Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19772ORDINANCE N0. 1 ~(7~~ AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY PAVING AND SANITARY SEWERS BETWEEN lTH AND 8TH AVENUES FROM WASHINGTON STREET TG JEFFERSON STREET; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that; On the 25th day of April, 1989, as authorized in the Eugene Code 7.1608} the City Engineer initiated the proposed local improvement consisting of alley paving and sanitary sewers between 7th and 8th Avenues from Washington Street to Jefferson Street. After due notice and a publ i c hearing thereon befare the hearing official , and no remonstrances having been filed, on the 25th day of September, 1989, the ,+~City Council formed the local improvement district and autharized construction r of the local improvement. The. actual cost of the local improvement is ascertained to be $92,201.35 and the amounts to be assessed to and borne by the specially benefitted property and to be borne by the City or others has been determined in accordance with applicable provisions of the Eugene Code, 1911 and as set forth in items 1 to 13 from Rage 1 on Exhibit A attached hereto and incor- porated herein by reference. The City Council has established the method of calculating local improve- ment assessments in Sections 7.110 and 7.115 of the Eugene Code, 1911, A notice containing the information required by Section 7.185 of the Eugene Cade, 1971 has been posted on a bulletin board at City Ha11 and given by certified mail to the owners of the parcels of real property subject to the assessment more than ten days prior to the public hearing before the hearing ORDINANCE - 2 official. At the time and place specified therein, a hearings official heard all evidence and argument presented, and no remonstrances having been filed, has fu11y cansidered the same, and has reported his or her adopted findings to the City Council. The Council has reviewed and considered the assessment report of the City Engineer and Finance Officer and the hearings official's findings and summary of the hearing, and based thereon, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOI~S: Section 1. The Summary of the hearing conducted by the hearings official are hereby made apart of the Council's record in these proceedings, and the hearings official's findings, including thane regarding compliance with Sections 7.160 to 1.190 of the Eugene Code, 1971, attached hereta as Exhibit B and incorparated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section 2. The actual cost of the local improvement comprising alley paving and sanitary sewers between lth and 8th Avenues from Washington to Street to Jefferson Street is $92,01.35 which is hereby assessed against the parcels of property hereinafter described in the amounts set opposite, respectively. Section 3. The City Council does hereby determine and assess each lot and part of lot being within the described 1 ocal improvement district as set forth on the assessment ro11 attached as Exhibit C hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. The City Council does hereby determine that each parcel of land or lot hereinabove described is specially benefitted to the extent of the assessment set forth. The Finance Officer shall give notice of the assessments to the owners of the assessed parcels advising them the assessment may be paid i n f ul 1, without interest, within ten days of the effective date of th i s 4RDINANGE - 3 ordinance. assessments that remain unpaid after the ten day period are dec1 ared to be liens upon the respective lots, parts of lots or parcels of land against which said several amounts are assessed, and may be paid, with interest on the unpaid principal amount commencing ten days after the adoption of this ordinance: 4.1 1n up to twenty semi-annual installments, including principal and interest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.022 through 2.02. 4.2 If the property owner so elects, in 120 monthly installments, including principal and interest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.022 through 2.024 plus a service charge to be determined by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.020, Section 5. The City Recorder is directed to enter in the docket of City Eiens a statement in connection with each unpaid assessment containing the following: 5.1 A description of each lot, part of lot or acreage specially benef i tted by the 1 acal i mprove~ent; 5.2 The name of the owner or reputed owner thereof, that the name of the owner is unknown; and 5.3 The sum assessed upon said property, the amount and date from which interest accrues, and the date of entering the same in the docket of City dens. Section fi. Upon enactment of this ordinance, the City Finance officer shall send notice of the assessments by first class to the owners of the assessed parcels containing the information required by Section 1.190 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and enclose therewith an application for paying the assess- ment in Installments according to the terms set forth in Section 4 of this 4RD~NANCE - 4 L ordinance. Section 7. Any assessment remaining unpaid and for which no application for installment payments has been received may be foreclosed as provided by law. The proceeds from the payment or foreclosure of assessments levied by this ordinance shall be deposited to the city funds which advanced the cost of construction, engineering and related expenses or which are used to retire any indebtedness incurred by the City for this improvement. Section 8. That the matters contained herein affect the public welfare and safety and therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the city Council and approval by the Mayor, retention by the Mayor for more than ten days, or readaption over a mayoral veto by two thirds of all members of the Council. Passed by the City Council this day of I99 f l / ~~ City Recorder Approved by the Mayor this a~day of .Q 199 ~ ~ ~~ `~~ Mayan ~ ORDIN~4NCE - 5 ATTACHMENT A - ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET . % interest on this assessment will begin ' Lane Count Ore on an ordnance ievy~ng assessments for: In the City of Eugene, y, g ALLEY PAVING AND SANITARY SEWERS BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH AVENUES FROM WASHINGTON STREET TO JEFFERSON STREET. ITEM I. Amt pd to Contractor; Contract # $ - Jab # 2481 Cap Pro j . # ~ ~+ ordinance # ITEM Z. Liquidated damages: ITEM 3. Other costs: Due back *Ceordr # Date Descri tion to Fund: g0-14922 12/11/89 LAB TESTING PSI-PTL 0-1 8 O1 2 0 LAB TEST - Lateral sewer e of trk sewer ITEM 4. Subtotal: Items I through 3 ITEM 5. Basis for 5°/~ Finance Administration fee calculation. Subtotal -Item 4: ~ Total no# subject to 5% Finance Fee item ~3c~ t - ~ • ITEM 5a. Finance costs subject to 5% fee: $ 5 1 5.1 ITEM fi. Engineering charge ~ 21 / / actual ITEM 1. 5°lo Finance Administrative fee ~5°la x Item 5a~; ITEM 8. Interest on short-term construction financing: a. Extraordinary Finance Costs b. Extraordinary [ego[ costs ITEM 9. Other charges: ITEM 10. Due to sewer fund for 2-1/2 cent levy: ITEM II. MWMC Facility Equalization Fee $ 71,053.14 _ S $ 367.20 $ 215.70 .$ $ 71..,63.6.04 $ 15,043.56 $ 1,758.75 $ 3,763.00 ITEM 12. TOTAL ASSESSMENT per ordinance $ 92,201.35 ITEM I3. City's share of cost for completed contract l T t work DirCsts EngFee Interest a o - 2-618 - 4-~ooa SAN SWR 2 ~ 6 460. 1$ 6 6. 8 ~ 1 1 2 ~ ~+ ~ $ $ ~ ~~ $ $ $ $ $. ~ $ Total : Not sub `ect to 5% Finance Fee J $ ~ ~ ~ ~ceordr # ~ ~ ~ ~ Intersections ITEM 14. Deferred Assessments included in Item I2. Eugene Code x.197}. Advanced from Fund , AJE # ~~ ITEM I5, Costs not lienable included in Item 12 Funded b City accounts. Extra territorial. ACK: ~ y ., ~ vacant outside city l~m~ts Bankru t accounts ~ p EXH~BZT B FINDINGS AND RECD ATIQNS SUBJECT: ALLEY BETWEEN TTH AND 8TH AVENUES FROM WASHIl~TGTON STREET TO JEFFERSON STREET (CONTRACT 89-33) BACKCR~UND This project was initiated by a petition from property owners. The properties petitioning far the improvements will bear 66 percent of the improvement casts. Based on the petition, the City Engineer initiated the project, as provided far in the Eugene Code 7.160(8}, on April 25, 1989. Property owners were notified of the pending award hearing ten days prior to the hearing. The project was authorized far construction by the City Council on September 25, 1989. The low bid was submitted by Wildish Corvallis Construction Co. in the amount of $71,431.04. The existing alley consisted of crushed rock and was inadequate far commercial truck usage. The commercial properties needed a paved surface far loading and unloading, also paving the alley solved dust and draining problems. The existing sanitary sewer was old and in need of replacing. Under existing city policy replacing sanitary sewers is a city cost. Construction is complete and, based on actual cast, the total assessment amount is $40,314.06 and the share borne by the City is $51,887.29. A public hearing regarding assessments to the benefitting property owners was held on April 9,1991 at the City Hall ~~ Conference Roam. Charles Bierman of City Center Car Wash requested to be heard at the hearing. His concerns are that city staff told him the total cost to pave the alley would be about $10,444 and his share would be one bfth of that cost ($2,404}. Staff researched Mr. Bierman concerns and found no ~nfarmation to backup his statement regarding cost of construction of the alley. The computation far alleys uses two factors -front footage and weighted area. Mr. Bierman's assessment is $3,992,26 front footage and $5,$05.79 based on weighted area. obviously, the $10,400 ,estimate Mr. Bierman assumed for the total project closely matches his assessment and confusion exists. Mr. Bierman did not appear at the hearing. Eve McClure, 754 Washington Street (Quantum, Inc.