Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20053 ORDINANCE NO. ~60C;3 AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR INSTALLATION OF CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND ACCESS DRIVES ALONG HIGHWAY 99 (PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST) FROM BARGER DRIVE TO ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (CONTRACT 94-S06) (JOB #2728) The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. In May,1991, the City Council through adoption of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) , authorized staff to proceed with the initiation of the design and bidding of the proposed local improvement project consisting of the installation of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and access drives along Highway 99 (Pacific Highway West) from Barger Drive to Roosevelt Boulevard, in accordance with Subsection 7.160(5) of the Eugene Code, 1971 (EC), and to enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Lane County. B. After due notice and a public hearing thereon before the hearing official, and no remonstrances having been filed, on the 7th day of March, 1994, the City Council formed the local improve- ment district and authorized construction of the local improvement. c. The cost of the local improvement is ascertained to be approximately $1,620,000 and the amounts to be assessed to and borne by the specially benefitted property and to be borne by the Ordinance - 1 determined in accordance ~ith applicable city or others has been d set forth in E~hibit A provisions of the EUgene Code, ~91~ an as attached heretO and incOrporated herein bY reference. co~"nc~l haS established the method of calculat- D . The Ci ty ..... ~ . ~ C 1 ~10 and 1_~15. ing local improvement assessmentS ~n p- - · 1\ notice containing the information required bY E-C- B. J:'). on a bulletin board at city nall and given bY 1_~85 ~as posted of the parcelS of real property certified mail to the owners da'TS prior to the public to t~e assessment more than ten .~ subj ect 1.... before the hearing offiCial. hearing a hearings official heard all evidence and specified therein. and nO remonstrances having been filed, haS argument presented, and haS reported his or her adopted fullY considered the same, findings to the city council. -p..t the time and place d and considered the assessment The Council has revie~e and Finance officer and the hearings report of the city Engineer su~roarY of the hearing. and based thereon. official'S findings and .\" 'tt1:E C'I't't 01r ~UG~NE DO~S o~p.,'IN p.,S 1rOt.,LO-WS ~ 'F. of the council'S record in hearings official is herebY made a part f. d. gs including d~~.gs and the hearings official' s ~n ~n ' theSe procee ~...~ ' ~. b. ~earing conducted bY the The summary of tel.... ordinance - 2. those regarding compliance with E.C. 7.160 to 7.190, attached as Exhibit B hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section 2. The actual cost of the local improvement compris- ing curbs and gutters,sidewalks and access drives is $567,733.72 and 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 local improve- ment district as set forth on the assessment roll 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 in full, without interest, within ten days of the effective date of this ordinance. Assessments that remain unpaid after the ten day period are declared 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 Ordinance - 3 commencing ten days after the effective date of this ordinance: 4.1 In 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 2.024. 4.2 If the property owner so elects, in 120 monthly install- ments, 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 Liens a statement in connection with each unpaid assessment containing the following: 5 . 1 A description of each lot, part of lot or acreage specially benefitted by the local improvement; 5.2 The name of the owner or reputed owner thereof, or 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 Liens. Section 6. Upon enactment of this ordinance, the City Finance Officer shall send notice of the assessments by first class mail to Ordinance - 4 d Parcels containing the information the o~ers of the aSsesse and enclose there~ith an application for required bY B.C. 1.~90 in installmentS according to the termS set paying the assessment forth in section 4 of thiS ordinance. . . 9 unpaid and for ~hich nO ~Y assessment rema~n~n .;nstallment paymentS has been received may be application for .... ~he proceedS from the payment or foreclOsed as provided bY la~' ~. foreclOSure of ~hich advanced the cost of constrUC- deposited to the citY funds or ~hich are used to retire tion, engineering and related e~enses C't for thiS improvement. any indebtednesS incurred bY the ~ Y contained herein affect the public ~. ~hat the matters therefore, an emergencY is herebY declared ~elfare and safetY and shall beCome effective immediatelY to e~ist, and thiS ordinance Council and approval bY the Mayor, upon itS passage bY the city assessmentS levied bY thiS ordinance Shall be or reado~tion over f than ten daYs, l:" retention bY the Mayor or more all members of the Council. a mayoral vetO bY t~o_thirdS of passed bY the city council thiS ~pproved bY the Mayor thiS ~ day of ~' ~996 <[ -t \-t da. Y ~ '1996 ordinance - S (J"\ <J1 0" 0'\ -.l -.l ......... ......... VJ (.U CJ.) c....