Ordinance No. 20053 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Eugene Code does not define the term "abut" or "abutting". The local assessment ordinances as a whole, and the specific language addressing sidewalk assessments, demonstrate that the City may assess the Beckley and Spotten properties. The specific language related to sidewalk assessments in EC 7 . 175(2)(b )(3) demonstrates that the City Council intended that the City be able to assess property such as that owned by the Beckleys or by Mr. Spotten. Language in subparagraph (3) provides, in part, that the City may assess the cost of a sidewalk to those properties which are located on the opposite side of the street from the sidewalk: "The cost of the sidewalk on one side of the street may be assessed to both the parcels abutting the sidewalk and the parcels on the opposite side of the street from the sidewalk, . . ." (Emphasis supplied). The City Council, in subparagraph (3), has authorized the assessment of property which is not connected to the property, may not have easy access to the property, and is separated from the sidewalk by an improved right-of-way (i.e., the street). The objectors' properties are connected to the sidewalk, even though there is some unimproved right-of-way located between the sidewalk and the objectors' properties. The objectors have easy access to the property. This provision authorizing imposition of assessments for properties on the opposite side of the street demonstrates the Council's intent to authorize an assessment for property which is located on the same side of the street as the sidewalk but is separated from the sidewalk by unimproved right-of-way. Our conclusion is buttressed by the other provisions of the Eugene Code related to local improvements. The definition of local improvement demonstrates that the Council intended that property to be assessed would be parcels "specially benefitted II by the improvement. Property is specially benefitted by a sidewalk improvement whether the owner's property is immediately adjacent to the entire sidewalk, or is in close proximity to the entire sidewalk and immediately adjacent to part of it. As the discussion above demonstrates, the objectors' properties certainly obtain a greater benefit, and a more specific benefit, as a result of the sidewalk construction than does the remaining property throughout the City. In sum, the objectors' argument regarding the term "abut" must be rejected as inconsistent with context and intent of subparagraph (3), as well as the remaining provisions related to local improvements. If the City may impose a sidewalk assessment on a property owner located across the street from a sidewalk, it would make no sense to conclude that the City may not assess a property located on the same side of the street as the sidewalk. Therefore, the hearings officers should conclude that the City lawfully may impose the assessments. HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK p.e.- CITY ATTO YS ~ Glenn Klein GK/gb Attaclnnent cc: Gale Mills gb\gkcity\h99-abut.op