Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/15/09 Public Hearing M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing/Work Session Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon June 15, 2009 8 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Brown, Chris Pryor. Council President Zelenka called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He explained that Mayor Kitty Piercy would not be able to attend the meeting because of a death in the family. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4980 Electing to Receive State Revenue Sharing Funds Pursuant to Section 221.770 of Oregon Revised Statutes; Resolution 4981 Certifying that the City of Eugene Provides the Municipal Services Required by Oregon Revised Statues Section 221.760 in Order to Receive State Shared Revenues; and Resolution 4982 Adopting the Budget, Making Appropriations, Determining, Levying and Cate- gorizing the Annual Property Tax Levy for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Ad Valorem Beginning July 1, 2009, and ending June 30, 2010 Councilor Zelenka reviewed the guidelines for testimony and opened the public hearing. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, Ward 3, thanked the council for all of the hard work they had done on the budget cycle. He expressed some dismay regarding the result of the vote on the garbage haulers fee. While he respected the vote, he disagreed with it. He averred that there would be a cost, in service reductions, to the vote. He underscored that a promise had been made to the citizens to fix potholes, but he believed that no potholes would be fixed in the coming year because of the decision to oppose the fee. He urged the council to meet its commitment made to the citizens of Eugene. He likened it to the County Commissioners saying they would fund the jail in the previous year and then not funding it after all. Judith Van , 89236 Old Coburg Road, asked if approval of the budget would mean that the funding for the Chad Drive and Crest Drive projects was locked in. She observed that it would cost $2 million to extend Chad Drive for one-quarter of a mile and asked if that money would not be better spent filling potholes. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing. Councilor Solomon asked staff to respond to Ms. Van’s questions. City Engineer Mark Schoening explained that the cost of the Chad Drive project was more than the Crest Drive project because it was a bigger project with bicycle lanes and multi-lane development. He said the City had to purchase a substantial amount of right-of-way. He noted that funding for both projects had been appropriated several years earlier, with the last portion appropriated in September, 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 1 Public Hearing Councilor Poling recalled that the vote on the garbage hauler fee in the Budget Committee had been 10:4. He thought the Budget Committee should have known there would be a problem with the tax given that it had been voted down twice by the City Council on previous occasions. While he respected the fact that the citizen members of the Budget Committee had taken time to learn and understand the budget, the council had heard from many people beside the members of the Budget Committee in regard to the tax and they were “overwhelmingly” opposed to it. He said there were other funds available and the City might not have to take the $1 million set aside for the overlays. He averred that times changed, things happened, and sometimes a person just had to adapt, improvise, and overcome. Councilor Ortiz indicated that she had supported the garbage hauler fee. She expressed appreciation for Mr. Barofsky’s testimony and for his time on the Budget Committee. Councilor Clark noted that Mr. Barofsky had chaired the Budget Committee and had done a very good job of running the meeting. He disagreed regarding the garbage hauler fee. He was glad they had brought up the issue for discussion and consideration, but he recognized that the citizen members were mostly from a particular area of town. He said the council had heard from a lot of different parts of the community and the council was charged with making decisions based on input from across the board. He agreed that they should be looking for other ways to backfill the work that needed to be done. Councilor Pryor acknowledged his role in the process. He had advocated strongly for the Budget Committee to discuss the garbage hauler fee and they had done so. He had supported it at the Budget Committee level. He said situations sometimes changed. He had opted to pass on the revenue source because he believed there were other revenue sources they could pursue. He hoped that they could raise revenue collaboratively. Councilor Zelenka thanked Mr. Barofsky for his service as chair of the Budget Committee. Councilor Zelenka adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 7:48 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 1052 of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene Adopting the Budget, Mak- ing Appropriations, and Declaring the Amount of Tax to be Received for the Fiscal Year Begin- ning July 1, 2009, and Ending June 30, 2010 Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one was present who wished to give testimony, he closed the hearing. Councilor Zelenka adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 7:49 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4983 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2008, and Ending June 30, 2009 Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, indicated that an item in Supplemental Budget 3 had caught his attention. He explained that it showed that in the Road Capital Projects Fund there had been a change that MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 2 Public Hearing showed recognition of $110,000 in revenues from the University of Oregon for utility work in the right-of- way that also increased appropriations by that same amount, in order to allow project teams to respond to requests from the public and other City departments for transportation capital and planning. He had not been sure what that had meant. He said in these times, if someone gave the City $110,000 it should be spent on asphalt for roads rather than going to staff to plan more projects. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing. Councilor Clark asked staff to address his question. Mr. Schoening responded that funding for the project teams came from capital projects and this was the only way to pay salaries. He stressed that this type of funding paid for upfront costs for projects such as the arena, which included appraisals and project review. Councilor Clark thanked him on behalf of the people of Bond Lane for the “fine effort.” 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4984 Forming a Local Improvement District (LID) for Paving, Constructing Curbs, Sidewalks, Medians, Street Lights, Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality Facilities on Crest Drive from Blanton Road to Lincoln Street, Storey Boulevard from Crest Drive to Lorane High- th way, and Friendly Street from Lorane Highway to 28 Avenue (Job #4546) Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. Judith Van , 89236 Old Coburg Road, thanked the City for the subsidy she had received to help pay for the assessment she had been charged for road improvements. She wanted to reiterate that when projects happened they affected a discreet population. In her case, only three people were affected. She felt that many people were detrimentally affected by the process as the assessments were “too high.” She averred that the eight percent interest charged on City loans was also too high. She requested that the City Council direct the City Attorney and the City Manager to revise the code and to make it retroactive to the current projects. She indicated she would be happy to help if citizen help was needed. Robbin Howard , 3217 Whitten Drive, Ward 2, supported the formation of the Local Improvement District (LID). She asked that the road be made safe and that the construction begin this summer. She hoped the council would vote with an overwhelming majority to overturn the remonstrance submitted by the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street residents. She agreed that they needed to change the funding model. She hoped the City could allocate some staff time to research best practices in other communities. She believed the funding method would continue to be an issue for people. She appreciated the council’s willingness to proceed with the project though there was discomfort about the assessment policy. She suggested that the City could set up a “subscripted gift fund” in order to encourage non-assessed citizens to contribute. She also wondered if they could add language to the project that would allow the City to consider partially reimbursing the citizens should the City experience a monetary windfall at a later date. She understood that as elected officials the councilors had a great deal of fiduciary responsibility. She said the City had likely spent “well over $500,000” on the project thus far and asked that the council not “waste” that money. She declared that the longer the City waited to do the project, the more expensive it would become. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 3 Public Hearing Marion Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, turned in two additional signatures of remonstrance, noting that the total was now 88. She averred that every time the City assessed for road improvements, the people remonstrated. She asked how many more times the council would go through this before they changed the policy. She felt there would always be landowners opposed to such assessments. She asked anyone in the audience who did not intend to speak but was opposed to the assessments to stand and one person did so. Ruth South , 697 Crest Drive, supported the road improvement project but opposed the assessment. She felt that the assessment was an extreme hardship for a small number of property owners. She thought the costs of improvements should be shared by those properties that could only be accessed via Crest Drive. She averred that the system was unfair, though it might have been acceptable some years earlier when construction costs were lower and there was no threat of losing home ownership and when the economic climate was better than the current one. She urged the City Council to declare a delay in order to allow for some change in the financing of the improvements. Jan Fillinger , 695 Crest Drive, voiced his support for the project, but he believed that only assessing 126 residents when “hundreds and even thousands benefit daily” was unjust. He related that for his family the assessment would be $14,000. He had heard Councilor Poling state that 98 cents per month per household [for the garbage hauler fee] was a lot and that he did not feel comfortable asking the citizens to pay it. He thought that it would be more just if the City asked everyone to pay for street improvements just as they asked everyone to pay for public safety services. He said given the “dire economy,” to assess that much of a few families and then charge eight percent interest was “not fair.” He understood that the council had originally budgeted $5.75 million for the project, but bids had come in much lower. He had been told that there were reasons why the project could not use all of the money. He felt the council had indicated that it was willing to pay that much and suggested that the money be utilized to reduce the assessments. He observed that everyone on the council and nearly all of the neighbors believed that the assessment was unfair. He respected the work