Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Klope then turned to a discussion of the assessment process and how <br />individual assessments had been calculated. The Eugene Code describes a process of <br />assessing properties for alley improvements based on both a front footage basis and an <br />area basis. Properties are assigned shares of the total cost, based on their current use and <br />the greatest possible use, determined by the zoning of the property. Mr. Klope finished <br />his presentation by discussing and responding to requests by property owners in the <br />district, requesting consideration of special factors that they felt deserved reconsideration <br />of the proposed assessments. Mr. Klope first responded to several requests where the <br />City Engineer felt that the request did not warrant a modification of the proposed <br />assessment. In these cases the property owners had requested a reduction because the <br />location of their property, or the nature of the use of their property meant that they did not <br />use the alley at all, or used the alley less than adjacent properties. Mr. Klope explained <br />that the assessment was not based on traffic volume in the alley. Mr. Klope also <br />explained that the assessment was based, in part, on future use of the alley. Therefore, it <br />was considered proper to assess a property even though they might choose to not make <br />much use of the alley because future property owners could change and make use of the <br />alley. <br /> <br />Mr. Klope also discussed four properties where changes to the original assessment <br />calculations were proposed. In three instances, the property owners had shown that the <br />area used to calculate the assessment either was not correct, or had been changed due to <br />partitioned. In these circumstances the assessments were recalculated to properly <br />measure the actual area of the property in question. In one circumstance, the property <br />owner had shown that while zoned commercial, the property was primarily used as a <br />single family residence. This additional information caused the City Engineer to <br />determine that the present use classification should be changed from commercial to <br />residential. In these four cases, the City could either recalculate all the other assessments, <br />send out new notices and hold another hearing, or the City could elect to cover the <br />additional costs itself. In this case the City Engineer recommended that the City absorb <br />the additional cost, because this would save time, and avoid having to add additional <br />interest charges to all assessments. Mr. Klope also discussed the City's low income <br />subsidy and elderly deferral policies. In this proposed assessment, two properties <br />qualified for the low income subsidy. <br /> <br />Approximately twenty property owners, or their representatives, attended the <br />hearing. After Mr. Klope had finished his presentation, the property owners in <br />attendance were invited to address the hearing. <br /> <br />The first property owner to address the hearing was Ms. Lee Grey, who lives on <br />Mill Street. Ms. Grey began by noting that the city standard for alleys is seven inches of <br />concrete. Ms. Grey questioned the need for such thick paving, especially in alleys such <br />as hers that get little traffic. In response to Mr. Klope's explanation that the depth was <br />selected to give the alley surface a long life, even in the face of potential later changes in <br />use along the alley, Ms. Grey pointed out that it also made future changes or work in the <br />alley more expensive. Ms. Grey's primary concern was some damage that had been done <br /> <br />Alley Assessment Minutes <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />