Item 5: Ordinance Levying Assessments for West University Alleys

Home Browse Search

two properties along the same alley of roughly the same size could have differing assessments. Mr. Klope explained again that if properties were zoned for different uses, or if they were now being used differently, the weighting system would result in different assessments, even though they were the same size. The next member of the public to speak was Mr. Philip Farrington, representing Peace Health. Mr. Farrington began by describing the two properties owned by Peace Health that are subject to assessment. Both properties are used for parking, one for contractors who might be working on the Peace Health facilities in the area, and the second for valet parking for the physician's building. One of the alleys is also used as a "slip lane" to help access the parking garage in the area. Mr. Farrington indicated that actual use of the properties and the alleys adjacent to the properties is very small. He did not believe that it was appropriate to use the same weighting factors for these properties as was used for commercial properties in the area. Mr. Farrington noted that the Code made a distinction between different types of residential use, and he felt that there should be a similar distinction made for non-profit and for profit uses of assessed property. Mr. Farrington also questioned the appropriateness of the allocation of costs and the assessment methodology. Mr. Farrington questioned whether it was appropriate under the Code to charge property owners all the "soft" costs of the project. He felt that some of these costs were ordinary costs of city operations, and should not be included in the assessment. Mr. Farringdon noted that in street assessments, the City had decided not to assess one hundred percent of the costs to the property owners. He felt that this would be appropriate here as well, which would mean that the property owners should not have to absorb all the overhead costs of the project. Mr. Farrington closed by arguing that there were other properties in the area, properties that were not being assessed, that benefited as much or more than the Peace Health properties. Using the 160 foot depth measurement in the Code, Mr. Farrington argued that here were several properties within 160 feet of the alley, that had access across neighboring properties and thus used the alley as much or more than do the properties along the alley. Mr. Klope explained that while the original discussion arising from the West University Task Force had been concerned with the entire area, the Local Improvement District only included properties abutting the alleys that were improved. Mr. Klope also explained that the 160 foot depth was limited only to properties abutting the alley, and concerned the maximum area of the property that was subject to assessment. The next member of the audience to speak was Mr. Bill Kloos, representing Diamond Parking. Mr. Kloos began by describing the difficulties that he had encountered when he contacted Eugene Public Works for more information on the assessment process. The morning of the hearing Mr. Kloos had contacted the engineering staff and had requested access to the engineering files. Mr. Kloos had been told that he must file a public records request, but had not yet been granted access to the files. Project Engineer Steve Gallup told Mr. Kloos that Engineering had tried to contact Alley Assessment Minutes Page 5