that had gone into the project. Kathy Saranpa , 3015 Friendly Street, Ward 2, stated that 75 linear feet of her street frontage would be assessed if the council approved the LID and she hoped they would proceed to do so. Regarding fairness, she pointed out that Crest Drive residents had been using roads that others had paid for out of their assessments. She averred that it was “grossly unfair” to ask for a different assessment policy when it was “[their] turn.” She related that paying the assessment would be a hardship for her, but the area residents had been hearing about the project for at least five years at neighborhood meetings, open houses, and through newsletters and newspaper articles. She declared that not only had the residents had time to prepare financially for the project, there were also loans and subsidies available and the possibility of donations from residents in the neighborhood and those outside of it. She believed there was plenty of time to work out the details as the project would be spread out over two summers. She remarked that she could have gone and collected signatures, saying to sign if people wanted the road to be built. She felt it was a person’s choice what to say when collecting signatures and found it shocking that a petition that had legal effect was not strictly limited in terms of how issues it engaged were framed or communicated. She related that the person who had come to her door had known very little about the history of the project, nor had she understood that the petition could halt the project. She said even after she had explained to the woman, the woman had asked if she would sign out of solidarity for those who found the assessment policy unfair. She asserted that at least two people had called the City in an attempt to have their signatures removed from the petition once they had realized that a halt to the project was possible. She declared that the number of volunteer hours that had gone into the project alone should make it worthy of completion. She said the “trust issue” between the City and the Crest citizens had been “successfully overcome” to create the design. She opined that if the council voted to “kill” the project, they would also be voting to “kill the hard won trust” that had taken time MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 4 Public Hearing and effort to build. She urged the council to drive on the roads before making its decision in order to decide how badly in need of repair they were. Jeffrey Librett , 920 Crest Drive, considered the assessment policy to be outmoded and unfair. He supported the formation of a policy that would have everyone in the City pay for all road improvements. He opined that the fact that the policy had been long-standing did not legitimate its “eternal perpetuation.” He considered the project to be too costly. He thought that given there was no cost limit written into the law, the costs to homeowners could be allowed to become unaffordable. He averred that the law should contain a cap. He found fault with the Hearings Official process because the neighbors were not consulted about the assessment policy. He did not believe he had been adequately educated regarding assessments during the time that the road project was being considered. He called the road project and assessments a “forced choice under very constrained circumstances.” He predicted that the law would be changed eventually and it seemed to him that not to change it now was only to avoid “dealing with the problem out of timidity or in an attempt to avoid the hassle of it.” th Kathleen Bosteder , 55 West 30 Avenue, Ward 2, stated that she had served as secretary to the Crest Drive Association since 2006. She regretted that she had felt she had to testify because she had hoped that the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street rebuild would come to a successful end in what she termed “our cantankerous neighborhood” and they would be able to move forward with a much-needed street rebuild. She related that at the close of the May 19 neighborhood association meeting an assessed resident announced that she wanted to present a motion that would cause the association to write a letter to the City Council and City Engineer’s office asking for a delay in the street project. She said the person had indicated that what she really wanted was for the whole assessment process to be changed citywide. She stated that the proposed motion had not been on the published agenda and many interested parties who would oppose the delay were not present at the meeting. She noted that whether or not the meeting had been adjourned at the time was also still in question. She felt that passing the motion would set aside all of the work done by the Crest Drive Street Community Team. She related that 18 people had been in attendance, 10 of whom were from assessed Crest Drive residences, and most were not regular meeting attendees. The vote had been 11:4, with two abstentions, to write the letter. She was present to register her concern that the submitted letter was not representational and was far from being the true intent of many in the Crest Drive Neighbor- hood. She noted that generally the association considered ten to be a quorum and that the chair did not consider the association to be fully united behind the request for the delay. She stated that the association had voted on February 12, 2008, to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed street design. She submitted her testimony in writing. Bill Hirsh , 3210 Storey Boulevard, echoed support for the project. He recommended the council direct the City Manager to work on the assessment policy. He suggested that the City take the money committed to the project and keep it in the project which would reduce the assessments and make them more manageable. He noted that the City had taken lower bids and had reduced its share by 50 percent and the residents share by 20 percent. He also wanted to recommend that the City assess people the same minimum amount and not by assessing people by linear road frontage. Additionally, he asked that the City come up with a zero percent interest rate for its loans. Cindy Breaux , 3240 Inspiration Point, voiced her support for the project. She asked the council to please not delay it any longer. She expressed concern for the safety of the children who walked or rode their bicycles to school in the area. She declared that the roads definitely needed to be repaired. She asked the council to “think outside the box” and get the project moving forward. She remarked that it was a beautiful road design and that people had spent a lot of time, effort, and money on it already. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 5 Public Hearing Jules DeGiulio , 3205 Whitten Drive, Ward 2, asked the council to please overturn the recently submitted remonstrance. He did not wish to address the assessments. He felt that even if the assessment language was imperfect, the ordinances in question had been in effect for years and were well known by the residents in the LID. He noted that the question of whether the streets were collectors or residential streets had also been established years earlier. He believed that the overriding issue was the safety of the 250 children who attended Crest Drive Elementary School. He said though his home was only a quarter-mile from his son’s school, he could not allow his son to walk to school alone or with a friend. He felt it was the responsibility of the community to provide safe walking and bicycling streets and to not do this was a “full-scale community failure.” He averred that the street design that the citizens had worked with the City to develop would provide the best and safest option. He said until the stretch of road was improved, he could not allow his son to walk to school alone. He opined that the community had “stolen” from its children “a milestone in their growth toward independence.” William Jaeger , 3201 Inspiration Point Drive, stated that he was an economics professor and did research on land economics and land use regulations. He saw two distinct issues to be solved: 1) whether the road project had public support, and 2) whether the rules for LID assessments were fair. He observed, regarding the former, that the project was approved and funded and nearly all of the residents wanted it to go forward. He said the second issue had to do with fairness, which was judged by whether the same rules were applied consistently across similar situations. He noted that the City had applied the rules in other parts of the City. He opined that if the City stopped the project as a result of the petition, it would be unfair to the other Crest area residents who had waited “years” for the roads to be fixed and it would also be unfair to the other city residents who had paid assessments under the same rules. He said if the rules were fair, they should be applied, and if they were unfair, they should be changed. He had found many of the recent arguments of the petitioners against the project to be “unpersuasive.” The only issue raised that he had found to have merit was that it was unfair that people in cul de sacs who only had access to their residences via the streets in the LID were not assessed. He averred that if it was the council’s collective judgment that the existing rules were fair, then there was no justification for delaying the project further. And if the council felt otherwise, he asked that the council then change the rules and not delay the project. He felt that the legal counsel could find a creative way to grandfather in the project if the council decided to change the assessment policy. Neal Spangler , 963 Tiara Court, stated that he owned property on Friendly Street. He appreciated and honored the work that had gone into the project design. He believed they were doing the best they could do to maintain the character of the streets. He said because of the unique location, by default the streets would be collector streets. For this reason, he felt the assessments to be unfair. He asked that the council review the policy. He averred that the few were paying for the many. He added that he preferred the potholes because it slowed down traffic. He added that if he could refinance his home with an annual percentage rate of less than five percent, the City should not charge eight percent in interest. Connie Wonham , 3208 Whitten Drive, asked the council to vote to form the LID without further delay. She declared that the need for road improvements was obvious. She wanted them to uphold the original directive and get the work started. She said hundreds of people used the roads daily and were forced to drive on substandard roads though they also paid taxes. She felt it was most important to protect the safety of the children, runners, bikers, and dogs who tried “to navigate” the streets every day. She thought there should be some solutions to the objections put forth by the neighbors that could derail the project. She urged the council to implement the “great street design” that had come out of collaborative effort between the neighbors and the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 6 Public Hearing Marlene Varady , 420 Crest Drive, shared Margaret Mead’s quote regarding the power of a small group of thoughtful citizens to change the world. She had lived on Crest Drive for 25 years and had raised four children there. She agreed that the streets were dangerous. She understood that there were a lot of people accessing the roads and wondered if some of the cul de sac residents could help to pay for the assessments. She appreciated the council’s willingness to listen to the residents. Richard Wohlberg , 310 Crest Drive, had heard Councilor Taylor’s “sincere concern” that a delay to the project would cost more later. While he appreciated this, it seemed to him that changing the assessments was not an option for the councilors. He commented that it might be unfair to change something that had been unfair and everyone else had dealt with it already, but there could be a point at which it was changed. He was interested in hearing from the councilors just how difficult it would be to change the assessment policy. Bill Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, gave kudos to City Engineer Mark Schoening and his engineering team. He felt they had done a “great job” of helping with the design work and putting together the presentation they had for the neighbors. He related that many had felt that the Hearings Official had not shown much interest in the “sincere financial concerns” expressed to him. He opined that the Hearings Official’s recommendations seemed “biased and predetermined.” He said the report included a statement that indicated that a call to change the assessments would be a call to cancel the project. He averred that “rational people” could find a way to proceed with the project and make it financially affordable. He noted that no one at the hearing called for killing the project. He stated that their only goal was to change the assessment policy and to put an end to “this unfair tax.” He believed a citywide assessment to be the best idea. He echoed support for a plan to assess parcels on unimproved and private streets that had no option other than traveling on Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street for access. He opined that spreading the financial pain made sense in difficult financial times. Toby Gamberoni , 691 Crest Drive, Ward 2, reiterated that the project should go ahead, but the assessment policy should be changed. He agreed with the comments made regarding a possible citywide assessment or the potential assessment of people who lived in cul de sacs. He averred that even if he was not assessed, he would give his full support to changing the policy. He felt that the City of Eugene was meant to be a progressive, green city that should be an example and move forward to create a better system and a better future. th Fred Lorish , 897 West 36 Avenue, Ward 2, said after nearly six years of effort, the Crest Drive improvements had come to a remonstration, which appeared to be saying the design “was okay” but the assessments were not. He suspected all of the residents in the neighborhood agreed in principle with the concerns that had been raised. He urged the council, however, to move forward with the improvement. He suggested that the council commit itself to seeking a new, innovative, and equitable system of assessing the citizens for road and infrastructure improvement. He also urged the council to move the present LID forward in spite of the remonstrations. He averred that it would get the project going at a time in which costs were significantly reduced. He felt that the council should acknowledge that two of the currently planned road projects had raised serious citizen scrutiny. He asked that the council grandfather those projects so that if the assessment system was changed, they would fall under the newly adopted system. He stated that the Crest Drive Community Team had spent three years on the road design, with some having worked on it for six years. He reiterated that the council should not wait any longer. Mike Lafferty , 766 Crest Drive, supported much of what had been said regarding the equities of the current means of assessing the street owner. He said given that the majority of the people in that area lived on cul MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 7 Public Hearing de sacs, the council should see if there was not a way to make the assessments more equitable for everyone. He had lived on Crest Drive for most of his life and agreed that the streets needed improving. Ron Gietter , 990 Sundance Road, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the 23 homeowners who were in the South Point Homeowners Association. He had lived in that area for 29 years. It seemed to him that the roads were just as bad 29 years ago as they were in the present. He had been pleased to see that the City was taking action to improve the roads. He acknowledged the work that the City had done collaboratively with neighborhood residents to come up with a sensitive design for the project. He recalled that in the meetings there had been discussions of how the project would be paid for. He found it hard to believe that th the assessments were a surprise to a lot of people “in the 11 hour.” He thought the process had been “great,” noting that the council and Mayor had praised the project. He stated that when he had bought his lot in South Point, he had paid for the roads. He said the assessment policy might take years of discussion, but the roads needed to be fixed now. He pointed out that delaying the project would run the risk of having costs skyrocket again. Wendy Dudelheim , 3385 Storey Boulevard, asked that the council reevaluate assessments. She said the assessment was a tremendous burden. She echoed the suggestion that assessments be spread over the residents who accessed their cul de sac properties via the LID streets. She pointed out that other traffic traveled on the streets, notably traffic coming from Lane County roads, and suggested that the City see if it would be possible to garner funding from the county. She felt that the assessment policy was archaic. She added that she did not have children and wondered if some of the taxes she paid for the public school system could be diverted into the roads. Steve Hirons , 736 Crest Drive, stated that his house was for sale and the assessment would affect the selling price. He averred that 70 percent of the traffic consisted of vehicles traveling through the area and not people