Ordinance No. 19960 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

out that the City is sharing part of the project cost to keep the assessments no greater than $18 per front faot. Under the Eugene Code, he explained, the City can not extend the project cost to properties outside the boundary of the LID, and the Code does nat give any authority for assessing any properties other than those bordering on the improvement, which are deemed to directly benefit from it. Mr. Lyle added that at the previous hearing, the Hearings Gfficial decided not to adjust the LID boundaries. Mr. Lyle also referenced conversations City staff had had with Beth Bonamici. He said that there had apparently been some miscommunication regarding this property. The sidewalk for this property had already been partially installed, and Mr. Lyle stated that the proposed assessment for this property was only for the amount of frontage which did not have a sidewalk in place. Mr. Lyle concluded by stating that the assessments would be only $18 per front foot, and that City staff believed that the assessment amounts had been computed correctly, Mr, walch then asked the members of the public present to offer their comments, and the first to do so was Andrew Bonamici. Mr. Bonamici and his wife own a home on Emerald Street, and Mr. Lyle had referred to conversations with Ms. Bonamici earlier. Mr. Bonamici stated that he had been told at the beginning of this project that there would be no assessment for their property, where sidewalks had already been installed along most of its frontage. The Bonamicis were later advised that changes in design of the project had resulted in extending the new sidewalk construction onto their property, but were not then given an opportunity to object. As a result, the Bonamicis were proposed to be assessed for five feet of sidewalk, though they had originally been advised that their property would not be assessed. In response to these statements, Mr. Lyle confirmed that City staff had erroneously advised the Bonamicis that their property would not be assessed, but that five feet of sidewalk had been built in front of their property. It would be up to the Hearings Official, he said, to determine whether this miscommunication should relieve them of their liability for assessment, or if they should pay the proposed assessment based on their front footage like other properties in the LID. Mr. Klope added that the Bonamici property had five feet of frontage without sidewalk, but this five-foot section had not been noticed until after the Bonamicis had been advised that their property would not be assessed, Phil Gall, writer of one of the letters referred to above and a resident of Emerald Street, was the next person to speak, He referred to a petitionlletter he had sent to City staff at the time of the design changes in the project, and asked if that petition was considered apposition to the project. Mr. Lyle answered that it was considered a remonstrance against the project, and that after that time City staff contacted the property owners who appeared to change from favoring the project to opposing it based on the design changes. written approvals were sought from those owners, with the result that the project, still had a majority of support after the design changes. Mr. Gall then stated that he felt that this post-hearing process occurred without the knowledge of all property owners, and that City staff was able in this way to seek more support for the project without providing opponents with a similar opportunity to seek more opposition for the project. In reply, Mr. I~lope said that staff's post-hearing inquiries were to determine 2