} requested to be heard at the hearing. Her concern was that the property at 754 Washington Street should be residential and not commercial. Staff researched her concern and have found that the intensive land use for her ro er is commercial and have distributed costs er that use. Section 7.175 defines P P tY P this approach with multiple use. PRDIECT The project included 14-foot concrete alley paving, sanitary and storm sewers. ~~ ASSF..S.SMEN'T As com uteri under Ci of Eugene assessment policy, 44 percent of cost is assessed to the P tY abuttin ro erty owners. The costs to be assessed are shown below: gP P 14foot alley paving $ 3.51 per front foot/zone factor point 14-foot alley paving $ 0.032 square foot/zone factor point Sanitary sewers City Cost Costs listed below are the Engineer's estimate and preliminary costs quoted to property owners at the award hearing following bid opening. 14-foot alley paving $ 4.36 per front foot/zone factor point 14-foot alley paving $ 0.038 square foot/zone factor point Sanitary sewers City Cost RECONnV~NDATT4N OF STAFF The final costs are slightly lower than preliminary casts quoted at the award hearing and are cam arable to ro'ects of this size. Staff has responded to the concerns identified. Staff P P~ recommends approval of the assessment distribution. FIlVDINOS Aria RECOMMEr~aATloNS of c~s oFF~C~ As noted above a hearin regarding the assessments was held on April 9,1991. Testimony g. .. . was received b the Hearin s official from James Guido and Eve McClure of Quantum, y g .. .. Znc. located at 754 washin tan Street. ~n addition to this testimony, the Hearings Official g considered a Hearin Request Form prepared by Charles Bierman, which is attached to g these Findin s and Recommendations as Exhibit 1 and the letters of Eve McClure dated g .. A riI 3 and A ril 4, 1991, which are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3. Finally, the Hearings P P official received an additional Memorandum from Paul K1ope of the City Engineer s office dated A ril 9 1991 which addresses concerns regarding the interpretation of Eugene Code P Section 7.175 as it a plies to 754 Washington Street. This Memorandum is attached as P Exhibit 4. The Hearin s Ofbcial examined Eugene Code 7.175.2}~b~Z. The precise interpretation of g .. that rovision was not immediately clear. Therefore, the Hearings Official requested an P ~ .. inter retation from the City Attorney as is set forth in Exhibit 5. P Attached as Exhibit 6 is the reply of the City Attorney. Based upon the history as described b the Ci Attorne , it is the conclusion of the Hearings Official that either interpretation y tY y .. number 1 or number 2 as set forth in page 3 of Exhibit b is the more reasonable. As described in the Ci Attorney's further discussion, either of these interpretations results in tY ~~ ~. E the same assessment calculation as recommended by staff. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Hearin s official that the City Council assess the benei~tting g properties in accordance with the staff recommendation. However, it is far the Council's discretion to consider whether either of these interpretations is acce table to the Council. As noted in the Recommendation portion of the City p Attorney's letter, the Council could choose to adopt the third ~nterpretatlon and refer the matter back to staff for adjustments of assessments. No matter what action the Council takes, it is the further recammendation of the Hearings official that the Code be modified so as to .make the "most intensive use" language more readily understandable. Respectfully submitted, Jack A. Billings Hearings official f SUBJECT: ALLEY BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH AVENUES FROM WASHINGTON STREET TO JEFFERSON STREET (CONTRACT 89-33} A public hearing regarding the above project was held on April 9,1991, in the City Hall II, Conference Room. Present on behalf of City Staff was Paul Klope, from the City Engineer's Office. Hearings Officer Jack A. Billings presided. The Hearings Officer opened the public hearing by describing