> -.i 0 -.l tv 0 rv ;on .."fT1 --tVl f'.)-O (J'\N 0(.11 tile::>> .." t t/l"'t: -0):: Na 0'\("1 o e::>>t ~ . 'lJ EXHIBIT 8 JJ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF CURBS AND GUTTERS AND ACCESS DRIVES FOR IDGHW A Y 99 (PACIFIC IDGHW A Y WEST) FROM BARGER DRIVE TO ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD (CONTRACT #94-506) (JOB #2728) BACKGROUND The overall improvement of Highway 99 from Beltline to Roosevelt Boulevard was initiated by the Oregon Department of Transportation (OnOT) through its Transportation Improvement Program. The City of Eugene has included the project in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) since May, 1991. The City Council, through its annual adoption of the eIP, authorized staff to proceed with initiation of the design and bidding of the project in accordance with Eugene City Code 7.160(5), and enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Department of Transportation regarding funding and associated responsibilities. The agreement encompasses the section of Highway 99 north from Beltline to Roosevelt. This project was divided into two phases. Phase one was from Beltline to Barger and was more rural in character. No assessments were levied for the phase one section. Phase two was from Barger to Roosevelt, which is more urbanized and includes construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, signals, lighting, and some median islands. The City Council formed the Local Improvement District (LID) for the Phase two area on March 7, 1994. The project has been completed and final assessment costs have been calculated. PRO.JECT The assessable portion of the improvement included approximately 17,750 linear feet of curbs and gutters, 10,900 square yards of sidewalk, and 3,830 square yards of concrete driveways. ASSESSMENT Under City of Eugene assessment policy, improvement costs for the concrete sidewalk, driveways, and curbs and gutters will be distributed to the abutting property owners. OnOT and Lane County have financed pavement restoration, landscaping, lighting and traffic signal improvements. The balance of the cost of the improvements has been financed by the City. Below are the final unit assessable costs. Sidewalk/Curbs/Gutters/Dri vew ay $35.00/front foot Prior to construction, at the LID hearing, the property owners were given an estimate of the assessable unit costs, which was that the assessable cost was not to exceed $35.00 per front foot. INSTALLA TION OF CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND ACCESS DRIVES FOR HIGHWAY 99 FROM BARGER DRIVE TO ROSSEVELT BOULEVARD FINAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing on the assessment was held on May 21, 1996. The Hearings Official Minutes of the public hearing are attached. (Exhibit A) One property owner and the representative of a second property owner appeared and testified at the hearing. The common concern expressed by those who appeared at the hearing focused on several parcels that were partially or completely separated from the sidewalk improvements by a strip of unused state right-of-way. When the state acquired right-of-way along Highway 99, the right-of-way was wider in some areas than in other areas. When the Highway was resurfaced and improved, including the installation of sidewalks, no additional right-of-way was acquired. To create a straight edge to the Highway, portions of the right-of-way were left behind the area improved by the sidewalk. Approximately ten parcels were totally or completely separated from the sidewalk improvements by portions of the left over right-of-way. The owners who appeared objected to the proposed assessment for the sidewalks adjacent to their properties for two reasons. First, the property owners objected because their property did not touch all of the sidewalk. For some properties, the entire property was separated from the sidewalk by additional right-of-way. For other properties a portion of the property actually touches the improved sidewalk, while another part of the property is separated from the sidewalk by the right-of-way. The owners also objected to the proposed assessment because the state may sell the unused right-of-way, creating an intervening private property owner between the sidewalk and the property assessed for the sidewalk. 1. Non-contiguity with the sidewalk The mere fact that some or all of the property does not touch the sidewalk does not mean that the property should not be assessed. Properties are assessed because they are specially benefited by the development It is not necessary for the property to touch the sidewalk to be specially benefited. For example, the gutter portion of a sidewalk improvement channels drainage off a street and keeps the runoff from invading the adjacent property, whether or not the sidewalk actually touches the adjacent property. The sidewalk contains foot traffic and keeps it from wandering onto the adjacent property, even if there is also otherwise unmarked right-of-way between the two. As the opinion from the City Attorney points out, the City Council has determined that even a property across a street can be benefited by a sidewalk on the other side of a street. While it may be more clear to the property owner if the sidewalk for which the assessment is being levied touches the property, a simple analysis of the situation supports the City's conclusion that the properties that do not touch the sidewalk should nevertheless be assessed because the sidewalks and curbs and gutters do benefit the properties. 2. Potential sale of intervening right-of-way The property owners argued against being assessed because it is possible that this intervening right- of-way may be sold to a new, private property owner. While it may be possible for such a sale to take place, it seems highly unlikely that any person other than the assessed property owner would ever INSTALLA TION OF CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND ACCESS DRIVES FOR HIGHWAY 99 FROM BARGER DRIVE TO ROSSEVELT BOULEVARD FINAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 2 purchase the surplus right-of-way. The attorney for one of the property owners involved who raised this issue did not provide examples of when such sales had occurred, and the City Attorney also was not aware of any such circumstances. While the City Engineer's staff did report that some discussions may have occurred with adjacent property owners, they too were not aware of any sales to third parties in circumstances such as these. If the intervening right-of-way were sold to a different party, the assessed property owner could claim that some of the benefit previously assigned to his or her property had been transferred to the new property owner. Aside from the unlikelihood of such a sale, however, not all of the benefit would be transferred. The assessed property owner would have been the primary beneficiary of the improvement prior to the sale and would also retain a special benefit after the sale. The assessed property owner would always retain a right of access across the property, and thus would always have the benefits of the entrances provided as a part of the improvement, as well as a continued benefit from the drainage control and boundary division that any such sidewalk improvement provides property close to the improvement. The City Council has authority to define what is a benefited property in a reasonable way, and to then assess .the benefited property. It is possible for the Council to define benefited property to include property that is not contiguous to property where the improvements are located! It is theoretically possible that some of the properties within this LID might someday be separated and non-contiguous to the property on which the improvements are located. In the event that the second possibility occurs, then the first possibility will also have occurred. Under the circumstances of this LID, where the right-of-way which might be sold is of such questionable marketability to any party except the owner of the adjacent right-of-way, and where the prospect of such a sale is entirely theoretical, the Hearings Official recommends that the Council proceed to assess the parcels within the LID in the same manner as is done for all parcels within a similar local improvement district. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Nature of the Assessment The Hearings Official finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local improvements as set forth in ORS 310.410 because 1. The assessments do not exceed actual costs; 2. The assessments are imposed for a capital construction project which provides a specific benefit for a specific property or rectifies a problem caused by a specific property 3. The assessments are imposed in a single assessment upon completion of the project; and 4. The assessments allow the property owners to elect to pay the assessment with interest over at least ten (10) years. 1 While the City Attorney has not reviewed these findings and recommendations, the City Attorney did agree to the correctness of this assertion in discussions prior to the completion of these findings and recommendations. INSTALLA TION OF CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND ACCESS DRIVES FOR HIGHW A Y 99 FROM BARGER DRIVE TO ROSSEVEL T BOULEVARD FINAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 3 Recommendation The final improvement costs are the same as those quoted at the local improvement hearing and are comparable to projects of similar size. The Hearings Official agrees with the recommendation of the City Engineer. The Hearings Official recommends approval of the assessment distribution under the terms described in this report. The Hearings Official also recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance for assessment as set forth by the City Engineer. Respectf ly submitted, Milo Mecham Hearings Official Dated: July 1, 1996 INSTALLATION OF CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND ACCESS DRIVES FOR HIGHWAY 99 , FROM BARGER DRIVE TO ROSSEVEL T BOULEVARD FINAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 4 Exhibit A MINUTES Final Assessment Installation of Curbs and Gutters, Sidewalks and Access Drives for Highway 99 from Barger Drive to Roosevelt Boulevard Job 2728 May 21, 1996 Public Hearing Hearings Official Milo Mecham convened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. He described the subject matter of the hearing and the procedures to be followed at the hearing. Present at the hearing representing the City of Eugene were Project Engineer Gale Mills and Engineering staff member Eileen Argentina. Mr. Mills began by providing a brief description of the project and its history. The widening and improvement of Highway 99 has developed over many years. Finally, in 1991, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) began to provide direct funding support. A funding package with support from ODOT, the City of Eugene, Lane County and the property owners was put together, and the project was initiated. The project was divided into two phases. Phase two of the project involved construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, signals, lighting and some median islands along Highway 99 from Barger Drive to Roosevelt Boulevard. As provided in the local improvement district formed on March 7, 1994, abutting property owners in the area of the local improvement district are subject to an assessment for a portion of the cost of construction of sidewalks, curbs and gutters and driveways. Mr. Mills explained that the final unit assessable costs proposed are based on the estimated amount set forth at the time the local improvement district was formed, and the construction costs. The proposed assessments include an assessment of $24.82 per front foot of the abutting properties to pay for construction of sidewalks and driveway aprons, and $10.18 per front foot for construction of curbs and gutters. The total assessment is proposed to be $35.00 per front foot of abutting property. The first member of the public to address the hearing was Mr. Paul Clayton, an attorney representing the owners of one parcel in the local improvement district, Robert Beckley and Frederick Beckley. The parcel in question is located at the corner of Bethel Drive and Highway 99. Mr. Clayton explained that the Beckley property is roughly triangular in shape, approximately one acre in size. For 120 feet along one side, the Beckley property abuts directly on the paved and traveled portion of the Highway 99 right-of-way. Further north along Highway 99, the Beckley property begins to lose its triangular shape as the Highway 99 right of way widens. The additional width of right of way was acquired by ODOT at an earlier date. From this point to the intersection with Bethel Drive, the sidewalk installed along Highway 99 no longer touches the Beckley property. The sidewalk and curb diverges from the right-of-way property line and runs through a portion of the right-of-way, leaving additional right-of-way space between the sidewalk and the Beckley property. The Beckleys are concerned because they Minutes, May 21, 1996 Public Hearing, Highway 99 Improvements Page 1 feel that they are being assessed for 238 feet of frontage on the sidewalk and curb improvement where the improvement is located on ODOT property that is not adjacent to the Beckley property. Mr. Clayton stated that the Beckleys have no recorded right of access or easement across the ODOT right of way to the traveled portion of Highway 99. The Beckleys at one point had tried to purchase the widened right of way, which would have brought their property line up to the area of the sidewalk and curb, but the Beckleys withdrew their offer. The Beckleys' argument is that they should not be assessed for the state property where the sidewalk divides the state property but does not abut their property. Mr. Clayton also asserted that the portion of the property on Bethel Drive was assessed for the cost of curbs and sidewalks on Highway 99. The main concern of the Beckleys is that they are being assessed for improvements that do not abut their property. Mr. Mills of the City Engineering Division responded that the widened right of way was acquired by ODOT in 1993, and that the Beckleys were provided an access permit that allowed access to Highway 99. Mr. Mills also explained that the area of right-of-way between the sidewalk and the Beckley property is landscaped, except for the area where a driveway apron provides access to the Beckley property. The next member of the public to address the hearing was Mr. Paul Spotten Mr. Spotten owns property within the local improvement district, located along the Highway 99 right-of-way adjacent to Barger Drive. Mr. Spotten is concerned because of the limited access allowed to his property. Mr. Spotten originally requested five access points. The state's preliminary decision was to allow three access points to the Spotten property, Mr. Spotten appealed this decision, and the result of the appeal was that Mr. Spotten was allowed two access points to the property from Highway 99. Mr. Spotten also had concerns similar to those expressed by Mr. Clayton on behalf of the Beckleys. Mr. Spotten's property is separated from the sidewalk installed along the ~raveled portion of Highway 99 by approximately thirty (30) feet of state right-of-way. At one time Mr. Spotten leased the use of this portion of the right-of-way from the state, but that lease is no longer valid. Mr. Spotten is especially concerned because of the unusual shape of his property. The Spotten property has approximately 600 feet abutting Highway 99, but is a long narrow strip that at its narrowest is approximately 20 feet wide, and only widens slightly throughout its length. Mr. Spotten' s concerns are made more severe because it is his understanding that the state intends to declare the portion of the right-of-way