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

Home Browse Search

e e - statement from Frank C. Price of Assessment Evaluators. Mr. Moulton said that Mr. Price had examined the Flintridge property and had found no enhancement to the value of the property as a result of the improvements. Mr. Moulton asked the council to make a decision completely or at least partially in favor of his clients. He said that the council could decide to treat the entire Flintridge Village Condominium as one lot for the purposes of the assessment, since the common area property is owned by all the property owners in the condominium. Mr. Moulton noted that the City had found that the four lots to the east of Flintridge do not derive benefit from the improvements due to the height of those lots above the roadway. He referred to the photographs and map that he had submitted to demonstrate that 260' of the frontage of the Flintridge property should be determined to have no benefit for similar reasons. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Teitzel said that Goodpasture Island Road was paved before the City improvements were made but that the City would not have been able to maintain the road to the same degree that standard City streets are maintained. He said it was probably correct that the improvements had resulted in little change in dust control, but ne noted that the smoother, more durable surface should have reduced noise. Mr. Teitzel said that speed studies done in January 1981 and again in December 1981 showed that the speed of cars throughout the project had been reduced three to four miles per hour. He said that the storm sewers included in the improvements would help control drainage problems by carrying surface water away from neighboring properties. Councilor Holmer asked Keith Martin, City Attorney's Office, to respond to Mr. Husband's citations regarding need to demonstrate benefits. Mr. Martin responded that Mr. Husband had cited general principle law and Oregon case law. Mr. Martin referred to his previous memorandum to Mr. Teitzel regarding this assessment and noted that it was up to the council to make a determination of long-term special benefit. He said he believed that if there is substantive evidence of benefit, the courts would uphold the assessment. He noted that the benefits identified by Mr. Teitzel from this project were long-term improvements of benefit to the property assessed. Councilor Smith noted that this item had appeared on three Hearing Panel agendas. She said that the staff recommendations were based on the City's present assessment policy. She felt that under this policy the council had few alternatives to levying the assessments as recommended by staff. Responding to a question from Councilor Obie, Mr. Teitzel said that the Mehas property takes access from Goodpasture Island Road at two points and that the Greer property has one access point. Councilor Lindberg said that if the City agreed to bear the cost of the improve- ments to remonstrating properties, it would set a precedent that would place an unfair tax burden on all City taxpayers. He said that the long-term benefit of the improvements needed to be considered. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 8