the role of the Hearings Official and City Council in determining how assessments for a project such as this are to occur. The Hearings Official then called upon Mr. Klope to describe the project. Mr. Klope indicated that this project was far the purpose of constructing a concrete alley and rehabilitation of a sanitary sewer for the alley between 7th and 8th Avenues from washingtan to Jefferson Streets. He Hated that the project was initiated on April 25,1989, and ,that 66°0 of the total cost would be paid far by the benefitting property owners. He noted that appropriate notices were provided to property owners, and far the receipt of bids, in conformance with the Eugene Code. City Staff initially estimated that the cost would be $4.36 per front foot/zone factor point and $~.U3S square footlzone factor point. The actual costs have turned out to be $3:51 per front ` foot/zane factor paint and $0.432 square foot/zane factor point. He further stated that an initial calculation of assessments for the property owners had been established and an earlier hearing scheduled. However, City staff determined that the hearin needed to be ost oned because staff became aware of the cammercial usage at 754 g p P ~washington Street, the home of Quantum, inc. Mr. Klope said that it was determined that this cammercial use was the most intensive use of the property and that the assessments need to be recalculated. He said that the Eugene Code requires that where there is a mixed use of a particular property, staff is to look at the most intensive use. he observed that he had contacted the Planning Department and the City Attorney, in order to determine his recommendation. He enerall looked at the impact of the use on the property. After the g Y recalculations were done, notices were sent out io property owners. Mr. K1ope advised that the assessment process far alleys tends to be more complicated. He said the City takes the cost far an alley project and splits it in half. One half of the costs are attributed to the front faota e of the ro er and the other half to its square footage. g p P tY Each of these is weighted according to the zone factor paints. Mr. K1ape also made available a map of the vicinity of the project. The Hearings Official then called upon Jim Guido who is affiliated with Quantum, Inc. which owns the structure at 754 Washington Street. Mr. Guido indicated that the company. was advised in a roxirnatel Gctober ar November,1989, that the alley would be finished. The pP y ~~~ original estimate provided for this particular property was much lower. At that time, he indicated his company was about to be evicted because it didn't comply with zoning and had plans drawn to accommodate mixed use, After considerable expense to his company, the plans for accommodation of mixed use were approved. Then, on February 22, 1991, notice was provided which indicated an assessment for his property of about $4,xx0, which was similar to the original quote. However, on approximately March 25,1991, he received an assessment for $7,6x0. He noted that the commercial use of the property is daytime only. After the work day, it is a residence only. He noted that his company has improved the first and second floors extensively. He asked whether or not the actual cost was similar to the bid. After review of available information, it was determined that these amounts were quite similar. He also noted that his business was down far four or five business days because of the construction work. He advised that he has $130,000 into this structure. Mr. Klope confirmed that approximately $4,400 was the original estimate for the assessment for this property. Mr. Guido then observed that the amount of the assessment was nearly double what had been quoted. He also noted that all alterations had been made in conformance with mixed use. Eve McClure also testified. She is also affiliated with Quantum, inc. She asked the Hearings Gfflcial to consider her two earlier letters. She does not agree an the denomination of the property as commercial for these purposes. She emphasized that there are no deliveries to her business and that the business entry is on Washington Street. The Hearings Gfflcial indicated to the parties that he would do a physical observation of the structure at 754 ~V'ashington Street. He also advised that he would leave the record open through Friday, April 12,1991, to receive any additional information or legal analysis which the patrons might wish to supply. Finally, the Hearings Gfflcial indicated that he would be contacting the City Attorney for additional interpretation. There being no further matters to come before the Hearings Gfflcial, the hearing was adjourned. J~-~ ~~~ Jack A. Billings Hearings Official CITY OF EUGENE ASSESSMENT PANEL -HEARING REQUEST DATE ~' y ~~ TIME ~= SS NAME ~~J~ ~ ~ ~'~ I~~C' ~~ p~.~ OI~NER' S ADDRESS ~~ ~ ~ ~eF~ ~ e C~ ~ ~~ S ~ PROPERTY ADDRESS I3~ o~~ PROPERTY TAX LOTr_..~ ~- ~ '~ - ? /~ //_ .. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND/OR COMPLAINTS: Contract Number 8 9- 3 3 Hears ng Oate ~ ~ lrc~- ~ I R ' d b ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~, Re uest ec y ~ / g Improvement Oescr ,~v,•~~5 ~~~ Assessment Ro~~~` D Assessment Amount /~ 2t3Z Q (~ 1~ ~ ~' ~ ~ 1 ~ cp~.~~ G ~l[' ~~~ rvl /1~~C~ % ~' ~~~~! ?~vC. D h~ ~ ~'~ `rid (~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~"~~ ~4 G G ~-~ . ~ ~ /~• 1 ~ -~ ~~ /~ ' ~ !.u d ~ ~ ,cam L' ~ I' v - ' ,. STAFF REVIEW & COMMENT: l~v ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~.~h~1 ~~ ~ ~~ `~ ~~[~~~ ~ ~~~ G ~ ~•~-t /~~7 l4 ~ C"x~- ~~~1 ~ / ~ ~y ~~ /ra ~ ~~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Review by ~ I~"'~ ,~/~j ~"1 ~ /~ y ~ Date .~ - ° _ %/ i7-37b ~~~ai~ ~ Q~ ~ Quantum, Inc. April 3, 1991 pat Langan Project Manager Dept. of Public Works 858 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon 9?401 Dear Mr. Langan: ~ECEii/ED APR O.;i9~1 DEPT- OF P~BUC w(ut~ tlij' Ot ~UCknt We are writing you in response to your letter dated March 25, 1991. In this letter, the Public Works Department reevaluated our assessment for the alley paving and sanitary sewers between ?th and 8th avenues from Washington street to Jefferson Street. Our assessment a.ncreased from the original figure of $4 , 443.2? to almost double that amount -- $Z, fiTO.19. We were told the basis for this increase is because "the predom~.nant land use for your ra erty at ?54 Washington Street is commercial use.". p p We take exce Lion to Quantum's reassessment and the loga.c by which p the Public Works Department reevaluated our assessment amount. Below outlines the reasons why: 1 The alley is used 4o hours per week for commercial use. ~ ~ ~ esidential traffic. 138 hours per week it is used for r Corse uently, T8.2~ of the week's available hours, the alley g ~s used for residential use. '~ Of the ten X10} Quantum, Inc. office employees located at ~} 754 Wash~.n ton, only five ~5} drive automobiles. The rest of g the em loyees ride bikes, walk or take public transportation. p 3 uantum is a telemarketing business. We do not receive ~ ~ roduct deliveries or retail customers at T54 Washington. p 4 Lastly, the main business entrance faces Washington Street. The residence entrance way faces the alley. Thus, we feel the proposed assessment for $?,670.19 is unjust. We re est that the original assessment value of $4,443.2T became our financial obligation for the alley paving. We appreciate your immediate attention tv this matter. cere , Eve McClure Director of Operations 7541aV~shington Street P.Q. Box 279 Eugene, QR 97402 ~~~~1~ •~ (503) 345-5556 1-800-Z34-3258 C1 Quantum, Inc. April 4, 1991 Pat Langan Project Manager Dept. of Public Works 858 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon 9T401 Dear Mr. Langan: ..!~ ~ ~-~ . ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~~E'~ ~ ~ i~;~l t~EPT JF ~~ 44~ ~r .~t~ }~~, .. +c~TY t~ ..~,.. • ~ t u~t In an addendum tv my letter dated Apri 1 ? , 1991, one last important paint which adds credence to our argument is: 5} Residential square footage at 754 Washington accounts for fill or 2 , 300 square feet as compared to 39°~ or 1, 504 square feet of commercial off ice space. Again, our position is that the predominant land use is not commercial as stated in your letter dated March 25, 1991, but residential. Thus, we should be assessed accordingly. Thanks again. t S ncer y, ~U~i~. Eve McClure Director of Operations EXHIBIT 3 P~Gg! OF! 754 Uvash~ngton Street PO. Box 2791 ~ Eugene, OR 97442 f 503) 345-5556 1-800-234-355 April 9, 1991 To: Pat Langan Les Lyle From: Paul Klope Subject: 7th and Washington A11ey--Assessment of 754 Washington, MU zone The owner of this property has contested the criteria used to calculate the assessment for this lot. The zoning for the lot is MU and is not listed with a "factor" in the alley assessment section of l.ll5. ~t falls under the category of "other", and the factor must be determined case by case. initially, we~had calculated the assessment based on the surrounding residential zoning. However, shortly before the original assessment hearing date last month, we learned that on floor of the house is used by a telemarketing firm. The hearing was postponed and the assessment recalculated. The owner has since notified us that the square footage of