01/24/1983 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Lawrence A. Balderson, 1875 Happy Lane, said that his property did not benefit from the improvements. He noted that. of the properties on Happy Lane, his had the largest frontage on Goodpasture lsland Road. He said that he could not get access to the improved street, because his house is located 40' below the roadway and because there is a guardrail between his property and the roadway. He said that drainage had not been improved by the construction and that there was standing water around some houses. He opposed unfair taxation and reiterated that he received no benefit from the improvements. Carl W. Raynor, 2169 Stone Crest Drive, referred to a statement he and his wife had prev10usly submitted. He said that his lot was one of the four lots mentioned as having special circumstances in the City Attorney's opinion. Arthur A. Mehas, 1220 Goodpasture lsland Road, deferred to Donald Husband. Donald R. Husband. 72 West Broadway, represented owners of several lots affected by the assessments. including the Raynor, Rickovich. and Romania lots. He said that he would limit his remarks to effects of the assessments on property owned by Arthur and Kay Mehas and Jack Simmons. which had been assessed $20,374.50. He submitted a written statement and then read the statement. He said that his clients remonstrated against the levy. due to its lack of benefit to their property. He noted that approximately 150' of the Mehas-Simmons property is located below the surface of the roadway and said that before it can be devel- oped a separate. new street would need to be built and sewers installed. Mr. Husband said that his clients would have to pay this assessment as well. He quoted a number of legal treatises and some cases as indicators that the amount of assessments should not exceed the amount of special benefits. that demonstra- tion of benefits needs to be made. and that special or local assessments cannot be made for improvements of benefit to the public at large. Mr. Husband con- cluded by requesting that the Mehas-Simmons property be removed from the pro- posed assessment. Thomas S. Morgan. 3795 Donald Street, distributed written materials and photo- graphs of the Mehas property. He said that he was a real estate appraiser with the firm of Duncan. Cox and Associates. He said that Mr. Mehas had asked him to assess the benefits of the improvements to the Mehas property. Mr. Morgan said he found there was no benefit to the property. He said that the road and access were adequate before the improvement, and the work done by the City was an overimprovement, which did not increase development potential or value for the property. He agreed that a new road along the southeast boundary of the property would be needed to develop the property. Referring to the photographs. he pointed out that the Mehas-Simmons property was separated from the improved roadway by a berm. Robert E. Moulton. 260 East 11th Avenue, represented 61 of the 63 owners of lots in Flintridge Village. He distributed a written statement of appeal of the assessment, including photographs of the improved roadway adjoining Flintridge Village and a topographic map of the area. He said that since Flintridge Village is a condominium development with property jointly owned, all owners were affected by the assessments. He noted that residents of the condominium had already directly or indirectly paid the costs of privately owned streets within the development as well as the costs of development of the public streets Stone Crest Drive and Ridge Way Drive. Mr. Moulton submitted a written statement MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 7