who lived there. He reiterated that 65 percent of the area residents had signed a petition of remonstrance. He declared that it was a “terrible time” to burden people with a bill to fix the streets. He asked that the council consider adding more subsidies given that the bids had come in lower. He predicted that a lot of people would face a painful burden. He said the residents in the LID would welcome monetary involvement from the residents who could only access their houses via Crest Drive. John Rude , 1207 Courtney Place, Ward 2, spoke on behalf of the Crest Dive Community Team Advisory Group. The association believed the Crest Drive project was in jeopardy due to the remonstrance. He asked that the council have a solution in mind, should it honor the remonstration. He said there was no need to change the assessment, but the council could influence how the City and the neighbors shared the burden of the cost. He noted that the City had estimated its share to be $3.5 million and the residents’ share to be $2.6 million. He related that the recent bids had changed the overall cost from $5.75 million to $3.79 million. He noted that the City’s portion had dropped by 44 percent, but the residents’ portion dropped only 22 percent. He said though this improved the situation, it only dropped the residents’ portion from approximately $20,000 to approximately $15,000. He suggested that the City could consider paying its original estimate, which would drop the residents’ portion to $641,376. He thought the City could also cobble together money from its potential swap of $1 million with the Lane County Road Fund. He said the funding sources could create a more reasonable assessment, approximately $5,000 per property, and would help the remonstrators support the project to move forward. Rick Robertson , 839 Crest Drive, Ward 2, said he had purchased his house knowing about the assessment. He supported the project as designed and wanted the project to proceed as planned. He asked the council to look at all of the options to reduce the financial burden of the assessment policy, even if it would not reduce MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 8 Public Hearing the assessments for the proposed LID. He asked for more information about the bond sales and the interim interest rates. Regarding any recent developments on cul de sacs, he was pretty sure they were built under the process that did not require paying prevailing wage, which would increase costs. Joe Collins , P.O. Box 2411, Ward 8, commented that the only time public hearings garnered this much interest was when the Crest Drive people were present to complain about the cost of road improvements. He understood that in 2004, the residents had opposed the road design and had initiated the collaborative process to change the design. He said if anyone who had bought their house in the last five years did not know they would be assessed for the road improvements, they should talk to their realtor. He would like to thst see the area residents pay their fair share and bring their roads “into at least the 20 century if not the 21.” He was proud to live in a democracy, but he thought the “Crest Drive juggernaut” had taken too much of the City Council’s time. He opined that the people in that area were wealthy and that was why they would not take no for an answer and would not give up. He wanted the council to work harder for the poor of Eugene. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing and opened the floor for comments from the council. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their testimony. She recalled that the Crest Drive area residents had come forward and asked that the council not designate Crest Drive as a collector because they wanted to have control over the design. She said at the time she had felt hesitant because of the high traffic use of the road, but she had voted to support it because that was what the neighborhood residents had wanted. She related that in listening to the testimony, it seemed to her that people did not want to pay at all for road assessments. Regarding the suggestion that the whole city be assessed for road improvements, she pointed to the recent testimony in opposition of the garbage hauler fee, which would have cost residents approx- imately 98 cents. She did not believe that a citywide assessment would get any traction at all. She also did not think a “no build” was an option. She felt the question was how to offset the costs and indicated that she would look to giving direction, pending legality, as to how cul de sacs could be included for assessments when the policy was revisited. She said they should also determine how others could donate for an LID they were not being assessed for and whether a change in the assessment structure could be retroactive to the present projects. She asked staff also to look into how the interest rate on the loans from the City to help with assessments could be lowered. Councilor Solomon asked why the changes in the estimate were distributed differently between the City and the neighborhood residents. Mr. Schoening replied that the City had first developed the cost estimate of $5.75 million two years earlier based upon a conceptual design and costs in the past. He related that as the City moved forward with construction, it received bids from contractors who based their bids in a more forward-looking way. He stated that the project consisted of “over a hundred different items” in the bid schedule. He said the items in the City’s share were different from the items that were assessable. He explained that following a complex code, as had happened after the project was opened for bids, resulted in the total project costs going down, with the City’s share and the assessed share both decreasing, but the assessed share by a smaller percentage. He commented that there was no easily explainable answer. City Manager Jon Ruiz asked if there was an example of an item for which the City would pay 100 percent. Mr. Schoening could not think of a specific example, but one example of a shared cost was asphalt. He said when the estimates were developed the asphalt prices had skyrocketed but, at present, the prices were at their lowest in years. Councilor Clark expressed appreciation for everyone’s testimony. He asked staff to review for him the ramifications of delaying the road improvements so that the policy could be revisited. Mr. Schoening MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 9 Public Hearing explained that the City Charter required that changes to the assessment code be done by general ordinance and that they do not go into effect for six months after enactment. He said they would not be able to form an LID under a changed policy until after it had been in effect for six months. Councilor Clark underscored that delaying the project would mean it would not be initiated until the next year. He then asked if it was within the council’s purview to direct that the initial money budgeted be restored to the project and to use the extra monies to help buy down assessments. Mr. Schoening responded that this was part of the discussion the council engaged in at the work session in March, 2009. He stated that all three of the projects had come in under the engineers’ estimate. He said some of the funding for the projects came from stormwater SDCs and transportation SDCs, which had City and state regulatory restrictions as to how they were used and could not be used to buy down assessments. He explained that a portion of the funds that had been appropriated for the Crest Drive LID, the county road funds and delayed assessments, could be used to buy down the assessment on one or all three of the projects. He noted that this amounted to $500,000. Councilor Clark thought that if they aided people in paying assessments on one project, they should do so for all three of the projects. He reiterated that the issue of affordability was significant. He felt that the policy in question was not as important as not putting a person out of their house in order to fix a road. Councilor Taylor averred that there must be a way to make the assessments less burdensome. She suggested that the City Manager and City Attorney should try to figure it out. She believed that the project needed to happen. She had been disappointed to learn that it would take six months for a change in the assessment policy to be enacted after the council voted to change it. She said area residents would welcome contribu- tions from anyone who wanted to help with their assessments. She noted that such a donation was a tax deduction. She understood that it would be possible to change the interest rate for the financing through the City. She said she would like to see the City provide loans with no interest. Mr. Schoening clarified that the eight percent interest rate that was established by administrative order was the interim rate from the time assessments were levied until the City sold bonds, approximately six months. He said for the remainder of the payback period, the interest rate would be based on what the market rate was. He said staff was committed to reviewing the interim interest rate so that it would relate more to the current market rate. Councilor Poling thanked everyone for their testimony, and also for their emails. He had appreciated the comments of councilors Ortiz, Solomon, and Clark. He asked if it would be legal to grandfather in existing projects if the council changed the assessment policy. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that it was not. He stressed that under the City Charter an ordinance could only be enacted six months after a vote and could not be retroactive. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Poling, Mr. Klein replied that citizens could remonstrate for any reason and did not have to be specific. He also clarified that there were no rules to govern how someone collecting signatures for remonstrance could or should present the issue. Councilor Poling understood that state laws and City ordinances dictated that the City’s portion could only be used for certain things in certain amounts. Mr. Schoening responded that this was true on the Maple Street/Elmira Road project and the Chad Drive/Old Coburg Road project because the City’s share of that project was from transportation SDCs. He said all three project utilized stormwater SDC funds. The SDC monies could not be used to help buy down assessments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 10 Public Hearing Councilor Poling recalled that the first conversation he had on the City Council was in regard to the assessment policy and Arcadia Drive. He said a number of streets needed upgrading. He did not believe it was fair for a street to foot the whole bill when other side streets and cul de sacs only had egress via the street that was being assessed. He hoped that they could consider the policy and move to change it faster than some issues had taken in the past. Councilor Clark concurred. He also wanted to expedite the conversation on assessments. He said there were many streets in his ward that were unimproved. He recalled that if the owners of over 50 percent of the assessed linear footage had signed a remonstrance it would require a two-thirds vote of the council to proceed. Mr. Schoening responded that the signed remonstrance had made the project go before two public hearings, one before the Hearings Official and one before the City Council, and he confirmed the need for a two-thirds majority. Councilor Clark surmised that it would then take six votes to move the LID forward. Councilor Zelenka indicated that he would submit his questions to staff via email. He adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 11 Public Hearing