River Avenue and 65 Ross Lane which is solely
accessed via River Avenue. We hereby request that the Board oppose the formation of a
Local Improvement District on River Avenue for the following reasons:
1. The road improvement plan as currently drawn is grandiose and not good use of
limited road improvement funds. As proposed, the plan includes bike paths and a 6 1/2
ft. wide sidewalk on the north side of the street and a 5 ft. wide sidewalk on the south side
of the street.
2. There is no demand for sidewalks in this area by the general public or by the business
owners located on and around River Avenue. The area is zoned for commercial, and light
industrial use and is made up of business' such as mini storage units, a landscape and
rock supply yard, boat sales, office equipment sales etc. none of which typically sell
product to walk-in type customers.
3. Assessments for un-wanted and un-necessary improvements will create a negative
financial burden on the small business owners and residents located on River Avenue.
The estimated $19,000.00 assessment to my property at 425 River Avenue will have to be
passed along to tenants when the current lease expires. This property currently provides
affordable housing.
River Avenue Exhibit C
4. The City of Eugene proposes to assess my property a paving assessment at the
commercial rate rather than at the residential rate which is it's current and historic use,
thus costing me several thousand dollars more because of my ability to re-develop the
property in the future as industrial land.
5. City of Eugene Public Works staff now acknowledges that ODOT has previously
discussed terminating the east end of River Avenue which would make this a big wide
road with lots of sidewalks that nobody is using. It simply does not make sense to create
so much impermeable surface when the need is non-existent, on a road that may in fact,
become a dead-end road to nowhere.
6. The design engineer has now re-vamped the original manhole cover location and
Stormwater Connection to my property because it was easier to coordinate (for the city)
with the other utility easements and improvements. Unfortunately, to facilitate this
"ease" for the city, I am now expected to pay for approximately 40 ft. worth of new
stormwater line, engineering etc. rather than what would have been approximately 5 ft. as
originally drawn. Something just seems inherently un-fair about the City assessing an
individual landowner for the sake of City convenience.
The solution to this dilemma is simple. The existing road bed should receive an asphalt
overlay, and if the City Council feels the "need" to include a bike lane on the south side
of the road they have adequate right of way to do it. This is the fiscally responsible thing
to do and it adequately meets the needs and capacity of the area and'free's up additional
road improvement dollars for area's that actually need and want new road projects.
Respectfully submitted,
Connie R. Howard
River Avenue Exhibit C
· Notice of Remonstrance
City of Eugene Public Works Department
Atto: Michelle Cahill / Joe Ramirez
244 East Broadway
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Eugene project ~ 3693 w~ch proposes m fo~ a Loc~ ~provement Disffict on ~ver
Avenue ~ Eugene Oregom ~e ro~ ~provemem project ~ c~enfly ~am i~ excessive
~d ~-w~ted. I hereby state ~t I ~ ~e'o~er of~e ~ected l~d set fo~ below
~d I oppose ~s project.. ' .... ' ....
Omer Nme ¢le~e P~t) Omer Nme ¢le~e P~t)
Property Address
Phone Number Tax Lot Number (If Known)
/' Owfi'er ~ign~tm:~'' ~' k) . (Date) '.'-"-'-- Ownel: Signature (Date)
River Avenue Exhibit C
8-2-04
Dear Lane County Board of Commissioners:
I am writing to express my concem and opposition to the current road improvement plan
for River Avenue. I am the general manager of Pacific Stonescape wlfich sells rock and
landscape supplies. We currently lease one lot at Ross Lane and the adjacent lot which
fronts on River Avenue. Needless to say, people do not walk to our business to purchase
landscape supplies. The existing roadway on River Avenue is absolutely adequate for our
needs and simply needs aa asphalt overlay to efficiently serve our business as well as the
other small business located on River Avenue. Adding sidewalks, bike lanes, and
landscape strips most certainly will result in future rent increases and will not provide any
.more business. My personal observation is that pedestrian traffic is virtually non-existent
on River Avenue except at the west end. next to the shopping center. Even if sidewalks
were in place, nobody walks to mini-storage facilities, plumbers, car lots, etc. which
make up the existing business on River Avenue. Running a profitable business is tough in
todays environment and we need our elected officials to help rather than hinder us and so,
I am asking you to do your part to stop the formation of the local improvement district on
River Avenue. We do not need this much road, and we do not want this much road.
Sincerely,
Stev~'-Di[ .('~eneral Manager)
Pacific Stonescape
65 Ross Lane
Eugene, Oregon 97404
River Avenue Exhibit C
March 29, 2005
Lloyd and Ferne Henson
2420 Wilbur Ave
Eugene, Or 97402
541-689-6185 APR ~. l 2005
City of Eugene
244 East Broadway
Eugene, Or 97401
541-682-5560
541-682-8410 fax
Eugene Mayor, City Councilors, and Lane County Commissioners
Gentlemen
This letter is in response to the letter received regarding River Avenue Street
Improvement Project-Job #3693
I feel that don't need the excessive large sidewalks, bike paths and curbs.
One side of the street with conservative side walks and bike path would
certainly be adequate. North Eugene High School does not have complete
bike paths and side walks in fi:ont of the school property. Why not?
The real need as far as I'm concerned is the need for adequate street parking
for business use. At the present time, spaces across the street are used for
business parking as needed. These need to be kept.
Since this area is an industrial zone, there is direct access to the Beltline
Road. Road obstructions could be hazardous to large semi trucks with forty
foot plus trailers entering and exiting. Planters and road dividers would
certainly further complicate the concept of safety. Business deliveries are
made every day. Remember taxes are produced by good accessible
businesses. We don't need planter obstructions or large nonpervious cement
sidewalks.
River Avenue Exhibit C
· The best plan for this area should be': 1. small width sidewalk on the
north side, 2. adequate street business parking, and 3. small bike path.
Traffic hazards, trees, planter, etc could be planted on the sewer
treatment plant property.
Regarding accidents, I have owned and operated business at this site for over
fifteen years and have yet to see an accident near or adjacent to this property.
We don't need obstructions that would cause serious accidents.
Since you refer to this as a major collector, I would certainly believe that
you would keep the street, business friendly, track delivery friendly, and
good relationship with the tax paying property owners.
Since you represent the government bodies spending my money both direct
and indirect, please be very conservative with the monies going to be spent
on this project.
Thank you very much for your careful consideration
Lloyd and Feme Henson
River Avenue Exhibit C
ATTACHMENT D
Exhibit D
CITY OF EUGENE ~
RIVER AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
VICINITY MAP JOB # 3693
APRIL 4, 2005