the residential use is greater than the commercial, so there was a question about which usage should govern the, selection of the assessment factor. Yesterday, I talked to Mike Newman, City Attorney's office, regarding how to interpret the code pertaining to calculating alley assessments for properties with zonings not listed in the code. He said that the code directs you to first determine what the most intensive use .of the property is; second, to determine in which zonings from the list in 7.115 that this use would be permitted; and finally, to select the lowest factor from the zonings in which the .use is permitted to calculate the assessment. Mike said that the "intensity" of use is not determined by the square footage of the building in that use, but by the type of use and the potential impact of that use on the property and surrounding streets and other public facili- ties. In general, commercial would be amore intensive use than mast residen- tial uses. A11en Lowe, planning, said that for MU zones which have residential and commercial combined, the equivalent zoning for the residential is determined by either the surrounding zoning or by the concentration of units per acre existing on the lot. Depending on the combination of the actual commercial use and the actual residential use on the parcel, it is passible that there could be circumstances where the residential could be considered the most intensive use. The surrounding residential zoning around this parcel is low density residential, which would be equivalent to R=1, according to Allen. Since on this parcel the commercial use i s telemarketing, and also because i t employs ~2 people, A11en considers this commercial use more intensive than the 2300 square feet of low density residential use also existing on the parcel. He said that telemarketing use is allowed only in GD, C-2, and C-3 zones. Since according to 7.75, the zoning designations G0, C-2, and C-3 all use a factor of ~0, the revised assessment calculated using the i0 factor appears to be consistent with code. E~~3i~6T `! P~sGE ! 04~ ~ DONALD D. DIMENT, JR. JACK A. BILLINGS THE~DQRE L. WALKER April 12,1991 DIMENT, BILLINGS & WALKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Smeede Hotel Building ?87 V1Jillamette Street, Suite 208 Eugene, Oregon 9?401 Mr. Keith Martin Harrang, Long, Watkinson, Arnold & Laird, P.C. 101 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, ~R 97401 Re: Alley Between 7th and 8th Avenues (Contract 89-33)/ Interpretation of Eugene Code 7.175 Dear Keith: Area Code 543 4$4.242 Fax # 484-9395 I have just conducted an Assessment Hearing regarding the above project. I am interested in receiving the benefit of your interpretation of Eugene Code 7.175.2, as it applies to this situation. As you review the Code Section, you note that there is a weighting factor to be used based on the permissible use of the parcel under City zoning. The structure at 754 Washington Street is a very large 2+ story wood frame structure that probably began its existence as a quite large home or apartment house. Although it is not especially obvious from the street, same part of the building is now being used as afflce space for Quantum, Inc., a~~ tele- marketing firm. The owners of this business hand apparently the owners of the structure itsel contend that the residential square footage of the structure accounts for 6l% of the total area. I do not know whether this calculation includes the very tog floor of the structure, which from the street appears to be an attic. In any event, I think we should assume that a minority of the square footage is a commercial (I think an M-2) use and the balance is residential. In your opinion, does EC 7.175.2 require the application of the highest weighting factor, regardless of the percentage of a structure which the higher weighted factor occupies? Qr, does "the most intensive use of the parcel" relate to the majority use of the property, which I assume is residential? As I read this provision, there is no authority far dividing the assessment between the uses, based an their relative weighting factors. Do you agree? Are there any other factors which you think I should be considering? EXHISIT PAGE ~OF,~ Page -2- I realize that I have not given you any advance warning that I would be interested in this information. However, as always, time is somewhat abbreviated. This matter is scheduled fvr presentation to the City Council on April Z2, 1991. If additional information would be of assistance, please give me a call. Sincerely yours, DIMENT, BILLINGS & WALKER J~~,~ ~.~~° Jack A. Billings JAB:Is EXHISI? PAGE ~.OF~ ~ i 4•,t; l I l t!V l~J . l.u 1J ~~+J U~V UaV-~ rir~KK:~1~cY r LUlVt~ "'irl U~k1.