Ordinance No. 20022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and fora 2a foot street width if the street in question is an arterial street. Mr. Piculell felt the ordinance had recently been amended and that a mistake had been made in the amendment so that. the current provision lacked the rough proportionality necessary for a constitutional talon g of property. Mr. Piculell also felt that the properties should not be assessed for storm sewers because storm sewers provided a benefit to the city as a whole and not to the individual property to be assessed. Mr. Lyle responded that the assessment against properties in the LID does not include the cast of the storm sewers or the street lighting. Sidewalks are assessed against those properties abutting the sidewalk, which in this case was only one side of Terry Street. Properties are only assessed for the cost of the street construction, which includes that cost of paving, curbs, gutters and, if applicable, sidewalks, Mr. Lyle also pointed out that the method of assessment and its estimated cost to the properties was explained to the property owners at the time the local improvement district was formed. At that time the property now owned b Y Mr. Piculell was owned by another person. Mr. Lyle explained that the potential assessment and the means whereby that assessment was calculated should have been explained by the previous property owner to Mr. Piculell before he purchased the property. Mr. Lyle explained the effect of the language in section 7.175 that Mr. Piculell found ambiguous. The method of calculation provided that the use in effect at the time the LID is formed determines the assessment share or equivalent width. The width of the street to be used as the basis for the assessment is provided in the Eugene Code and has not been changed in recent years. Mr. Lyle explained that the distinction between arterial and other types of streets is based on the Council's recognition of the impact of greater volumes of traffic an arterial streets. Mr. Lyle also explained that the method of assessment is fixed b the Eu ene Code Y g and cannot be changed by the Hearings Official. Mr. Piculell responded that he felt the Hearings Official should be abbe to revise the assessments if the method provided b the Y Eugene Cade was ambiguous or rmproper, Mr. Lyle and the Hearings Official ex lamed to . p Mr. Piculell that the Eugene Code did not give the Hearings Official the authori to develo a tY p alternative method far calculating assessments. The Hearings Official's responsibili is to tY make certain that the assessments were calculated according to the provisions of the Eu ene . g Code, to provide a forum for hearing and review of comments concerning the ~m rovements p and the assessments and otherwise prepare a recommendation for the City Council ~concernin . g how the final assessment complies with the Eugene Code. Mr. Piculell stated that he felt that the method of calculating the benellt of local improvements should be re-examined to allow a more even distribution of benefits, Mr. Piculell argued that the lineal footage method was not the mast equitable method and that it should be replaced by a calculation based on trips per day. Mr. Lyle res owned that the Ci . p tY Caunc~l had deternvned the method of calculating assessments and felt that it was the best method for this and other types of improvements. There were no further questions or statements, so the Hearings Officer closed the hearing at approximately b:4~ p.m.