Ordinance No. 20053 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF EUGENE INTER-DEPARTMENT AL MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEPARTMENT To: Milo R. Mecham Hearings Official Date: June 27, 1996 Subject: Assessment for Improvements Along Highway 99 This opinion addresses the question raised at the May 21, 1996 public hearing for the installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks and access drives for Highway 99. At the hearing, two property owners objected to the proposed assessment for their properties because, they argued, their properties do not "abut" the sidewalk improvements.l Instead, part of their properties are immediately adjacent to unimproved Highway 99 right-of-way, with right-of-way space located between the sidewalk and the objectors' properties. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the City lawfully may assess the properties. As a general matter, the Eugene Code provides that the City may assess adjoining property owners for costs associated with local improvements, including street improvements and sidewalk improvements. Section 7.010, in defining a local improvement, states, in part: "Local Improvement. Any project or service or part thereof undertaken by the city where all or part of the costs are borne by local assessments levied against parcels of real property which provides a special benefit only to specific parcels or rectifies a problem caused by specific parcel(s). Such local improvements may include, but are not limited to, a street, sidewalk, . . .. If (Emphasis supplied). A property receives a "special benefit" from a local improvement when the construction adds anything to the convenience, accessibility and use of the property as distinguished from benefits arising incidentally out of the improvement or enjoyed by the public generally. Hutchinson v. City of Corvallis, 134 Or 519, 523-24 (1995); State Highway Commission v. Bailey, 212 Or 261, 306 (1957). Certainly, the installation of sidewalks in front of the Beckley and Spotten properties (i.e., the "objectors" properties) provided a special benefit. The objectors do not appear to be contesting that their properties received a special benefit. Instead, they appear to be arguing that under section 7.175(2)(b)(3) of the Eugene Code, the City may impose assessments for sidewalk improvements only on those properties which are physically connected to the sidewalk for the entire length of the sidewalk in front of the person's property. Section 7 . 175(2)(b)(3) states, in part: "Parcels abutting a sidewalk shall be liable for a proportionate share of the cost of the sidewalk, based on the front footage of the parcel abutting the sidewalk. fI Absent this complete physical connection, the objectors appear to argue, the properties would not "abut" the sidewalk, and therefore, the Eugene Code would not permit assessments to be imposed. For the following reasons, we conclude that objectors read subparagraph (3) too narrowly. lThe Beckleys apparently also argued that they did not have access to Highway 99 or to the sidewalk. In fact, as the attached access permit and diagram demonstrate, they do have that access.