~N~1 r U~LL~~~~ ~ l~(31~ 0(~t; ' ' city Attorney Civil D~pa~tm~n~ pity of E~gen~ X400 South Perk ~uildin~ 101 East Broadway Eugene, O~ag~n ~?~401 ~50~~ ~~7-5Q~~ April 17~ 1991 Jack fillings ~ea~~.ngs official X57 Wlllametta~ 5ulte 2~$ Eugene Dragan ~7~~1 Dear Jack: re : Alley Batwaan 7th and nth Avenutrs ~ Contract S ~ ~-~ ~ ~ Interpretation of subsection 7 ,175 ~2 y fib} ~ of Eugene ~~de, ~. ~ 7 ~. ~he~ea f ter E ~ ~ . ~ ThYs rasp~~ds to your inquiry of April 1~, 1991 in which you asked two guestians.. ~.. "Does E.C. 7.175. ~ sic} require the application of the highest weighting 'factor, regardless of tha percentage of a structure which the higher weighted fa~t~~. accup~.es?': ~nswe~: the Code's use of the phrase "most intensive use taf the parcel" is unclear bawd upon oux~ review of the available legislative history. The Counc i 1 shau ld be asked •ta intarprat the phrase for t~iis and future alley projects. See our recarnmendation balaw, ~. Do we agree that "*,.thera is nQ author~.ty for dividing the assessment betwean the uses based an the~.r reYative weighting factors"? Answer: Yes, the alley as~~~~ment pr~visi~~s clearly apply the "~uost intensive user' to the entire parcel.. CODE ~ANGUA~E IN ~UESTICN ' As presently written E.C. 7.175~2~~~h~~ provides in relevant p~:rt: ~. Alle im ravement assess ants. Alley i~provement assessments shall be apportioned as follows: a. The front f oQtage ~f a parcel along the allay shall be ascertained and that footage shall be weighted3, an the basis cf permissible use of the parcel under the zoning of tho city, by multiplying the footage by the factor indicated far that use in the f olla~ring table ~xHisor~ PAGE L~F.s ~f•Y~ l~ r ~-u ~.•~...u ~,,,-vuv VvV VJvx [1:~nriy~tilx~LU:VIz ~~Y U1~lV1,ri1LLl1VG~ ~!. UU~~ UUti ~~C~ ~t~ill1~S A~ri~ 17, ~ ~~ ~ Pale Z done AG , RA ~ R~-1 R--2 ~-- ~ R~4 I--1, I-~ ~ Y~3 Other Factor l.a ~~a ~,a 1Q.4 14.0 10«4 *Accarding to the mpst intensive use of the parcel. aid to the zone listed above in which that use is al~.cwed, Which has the lowest factor. ~Z~T~~Y ~n 195 there was added tQ the city charter prav.isi,ans that required alley ~.mprovements be assessed to the benef xtted property based open abutting front foat~ge, In 19?~ after cans~.de~i~i . ~ several alley impravernent assessments where single family dwellings were required to pay as much for alley improvements as multi-family builda.ngs~ the ~cuncil farmed a subcommittee to consider establishing a new formula far alley assess~ents. That work spanned twe years and was ane of the reasons that the city chapter way modernized in ~.9?~ by taking special be~ef~.t ~s$essment formulas out Qf the charter. ~t that time the council felt the uses allowed by th.e x~ni~g which wou~.d make tho g~eeatest demand upa~ the alley were beef fitted mare than thane za~ing classifications that did not use the alley as muchr Hence the subcommittee p~raposed and the cour~oil accepted factoring based open zoning rather than dust font footage. It should be Hated that the factors are b~$ed upon zoning not uper~ uses existing. at the time ~f asses$mer~t, The predecessor provisions to E,c, gather#' zone class~.ficatian unti: factor was based strictly upon za~ing classif icatior~s . cur revi~ ~pri~. 11, 1977 amendm~~t tQ th c~.assif ication indicates that th because the zanir~g ordinance w numerous in its zoning districts. a~.~... , , , ." The 19~~ legis~.ative W7.17 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ b 3 2 did not i~c lode an . 197?. ~ria~ to that time the use$ permitted by the existing w of the minutes dealing with the Q fade that added the "Other' e Council created the category ~~ becoming mote discrete and "Other just became the catch-~ history on this s~bsectiQn only EXHi~17 PAGE Z0~ s, lack 8i~tings April I7, ~9~1 P~g~ ~ uau~ cyan t~au~ ~ riAkKA~c?,L~1NtY y~~ B~~IENT,BiLL1~T~S I~Up4,'O~b states that sectiar~ ? ,17 ~ ~ ~ } ~ b~ "Continues the previous assessment pa~.ic~.es under section 7 ,18 4" . ~ection~ ? .1$ ~ was the riwmber for the predecessar.pravisians, UISC~'~sICN The concept of "~.ritensive use't that appears in the asterisked exp~.a~~t.f o~ ~f "other" in E, C, ? ,175 ~z ~ Eby ~ is not explained in the Code, It is susceptible to seve~`~1 interpretations. ~.. It may be a pZann,ing term that takes into account many factors such as: density, size of structures and improvements, activity on the property, tra,f f is ~ noise, odor, lot coverage and other demands upon the infrastructure or impacts upon abutting prapert~.e$. 