01/07/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..~. .,-.~ ~ , - , \ \ : Councilman Murray thought the general direction of the proposal was to open the "\ jassessment ,process to give more latitude. He said the subcommittee had proposed : land use as one factor on which to base assessments which could be discussed if ( 'the amendment is approved. He wondered whether the subcommittee had taken into \ : consideration street assessment policy which the Council had referred to it since \ ' the original charge to study alley aSSessments. Councilwoman Beal answered that :it was Orval Etter's opinion (City Attorney!s office) that there was doubt about ' I the constitutionality of the present Charter provision for assessments because of .~ : inadequate definition of the term "benefit." For that reason he felt streets . ishould not be included in the ch'!-nge. Mrs. Beal said she thought street assessment : policy should be included but that the balance of the subcommittee felt the proposed amendment should 'be limited to alleys since that was the original charge. I Councilman Willia;"s wair.conceriied about the possible inequJ:ty .between assessm~~ts !against commercial properties and rental properties under the proposed change. ;He also expressed concern about going to the voters for approval of a change of /policy without a specific proposal for calculating assessments in the future. . Manag7r read that portion of the Attorney's memo referring to different mode of I.assessment for alley and street improvement should the change be adopted. He said 'there is justification for differentiation since generally a street serves the en- jtire public. It is assumed that all properties at some time will abut a paved street and will have paid its share. Alleys generally Serve a limited amount ofo I the public and are of benefit more directly to the abutting properties than to the I : general public. City Attorney Johnson added that there is no serious constitutional.' 'question with the present Charter provision. The present method of assessment has been approved by the Oregon Supreme Court in recent years. ,In answer to Councilman Murray's request for some indication of why the subcommittee :decided not to recommend a change in street assessment policy also, Councilman 'Hershner said the Council had voiced real concern about inequi ty of alley assess.;.... .ments in .specific instances. The subcommittee found the front.footage basis was .locked into the Charter,and nothing could be done about changing it without the :proposed deletion of that restriction. The committee proposed going ahead'knowing lit had been charged now.with looking into street assessment policy. There seemed 'more .of an urgency on alley assessments because of newassessments~~mi~g along _ . i;';h~;e- .tii~r~- p~obably againwo~ld bei~equi t:ies . ina.sse~~i~g single-family prope;-~ ',Ities the same amJunt as mul tiple-family properti eS having access to allel./s. :Assistant Manager added that al though the question of street ass.essment policy was !raised in subcommittee, it was decided to respond to the first charge of givinlJ a irecommendation on alleys on.ly. Meetings are now being scheduled at which the sub- Icommittee will address the question of street assessments. Mrs. Beal said sne ;felt streets should have been included in the Charter amendmen~ to give an Oppor- . [tunity to consider the entire assessment picture without having to go through the election process a second time. .....1 .1 ,-.- .Councilman Keller felt it would be a waste of time to present theproj?osed Charter iamendment to the voters without at the same time giving them a specific proposal on ia method of assessment. Councilman Wood felt public hearings when consideration was ! given to an ordinance setting the assessment method would provide that information 'to the public. He was not opposed to flexibili ty which would be allo..,.ed by the iCharter amendment in determining alley assessments, but he was opposeci to inclusion iof streets. He asked whether there was knowledge or alternate method~i used~by other :cities. Manager described some methods used ,by other citie!!! but saiei' the main . thrust was to amend the Charter so the Council-could consiaer-methqqs .other than jfront footage basis for alley assessments. I " C.ouncilwoman Campbell asked whether the funds set aside to permit defErral of :assessments in hardship cases were being used, and whether people werE being ad- vised that, the funds were available. Finance Director answered that c document setting up the program and eligibility standards would be ready for Ccuncil con~ JSideration soon. He added that no assessments had been levied since the funds Were appropriated. i~ouncilwoman Beal asked whether it is contemplated that interest on a~sessment de- !ferrals would be compounded. Finance Director answered. that a number ,of methods : will be offered for Council consideration. Councilwoman Campbell com/dented that I the point at this time was to remOVe the restriction from the Charter to allow I flexibility in making assessments for alley improvements; street asse~sment policy I ,would be considered eventually. . Councilwoman Beal said it wa.s her understanding the model cities charter did not .,have the type of assessment restriction contained in. Eugene's charter" that . . .. d j'.he value or! . genf!rally assessments are handled.,through o1;'d~~a~ce...She recog~_:e " .__.:.,....____-' 1....-. - <- ~ _ ~ _______--.::.________.___.____ .~_.__..___.__..._.__._ ___ _ _. ..-..., __._-,-l.-.-.-~'~ _ _ , ~, " 1/7/74 ~ 7