CC Minutes - 08/13/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the ordinance to add a new Finding D and section 5, to read as follows: D. As required by EC 9.8710, the City Manager determined that the applicant should pay a special assessment for the two vacations in the amount of $482.950. The Council has determined that the special benefit amount actually should be $1,467,171, which is $984,221 more than the amount the applicant has deposited with the City. Section 5. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance will take effect only upon the applicant’s payment of $984,221, which is in addition to the assessment already deposited. Ms. Bettman, noting that the Basis of Value report provided to the council was not an appraisal, stated that one of the prime pieces of property along Franklin Boulevard had been reduced in value by 65%. She said the reduction was rather arbitrary and based solely on the fact that there was going to be a sidewalk. She felt that it was reasonable for it to be the University’s responsibility to provide a sidewalk and that City taxpayers should not be burdened with the expense. Ms. Bettman stated that decisions had been made between City staff and University personnel regarding the area in and around what was formerly known as Williams Bakery that the council had not been privy to. She indicated there were eighteen parking spaces in the area that generated between $36,000 and $40,000 for the City. She stated that the adjusted special assessment described in her motion was based on these parking spaces generating $40,000 amortized over twenty years. She felt this was a justifiable figure. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor that much of the testimony heard regarding the alley vacations in relation to the arena dealt primarily with the public benefits or lack thereof, but felt that the council had not adequately examined the financial costs of the arena to the City. She felt her motion addressed that discrepancy. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Ruiz if City staff had reviewed the benefit amounts Ms. Bettman had referred to in her motion. Mr. Nystrom answered the subject properties had been appraised in accordance with standard practices normally used by staff. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated the City had determined the value of the subject properties using the guidelines described in the Basis of Value report provided as Attachment E in the agenda item summary, also referred to as City Council Agenda page 219. Mr. Ruiz confirmed Ms. Bettman’s motion would list the property at 100% of its assessed value rather than the 35% arrived at by staff. Addressing Ms. Bettman’s statements regarding the potential value of the parking in the subject properties, Mr. Ruiz commented it was his understanding the vacations would remove only two double-headed parking meters rather than eighteen separate spaces. Mr. Klein was concerned that the approximately $800,000 increase based on lost parking revenues as described by Ms. Bettman did not address the two standard criteria used to determine special assessed benefits as described in the Basis of Value Report, namely the value of the real property and the costs incurred by the City in the construction of public improvements. He felt that making such a demand on the University would be challengeable and that the University would most likely win such a challenge as being inconsistent with City Code provisions. Mr. Clark, after confirming with Mr. Klein that the University was in fact a public entity as part of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, asked Mr. Klein what the legislative intent and latitude of intent of EC 9.8710 actually was in relation to its use in arriving at the assessed value of the special benefit. Mr. Klein was unable to describe the original legislative intent as the provision had been in existence for more MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 2 Work Session