Item 5: Ordinance Levying Assessments for West University Alleys

Home Browse Search

RE: Assessments for Alley Paving Project Assessors Map & Tax Lot No. 18-03-05-2201600-000 DATE: January 30, 2006 FROM: Bernice Balie (Lee) Gray My property at 1857 Mill Street was assessed for $12,483.92 to pay for the alley paving projects. I wish to address several concerns in protesting this assessment. 1) The property consists of a house, which I have lived in on and off since 1955, and the house has never been a rental. Attached to the house are two apartments, and there is only one parking spot on the property adjacent to the alley, so we have very limited reason to use the alley. It is a half alley. However, according to the city's formula, we were weighted by 3 for the 3 units, even though there would be use of the half-alley by only one of the three units. 2) I feel the assessment is excessive, as a homeowner with two rentals, there is no way I can raise rents to defray the costs of the paving. Also, if my house was sold, the paved half-alley would in no way provide a greater selling price. 3) Are the costs involved reasonable? On our block there is a full alley running North-South which gets most of the use. The alley adjacent to my house (going East-West) is a half alley, and it is only used by two houses. Although two other properties do extend along our alley, their access and parking spaces are on the North-South alley. The half alley next to my house, is actually only used by my house and the house across the alley. So there is very limited use of the alley. I question the Department of Public Works choice in paving the alley with 7 inches of concrete, which I understand is standard for regular roadways which have high volume usage, since our alley has very limited use. The City in choosing the 7 " concrete used the "Cadillac" of paving materials, when a less costly road surface treatment such as asphalt would certainly have sufficed. If the City chooses to put in a top-of-the line expensive high-end road in a low-use area, it seems to me the property owner should only be charged for the reasonable costs of materials that would be sufficient for the project. There would be no incentive to the City to be economical in future projects, if it is able to pass costs of the most expensive solutions when more cost-effective solutions were available. I protest the cost as the City has a duty, I feel, in making assessments to consider economic repercussions on property owners. To do otherwise is disrespectful. Page 1 of2