Ordinance No. 20046 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

within 1 b0 feet of Mercer Street that had not been previously assessed. Staff recommended that the property be assessed according to the provisions of the Eugene Code. A second letter of concern was received from John ~. Kjosness. Mr. Kjosness objected to the distribution of costs, believing that the costs should be assessed by usage rather than by square footage of the assessed property. Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston explained that the Eugene Code called for assessment by square footage. He also explained that this method had been examined on several occasions by the Eugene City Council and had been determined to be the best method. At the conclusion of the Acting City Engineer's remarks, the members of the public attending the hearing were invited to speak. Mr. Bill Whittle was the first member of the attending public to speak. Mr. Whittle owns two parcels; the second parcel is a small "landlocked" parcel behind the first parcel and is undeveloped, Mr. Whittle wondered why the second parcel is subject to assessment because it is not adjacent to the street, and is undeveloped. Mr. Whittle also wondered whether the second parcel would qualify far the City's program of deducting the area of drainage channels from the area of property to be assessed. Mr. Whittle explained that a pardon of the second lot is a canal that drains several parcels in the area. In response to Mr. Whittle's questions, Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston explained that established city policy was to assess undeveloped lots that were in common ownership with developed, assessed lots. Mr. Lankston also responded that the canal discussed by Mr. Whittle had not be identified as a drainage way eligible for exemption by the City, but that it would be reviewed to see if it qualified. Mr. Lankston described the criteria established by the City, The next member of the public to address the hearing was Robert Santacroce. Mr. Santacroce challenged the city's method of assessment. Mr. Santacroce owns a lot an the corner of a cul-de-sac. His property is narrow in the back, but has a larger frontage on the street than do other lots in the area. Because of his lot's configuration, Mr. Santacroce is being assessed a greater amount than his neighbors. Mr. Santacroce felt that it would be more equitable if each lot was assessed for its use, rather than by area. Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston explained that the policy adopted by the city was based on the recognition that larger lots have greater development potential, and thus are benefited mare than are smaller lots. The assessment on these lots must take the potential for greater development into account when calculating the assessment. Mr. Santacroce felt that the method of assessment used by the city was not logical or fair, and that explaining it as the means that had been used in the past did not make it more logical. Leon fveans of the Fraternal Order of the Eagles testified next. The Eagles are concerned about the assessment of the entire area of their golf course for a systems development charge. The information supplied by the city of Eugene indicates that the entire property will be subject to the SDC because it is considered fully developed. The Eagles are a charitable organization, that does not operate the golf course for profit. They feel that the charges for the golf course should be deferred until it is under different Minutes - LrD Final Assessment Hearing April 17,199b page 2