HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/23/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon
June 23, 2008
6:15 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George
Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka.
Council President Chris Pryor called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that
Mayor Piercy was attending a utility conference and speaking on Eugene’s pursuit of sustainability.
A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY
COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER.
Mr. Clark thanked City Manager Jon Ruiz for his listening tour of the community and said he had attended
the sessions in his ward, which he found very informational. He participated in the Willamette River clean-
up on June 14. He thanked REI and the City of Eugene for their sponsorship and John Brown for his efforts
to organize the event. He attended a meeting of the downtown public safety group and looked forward to the
results of its efforts.
Mr. Poling said he had walked the University area neighborhoods and found it very educational. He noted
that the SafetyFest had been well attended. He said a Convention Visitors Association of Lane County
Oregon (CVALCO) dinner had recognized those involved in organizing Eugene 08, including City
employees and elected officials. He thanked the Springfield City Council and Mayor Sid Leiken for their
efforts to support Eugene 08.
Ms. Solomon said Mr. Ruiz’s listening forum at Peterson Barn was very interactive and engaging and
attracted several individuals who did not typically attend those types of events. She said Active Bethel
Citizens was meeting June 25 and would be electing officers for the next year.
Ms. Ortiz said the Human Services Commission’s (HSC) adopted budget would hold the program harmless
for the coming year. She said HSC had been primarily a funding conduit, but would be discussing a
broader, more active role that included advocacy at its July 2 retreat. She thanked the police for investigat-
ing whether an attack in the Trainsong neighborhood was a hate crime. She said the neighborhood was
holding a fundraiser to assist the victim.
Mr. Pryor said the SafetyFest was an impressive event and all of the participating agencies and organiza-
tions did a great job. He had also toured the University area neighborhood and found it very informative.
He agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s remarks regarding the HSC and a potential new role.
Mr. Ruiz reported that he and Mr. Zelenka had attended a meeting at which the neighborhood and the
University and City were working together to mitigate issues involving the new arena. He said more work
was required, but was pleased that all of the stakeholders were willing to work toward solutions.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 1
Work Session
B. WORK SESSION:
Street Assessment Policy
City Engineer Mark Schoening used a map to illustrate the location of 75 miles of unimproved streets within
the City. He noted they were clustered in the areas of River Road, Trainsong, Bethel, Crest Drive, Laurel
Hill valley and Willakenzie. He said regulatory authority for the City’s assessment code came from state
law, the City charter and the Eugene code. He explained that local improvements could be initiated either
through petition/poll where property owners bore over half the cost of any improvements or council action
or motion. He said once bids on the project had been received there was a hearing before the Hearings
Official. He said if owners of property that would bear more than half the estimated costs remonstrated, the
hearing would be continued to the City Council; it required approval by two-thirds of the council to continue
with the project.
Mr. Zelenka arrived at 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Schoening said if the council approved the formation of a local improvement district (LID), a contract
was awarded for construction and when construction was completed the costs were assessed. He said a
second public hearing would then be held before the Hearings Official to determine if the assessments were
done appropriately. The council would then adopt an ordinance levying assessments and notice was given to
property owners. He said property owners had 10 days in which to pay the assessment without interest,
obtain personal financing or finance the assessment through the City. He reviewed the financial assistance
options offered by the City.
Mr. Schoening said the council had established an ad hoc committee in 1999 to review the City’s assessment
policies and achieve greater fairness and equity in how property owners paid for the cost of upgrading
unimproved streets. He reviewed the seven committee recommendations that were approved by the council:
?
Assessable costs
?
Assessable frontage
?
Equivalent assessments
?
Street subsidy program
?
Corner lots
?
Primary access
?
Vacant and partially developed lots
Mr. Schoening used a flow chart to illustrate the decision tree for determining street assessment status and
assessable frontage of a property and a diagram to illustrate the calculation of assessments for several types
of lots. He said arterial and collector street projects since the code was updated had been council initiated
and the City’s share funded with transportation system development charges (SDC). He said local projects
on local streets, including unclassified streets, were initiated by petition poll and the City’s share was
unfunded as the City lacked a viable funding source. He said options for initiation of local street improve-
ments included maintaining the current petition poll process or initiating improvements through the budget
process. He said options for funding the City’s share of local street improvements included identifying an
existing source of funds, identifying a portion of the proposed bond measure for that use, and amending the
Eugene Code to assess all costs for local streets. He concluded his presentation with the assessment of Pearl
Street construction in 1908 to show the City’s history of assessment abutting property owners.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 2
Work Session
Mr. Clark asked why polls were rarely successful in initiating street improvements. Mr. Schoening said
people were surprised at the cost of improving streets and the expectation that property owners abutting the
street would pay.
his experience was that failure was due less to the cost than to the payment options. He suggested there
would be more successful polls if there were other payment options that made it more affordable for a
property owner. He was interested in exploring some of those options, such as the ones he had forwarded to
staff. He asked Mr. Schoening to explain those alternatives.
Mr. Schoening explained that one option was expansion of the LID boundary to include more than just
abutting property owners. He said that could be accomplished through a code amendment, but it was
contrary to the City’s policy that everyone should pay once for the street where they took primary access,
which was why corner lots were not assessed for two streets. He said another option was doing assessment
projects for maintenance overlays, but the assessment process was fairly expensive and that would add to
the cost of a project.
Mr. Clark said a policy question for the council, if it decided to assess overlays, was who would pay for the
administrative costs. He was interested in a scoping of the typical administrative costs associated with an
assessment.
Mr. Schoening said another option was deferral of the assessment until a property was sold.
Mr. Clark commented that the deferral option would place a lien against a house that would be paid at the
time of sale of the house, instead of requiring payment of the assessment over a ten-year period. He pointed
out that the average home sold every seven years so the City might actually recover costs more quickly. He
said the option made improvements more affordable for the property owners and thus polls were more likely
to succeed.
Ms. Taylor felt the assessment process was unjust and many communities used a different approach to pay
for street improvements, such as a bond measure. She hoped the City would consider no-interest loans
instead of charging for financing. She liked the idea of postponing payment of assessments until a property
was sold, but said that should be optional. She said those who used the street should also pay for improve-
ments and used the example of a street that had to be improved because a subdivision used it for access, but
only those living along the street had to pay the costs. She noted that in the case of Crest Drive, Storey
Boulevard and Friendly Street, there were a number of cul de sacs that had to use those streets for access,
but the property owners were not assessed for improvements. She said the overlay assessment could be
risky and invite development once improvements were completed.
Ms. Solomon remarked another factor in the failure of polls was that many people on unimproved streets
were renters, not owners. She said many people also objected to the scope of a project and felt that
amenities like curbs and gutters were unnecessary. She asked Mr. Ruiz what his experience of these issues
had been in other communities.
Mr. Ruiz related that Fresno had chosen to invest $45 million in unimproved streets; no assessment of local
property owners was involved. He said the project was funded through a variety of resources, including
General Fund and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money. He said local improvement
districts were used to some extent in each community in which he had lived and included both petition and
council initiation.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 3
Work Session
Ms. Bettman observed that the ad hoc committee had considered a broader LID that included the travelshed
of the neighborhood to help spread the costs beyond abutting property owners to others who benefited. She
said that was something that could be initiated by a neighborhood. Mr. Schoening said the code restricted
the LID to properties that abutted the street. He said others could voluntarily contribute to the costs, but
they would not be part of the district or eligible for financing.
Ms. Bettman commented that the code could be amended, but the ad hoc committee had declined to pursue
that option because of its complexity. She asked if SDCs could be used for an unclassified street. Mr.
Schoening said the methodology adopted by the City was based on an arterial/collector street system.
Ms. Bettman said that the State did not prohibit using SDC funds for local and unclassified streets, as long
as the project met the definition for increasing capacity. She said the City could amend its methodology to
use SDCs for those streets. Mr. Schoening said that would be a monumental task.
Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Taylor’s point about the need for people who used the streets being improved
for access to share in costs. He used Arcadia Drive as an example; there were three streets that could only
be accessed from Arcadia Drive and the people living on those streets benefited more from improvements to
Arcadia than the people who lived along it. He said there should be some methodology to spread the costs to
everyone who benefited from improvements. He asked how the cost of an improvement would be paid for if
the assessment was deferred until a home was sold. Mr. Schoening replied that the City would carry that
cost. He said funds were reserved to pay those costs when the current deferral program, which was limited
to qualifying owners on the basis of age and income, was established; however, deferrals were not widely
used. He said if the concept of allowing any assessment to be delayed was implemented the City would have
to carry a much more substantial amount.
Mr. Poling said that assessments varied depending on street classification and asked how a street could be
reclassified. He said that Arcadia was no longer a dead end neighborhood street and should be reclassified.
Mr. Schoening said the classification map was changed by ordinance. He was not certain there was a
defined process for requesting reclassification, but if there was a substantial difference since the time of
original classification the council could direct staff to initiate that process.
In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Schoening explained the street classification system, which
was based on five criteria. He said the classification system was implemented citywide in 1999. He said at
least 70 percent of streets were local; there were 75 miles of unimproved streets, of which 12 miles were
arterials and collectors and 63 miles were local streets. He said some streets in the Crest Drive neighbor-
hood were unclassified pending a transportation study.
Mr. Zelenka indicated he was interested in more information about financing strategies used by other
jurisdictions to help property owners pay the cost of assessments. He said cul de sacs were a major concern
because they were not assessed for improvements on a street that they used for access. He liked the idea of
a travelshed to include others who benefited from improvements. He wanted information on street standards
and context-sensitive design and how that was related to people’s concerns about more improvements than
they felt were needed on a street. Mr. Schoening pointed out that Crest Drive was a context-sensitive project
and it would be difficult to determine whether people’s preferences were influenced by the potential cost of
improvements. He said the theory was that people living on a cul-de-sac had already paid for improvement
of the cul-de-sac. He said at some point a person could only be asked to pay for so many streets, regardless
of how many they traveled on. The code was modified to include a City-funded share of improvements to
MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 4
Work Session
arterial and collector streets to address that issue. He said the City’s financing program for assessments was
funded through bonds issued by the City and he did not think there was a statutory requirement to limit the
period to 10 years.
