Laserfiche WebLink
than twenty years, and said the parking factors described by Ms. Bettman were outside the latitude of intent <br />of the provision. Mr. Klein felt this was the reason the University would ultimately win out, because <br />parking was not a factor enumerated by EC 9.8710. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Nystrom to explain the process by which the value of the Franklin Boulevard <br />property had been reduced by 65%. Mr. Nystrom said the determination on the reduced value was made <br />because the City would not be entirely vacating the properties and the City would be retaining a certain <br />amount of public interest over them. <br />Mr. Nystrom, responding to Mr. Zelenka’s question about what specific interest the City would be retaining, <br />stated the City would retain a public utility easement over the vacated area, as well as pedestrian access <br />th <br />easement in the case of 13 Avenue. <br />Mr. Nystrom said the 65% reduction in value of the properties was a result of standard rates applied by staff <br />for other similar circumstances. He was unable to cite any previous specific examples of similar reductions. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked why the assessment was different for the southern area where the public utility easement <br />resulted in a listed value of 50% of the assessed value as opposed to 35%. Mr. Nystrom speculated some of <br />the land in that area would be used for more private concerns, whereas in the pedestrian area there would be <br />greater public use of the property. <br />Mr. Zelenka felt the listed values of the properties and the reductions of same seemed fairly arbitrary and <br />that there were no hard and fast rules governing reductions of assessed values. Mr. Nystrom again <br />commented the assessed values and resultant reductions were arrived at by Public Works staff using <br />standard methodologies. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if anyone present could provide more information as to how the assessed values and <br />reductions were determined. Eugene Public Works Director Kurt Corey commented that the individuals <br />making the determinations were licensed appraisers and the percentages were based on their best profes- <br />sional judgment. <br />Mr. Ruiz commented the appraisers used their best professional judgment based on past practices and <br />experience. <br />Mr. Zelenka confirmed that Ms. Bettman’s motion increased the price of the special assessment to <br />$451,250. Mr. Ruiz commented that would indicate that the City was not retaining any value or was not <br />willing to pay for any of the value retained. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if Ms. Bettman would be willing to entertain a friendly amendment to make the special <br />assessment 50% of the assessed value as opposed to 100%. <br />Mr. Bettman felt Council should continue discussion on the matter before raising the possibility of a friendly <br />amendment. <br />Ms. Ortiz asked Mr. Ruiz how the City could have a conversation with the University of Oregon about how <br />they could pay a special assessment in lieu of taxes like EWEB does. She understood the University was a <br />significant asset to the City and that they warranted special consideration, but felt the University also made <br />significant demands on Eugene taxpayers and City resources. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />