CCMinutes - 05/10/04 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Apportionment of Assessments for Alley Improvements; Amending Section 7.175 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4871, an ordinance concerning alley assessments. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the equity of the ordinance, saying that in some cases, homeowners might not benefit from an alley improvement. She said the ordinance was intended to solve a problem in the West University Neighborhood (WUN) but was applicable citywide. Noting the average WUN assessment was estimated to be between $1,500 and $5,000, she asked if the same would be true for other assessments in other parts of the community. City Engineer Mark Schoening said yes, given that most alleys in the community were about the same dimensions. The difference would be the land uses that abut the alley; in the WUN, multi-unit properties would pay the greater share, while in other areas the land use factors might not have as much of an effect as in a commercial neighborhood. Ms. Bettman believed a proliferation of multi-unit development could result in a situation where those who did not want the alley improved would have to pay for such improvements anyway. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to add a new subpara- graph (3) to Eugene Code 7.175(6), to read as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provi- sion in Chapter 7 of this code, no parcel shall be assessed for an alley improvement without the consent of the owners of all parcels to be assessed for the improvement in the block where the alley is located." Mr. Kelly acknowledged Ms. Bettman's concern but did not think the amendment solved the problem. If applied in the WUN, the motion would guarantee no alleys in that neighborhood would be improved. That was not the goal of the joint City of Eugene-University of Oregon Task Force on the West University Neighborhood. Mr. Kelly pointed out that in other areas of the city, the issue would be who initiated the improvement petition. In the WUN, the council initiated the local improvement district. He thought the council would look very carefully at council-initiated districts in the future, given their cost. Mr. Papd determined from Mr. Klein that the alley improvements could be funded in such a manner that allowed property owners to pay off the debt over ten years. Mr. Meisner also concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks. He did not support the amendment and supported the ordinance as proposed only for the area in question. He did not regard the ordinance as a model for other neighborhoods. It was his sense it would be much more costly to do such improvements in other neighborhoods, where most alleys were not yet paved. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Ms. Taylor said she could not support assessing people for something they did not want, would not benefit them, and that they might not be able to afford, even over a ten-year period. Mr. Kelly pointed out that in addition to the ten-year period for repayment, there was also a low-income subsidy available to residents. Ms. Bettman did not support the motion because of the burden it would place on homeowners, particularly