2. It may also be a chart handed reference to the impact of the parcel. i s use upon the traffic using .the al~.ey. In this late~c cor~te~t a single family dwelling ~ s use of a~ alley is less than a mu~.ti--family bu~Iding that takes its parking off the alley. 3. Yet another ~A~aning could tle "intensive uses' to the area of ~ buYidzng~much as you have beep asked to do by the owner of 75~ Washington. Cr, some other single factor ~vther than use of the a~,ley~ such as the hours of use Qr access could be used as requested by the ten~~t, If .one just relies upari the ~rords of E.C. 7.275 ~2~ ~b~ ~a the Engineersng staff ha~re properly calculated the "mast intensive user' ~~ the p~roel as commercial and then applied the Co, Cwt and C~3 classification to arrive at a factor of 10. This is consistent with the language in E.C. 7. ~.7~ ~~} ~b~ ~ which deals 3n whole parcels and the permissible uses of each parcel under the toning regulations regardless of what the present use is of the parcel. That xs, the potential uses under the existing zoning dictate the factor, not the existing uses. Based upon the legislative history for ~. ~, ~',17~ ~2} {b~ 2a it is reasonable to .interpret the ref erence to "most 1,~tensive u~~'~ t~ mean. the use that puts the greatest amount of gaff is on the alley. .~pplyir~g this interpretation to the pr~s~nt alley assessments, the parcel is zoned MU aid can have uses ranging from ~~-~ residential to C~-~, C-3 or Go. Using th~.s ~,nterpretation on this alley project E~Nl~1T~ RAGE ~ OFD ~~:~~1~/q~~ ~0:~.1 $5~l3 tit`~b 050- H:~RR~~T~ ~~~~' .~~~: ~_ ; ~', L~ ~ ~ . y . UI~[El~'T, 8I LLI~~S ~] 005: 00 S Jack Billings Ap~i~ 17, ~ ~~ ~ P~g~ 4 you end up in the sane place as the planri~ing inter retation becaus p e as a general rule commercial zones will generate mode traffic than ~-1 uses. While the result in this instancc Zs the same i • ~ n later p~`a~ects it wou~.d be possible to be com arin the traffic dem e~e~•ated b ~~ se ~ ~ and 9 y ~ u s ~r~.th C-~~. uses, While it is passible to base "most intensive use~~ an the erc of the buildin a~'ea p eritage 9 suggested by the awne~ or upon the f~C~~r~ suggested by quantum, Inc., we da not find anythin in the histo of the Code provision to su es ~ ry gg t these are anything mare than a few Qf the factors t~ cons a.der ~f the pl.ann.ing cake t of ~~ inters use" fs used. There is not 1 p lve hang in the leg~slat~ve history to snow the percentage of building or total hours available or t e a ` atterns oaf the h tr f f lc p existing ~Ornmercla~, occupant were tQ receiv+~ special consideratlor~ over the other indicia of intensified us e. Further, the Code only speaks in terms of the "the must i ' use of the arcel'f ~ • , ntensive . We see na words that allow dlvldlr~g the assessment based upon each existing use's ercenta a of th improvements. Since the e p 4 e ntire parcel could be put to commercial use under the MU zone it is consistent with the other ravisians o ~•C. 7.1~~~~ b~ tc a I p f ~~ ~ pp y the factor to the entire ~rcel. P R~C4MMENDATICN We conclude that regardless of which of the s f ~.~ t two interpretations of "most intensive use-~ is used t ` ~ he result is the same and the staff recommendatlan should he upheld. We do su es that you re west the Cow ~ g~ t ~ ~ncil ruder its ~.nterpretation of the phase sa that cn future alle~r assessments the staff and ' have clearer understandin you wall g of the meaning of the phrase, Since the Council could use the third interpretation hated above if it it should refer the ' does' proposed assessments hack to the staff with instructions an haw to apply the zonin factors on ` alle g this and future ~' projects, New nat~.oe of proposed assessments would then he sent and a new hearing conducted by you before the Council adapt the assessments, would Finally we remind the Council throw h ou th ' uestlan of i g Y at this matter is a ~ nterpreting the existlr~g Code language. Because of the Charter this problem on this project cannot be ~ salved by amending the Code. Shau~,d the Caunc~.l desire to amend t avoid future roblems he Cade to p it would take a 2/~ vote and the amendment would not apply to this project or for an ra'ects ' Y P ~ ~.n~.t~.ated for EX~lIBii' ~ ~ ,. - - - . ~ . ~ ~ ~~ x .. n.-~rcn:~~~t,, Lua~~ -~~-~ ll~MENT, BZLLIII'GS ~ ~Qf,'~~fi lack Billings ~- Apri~ 17, ~~9~ Page ~ the f ir~t eix months foll~~in the amend • ~u ens Charts ~ . rnent. fee ~e~tion ~~~ . ~ r o~ 1~7f. ~ ~ Lt~N~ ~ '~A~'~~NSON ~ ARrICL~7 & BIRD, F . C. City Attorney ,, . ,. r ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~~ ! r ~. ~ .. A. ~elth Martin ~~1~ E~€~I~iT_~___ PACE ~i~~~ EXHIBIT C -FINAL ASSESSMENT RILL not attached; it is on file and ava~~able by v~ritten request in the Cxty Recorder's office.