Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman stated her awareness of a City Code provision requiring homeowners performing remodeling <br />projects to put in sidewalks at their own expense and questioned why similar provisions did not apply to the <br />University. <br />Ms. Bettman expressed that rushing the decision to vacate the properties was not in the public’s interest, <br />particularly if the council was unable to ensure that the inherent value of the properties was adequately <br />considered. <br />Ms. Bettman said her motion was designed to make the property vacations serve the public interest so that <br />the council could endorse it. <br />Ms. Bettman, with the consent of the second by Ms. Taylor, withdrew her previous motion <br />to amend the vacation ordinances. <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to postpone and direct the City Manager to <br />renegotiate the cost basis of real property of the alley vacation to maximize the public <br />benefit and to negotiate an inter-governmental agreement with the University of Oregon on a <br />contribution in lieu of taxes. <br />Mr. Zelenka felt further discussion on a contribution by the University in lieu of taxes would be a great idea <br />so that the actual financial benefit provided to the City by the University could be more accurately <br />determined. <br />Associate Planner Steve Ochs, responding to a request from Mr. Zelenka, clarified the color classifications <br />of the maps in the council agenda materials as the council had been provided black and white copies. <br />Mr. Nystrom said the University would still have the ability to utilize the vacated properties for access to <br />existing housing, despite any pedestrian or public utility easements. <br />Mr. Zelenka, addressing Mr. Clark’s previous comments about the timeliness of the matter, said the alley <br />vacation was not needed at this time. Additionally, Mr. Zelenka stated the University could not excavate the <br />site until they had received a building permit which could only be granted when they had received a <br />conditional use permit (CUP). <br />Mr. Zelenka believed the University had manufactured the current sense of urgency around the project in <br />order to force the City to prematurely grant the property vacations so that they could get it under their belt, <br />but that they would ultimately sit on the execution of the project for several months. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if the Basis of Value report was not in fact an appraisal of the property. Mr. Ruiz <br />confirmed it was not an appraisal, to which Mr. Zelenka responded that it did not appear that the report or <br />the property vacations were maximizing the public’s benefit or interest in any way. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if changing the special assessment from 35% to 50% of the full assessed value would be <br />considered arbitrary. Mr. Klein answered he was not familiar with everything in the public record on the <br />matter and could not fully respond to Mr. Zelenka’s question. <br />Mr. Klein reminded the council that Section 9.7450 of the City Code required them to make a decision <br />within thirty days of the close of the record, which in this case would be September 10, 2008, unless a <br />longer time frame was agreed to by the person or entity initiating the application. He said if the council <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />