CCMinutes - 03/08/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ond. Referring to the memorandum from Mr. Schoening dated February 28, 2004, Ms. Nathanson noted that complexity of apportionment methods stemmed from the City Charter requirement that public improvement procedures and assessments could not go into effect until six months after the council's action, precluding development of methods unique to each LID. She asked if the difficulties the council was experiencing with the apportionment methodology would be resolved and allow for easier, fairer, and more creative solutions if the underlying process was confronted. Mr. Schoening said that many municipalities used a different approach and while generally the methodology did not change from one assessment district to another, there could be an opportunity to establish a methodology unique to a project, which the Charter currently precluded. Mr. Klein added that under the charter, an ordinance establishing a procedure for assessment did not take effect for six months and the local improvement process could not commence until the six months had lapsed. He said that flexibility would need to be built in to the assessment ordinance as the charter did not state how specific the assessment ordinance had to be, it only stated the process or criteria for an assessment could not be changed; an assessment code that provided more flexibility was permissible. Mr. Pap6 asked if the code could be changed every six months. Mr. Klein said the problem was that whenever the code was changed, it did not go into effect for six months and would only apply to an LID that was created after that six-month period. He said it would be an administrative nightmare for Public Works to try to schedule projects and public outreach and inform people of what their assessment was likely to be if the code was changing every six months. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about the issue of access and noted that while a particular property might not choose alley access, it still benefited from the alley in other ways, such as emergency vehicle access and trash collection. He suggested that some type of adjustment could be made for properties seeking access after improvements. Mayor Torrey asked if the dilemma was whether to assess property owners who did not use alley access and therefore had no benefit from the alley and if it was, was there a test of benefit, including ancillary benefit, that could be used for adjustments. Mr. Schoening replied that many properties did not have physical access and would require modifications to achieve access. He said that legally a property that abutted an alley could use the alley for access to the property. He said that if a property had legal access, even though access was not used, there was still a benefit to the property that was granted to it in perpetuity. Mr. Klein said that if a property owner could demonstrate that there was and could be no benefit to the property, then the council could and would be legally obligated to exclude that property from the local improvements as no special and peculiar benefit would apply. He said that the courts would defer to the council in making the determination of benefit. Mr. Kelly confirmed that a public hearing would be held when the specific LID was formed by resolution. He commented, with respect to access, that there was some benefit to properties from an improved alley being in place and a broader public safety benefit to the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman argued that the benefit would depend on the neighborhood and the nature of the alley and there were significant differences in how such a project would be perceived in other neighborhoods. She asked if the LID public hearing would be the opportunity for a property owner to appeal an assessment. Mr. Klein responded that there were several steps involved in creating an LID and levying the assessment and at each component of the process a property owner could request an assessment not be made. Mr. Schoening said MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 6 Work Session