Mr. Clark asked for confirmation from staff that the financing period could be extended beyond 10 years.
He agreed that people who had to use a street other than the one they lived on to gain access to major
thoroughfares should be able to contribute to the cost of improvements, but requiring them to pay meant
they would pay for improvements to two streets and that was not fair. He was interested in developing a
voluntary participation process that was not to administratively burdensome, but not in compelling payment.
He asked for clarification of the city manager’s recommendation. Mr. Schoening said the recommendation
was to add the option of council-initiated improvements to local streets, not replace the poll petition process.
Mr. Ruiz said that option would allow the council to move proactively on local streets in the capital
improvement program (CIP) process if it desired instead of only responding to a poll.
Mr. Clark said he would be challenged by the idea of the council choosing a street, forming an LID and
assessing costs without the participation of property owners. He noted that the amount of unimproved roads
had increased from 48 miles in 2001 to 75 miles currently. Mr. Schoening said those roads had been
annexed into the City.
Mr. Clark said he was interested in how the process could be made more affordable to home owners.
Ms. Taylor opined that some people paid more for street improvements than they paid for their property.
She did not believe that people on cul-de-sacs paid for the street as they purchased their home after the street
was constructed. She used Whitbeck Boulevard as an example of developers being allowed to build houses
after an overlay had been completed; the street was damaged by heavy equipment and those who had paid
for the overlay were left with a street in poor condition. She felt that flag lots should be assessed the same
as regular lots along the street because it was how they took access. She liked the concept of a travelshed.
She asked if the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street project would not proceed unless the bond
measure passed. Mr. Schoening said at this point the City’s share of the road improvements was not funded
and the project could not move forward. Mr. Ruiz said he was discussing with the neighborhood the option
of reclassifying streets in order to use SDCs for the City share. Mr. Schoening added that it could be paid
for in the capital budget only if another project was foregone.
Ms. Bettman said it did not seem there was sufficient cohesion to move forward with a motion. She said
funding the Crest Drive project could be discussed during the council’s consideration of a bond resolution.
She suggested reconvening the council’s subcommittee on transportation funding to examine the inequities in
the assessment policies. She asked for a memorandum from staff on how the code could be changed to
allow funding of an unclassified street.
Ms. Solomon hoped the council would act thoughtfully, but expeditiously to address the matter of
assessments. She said the recommendations did not address street classification and LID limitation issues.
She asked if the recommendation to include unimproved streets in the CIP meant the entire cost of the
project or only the City’s share. Mr. Schoening said the idea was to initiate projects on local streets by
council action in order to being to reduce the 63 miles of unimproved streets; the CIP would front the cost of
the entire project, with the non-City portion to be assessed.
Ms. Ortiz remarked that many of the unimproved streets were in her ward and 70 percent of the residential
properties were rentals. Her challenge was not with street improvements, but with all of the improvements
MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 5
Work Session
in addition to just the pavement. She said the River Road area was interested in good roads, no sidewalks
and preserving bioswales. She hoped that the City’s policies could be examined for the purpose of allowing
some flexibility to tailor improvements to a neighborhood’s wishes. Mr. Ruiz said the subcommittee would
be useful to address those types of policy questions.
Mr. Pryor determined that there was agreement among councilors to re-establish a subcommittee on
transportation system funding. Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman volunteered to be on
the subcommittee.
Mr. Clark said the City’s policies driving infill and increased density had created some of the problems by
taking unimproved roads and forcing increased capacity onto them without paying for it. He said Bond
Lane was an excellent example; side streets and cul-de-sacs had increased the number of houses and the City
as a whole bore the responsibility for what increasing density had done to Bond Lane. He was troubled by
the issues of Crest Drive and questioned why the City’s share of only that project might be included in the
bond measure. He hoped the subcommittee would address those equity issues. He agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s
comments regarding design concerns in River Road.
Ms. Bettman said she could not support the including improvements to unimproved streets in the CIP
because that was a caveat that would force people on those streets to pay assessments without any say in the
matter. She said creating travelshed LIDs should apply to new subdivisions and traffic impact analyses
should take into consideration the cumulative impact on access streets. She pointed out that half of the
unimproved streets were accepted as transfers from the County, which had over $40 million in a Road Fund
reserve. She said the City should request some of those funds to offset the obligation it assumed with those
roads.
Ms. Taylor said the reason for doing the Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street project first was
because they had been working on the design issue for years. She commented that some people in River
Road area were pleased that the Crest Drive design project was setting a precedent.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 6
Work Session