CCAgenda-4/12/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

assessments to a method based equally upon alley frontage and property area because land use could be transitory in nature and change between the initiation of an LID and the final assessment. He said assessing all costs associated with alley improvements was recommended because of the uniqueness of alleys. He said the tentative working agenda had a public hearing scheduled for April 12, 2004, and council action on May 10, 2004. Mr. Meisner stated he agreed with the second recommendation to assess all costs. He noted that for many years Public Works had maintained a position that the alley assessment methodology needed to be amended and specifically emphasized that land use was a major factor. He said he did not understand the current recommendation that excluded land use as a factor in the apportionment method and could not support that part of Ms. Bettman's motion. He asked for an explanation in writing of why Public Work's position on a land use factor had changed. Ms. Solomon asked when the West University Neighborhood alley improvement project was planned. Mr. Schoening said the project was scheduled for the summer of 2005. He said the sooner the council acted, the sooner property owners could be given information on the anticipated cost. Ms. Taylor arrived at 6:10 p.m. Mr. Kelly complimented the clarity of the information provided in the agenda packet. He said that all five of the methods satisfied State requirements on specific benefit and the issue for the council was equity. He agreed with Mr. Meisner's comments and stated he could not support the staff recommendation regarding the apportionment methodology. He suggested an amendment to the motion that would request a method that would take into account differences between residential types. He said there needed to be more equity between single- and multi-family residential uses. He indicated support for full cost assessment to property owners and assessing across the LID, rather than by segment. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly and said the methodology should factor in the impact of different uses. He asked if there was an assumption that each square foot of alley would cost the same, regardless of the location and if the costs varied, would there be adjustments. Mr. Schoening replied that costs would likely vary within the LID; however, it would be extremely difficult to structure a construc- tion contract on an alley-by-alley basis. He said the alley improvements would be bid as one project. Mr. Papfi asked if properties that abutted an alley automatically had alley access if they had street access. Mr. Schoening said property that extended from the street to the alley would have alley access. Mr. Pap6 said that the apportionment methodology should include land use factors that were weighted based on the impact of different uses. Ms. Bettman commented that people who lived on alleys and had no alley access should not have to pay an assessment to upgrade the alley, particularly when there were mixed uses along the alley that included multi-family and commercial. She said the proposed methodology put a burden on single-family homes in an area where single-family home ownership was encouraged. She said the existing method with modified land use factors could be the fairest approach if the access issue was addressed. She asked if those properties with strip parking along the alley would lose that parking when curbs and gutters were constructed. Mr. Schoening said that alley improvements did not require curbs and gutters; alleys had an inverted crown to facilitate drainage to the middle. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 4 Work Session