between the developed curb and sidewalk and the Spotten property to be surplus property. This would then allow the state to sell the property to another person. Mr. Mills acknowledged the accuracy of Mr. Spotten's description of the right-of-way adjacent to his property, and confirmed that the state may declare the excess right of way to be surplus property. Mr. Mills explained that there are approximately ten properties in the local improvement district where there is excess right-of-way behind at least a portion of the developed sidewalk and the actual edge of the right-of-way. ODOT does not expect to need or Minutes, May 21, 1996 Public Hearing, Highway 99 Improvements Page 2 use this right-of-way in the future for a further widening of Highway 99, and may therefore declare all this property to be surplus property. Mr. Spotten elaborated on the conditions relevant to his property. The area immediately behind the sidewalk on the right-of-way is a steep grade from the level of the highway down to the level of the Spotten property. From the end of this grade back to the property line is partially paved and partially graveled undeveloped land. Mr. Spotten explained that his concern with access points arose because there is a portion of his property that he is unable to reach in a vehicle because of a structure on his property that comes very close to the property line on both sides. Mr. Spotten stated that, because the state will not allow use of the right-of-way, he is unable to access a portion of his property and therefore is unable to realize the fullest value of his property. A discussion ensued among Mr. Mills, Mr. Spotten, Mr. Clayton and the Hearings Official concerning the reasons for the excess right -of-way, the nature of ownership of the excess right-of-way, and the prospective use of the property. The state's process of acquisition of the right-of way was discussed; the understanding of those present who had an opinion was that the state usually acquires the- property through deeded acquisitions. Mr. Mills explained that on collector streets, where there is a significant volume of traffic, it is common to have the physical area of the sidewalk located some distance from the street or from the abutting property, to allow a buffer between the collector street and the abutting property. In response, it was pointed out that the present situation was somewhat different, at least in the eyes of Mr. Clayton and Mr. Spotten, because of the distance between the improvement and the abutting property and because of the potential that the intervening property might be sold or transferred to a different owner after the assessment was levied. Mr. Mills stated that he believed that the Eugene Code allowed the assessment process proposed in the circumstances such as were raised during the hearing. The Hearings Official suggested that Mr. Mills consider requesting an opinion from the City Attorney concerning the City's authority to make assessments such as the proposed assessments in circumstances such as Mr. Clayton and Mr. Spotten described. There being no further testimony, the hearing closed at 7:15. Minutes, May 21, 1996 Public Hearing, Highway 99 Improvements Page 3 CITY OF EUGENE INTER-DEPARTMENT AL MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEPARTMENT To: Milo R. Mecham Hearings Official Date: June 27, 1996 Subject: Assessment for Improvements Along Highway 99 This opinion addresses the question raised at the May 21, 1996 public hearing for the installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks and access drives for Highway 99. At the hearing, two property owners objected to the proposed assessment for their properties because, they argued, their properties do not "abut" the sidewalk improvements.l Instead, part of their properties are immediately adjacent to unimproved Highway 99 right-of-way, with right-of-way space located between the sidewalk and the objectors' properties. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the City lawfully may assess the properties. As a general matter, the Eugene Code provides that the City may assess adjoining property owners for costs associated with local improvements, including street improvements and sidewalk improvements. Section 7.010, in defining a local improvement, states, in part: "Local Improvement. Any project or service or part thereof undertaken by the city where all or part of the costs are borne by local assessments levied against parcels of real property which provides a special benefit only to specific parcels or rectifies a problem caused by specific parcel(s). Such local improvements may include, but are not limited to, a street, sidewalk, . . .. If (Emphasis supplied). A property receives a "special benefit" from a local improvement when the construction adds anything to the convenience, accessibility and use of the property as distinguished from benefits arising incidentally out of the improvement or enjoyed by the public generally. Hutchinson v. City of Corvallis, 134 Or 519, 523-24 (1995); State Highway Commission v. Bailey, 212 Or 261, 306 (1957). Certainly, the installation of sidewalks in front of the Beckley and Spotten properties (i.e., the "objectors" properties) provided a special benefit. The objectors do not appear to be contesting that their properties received a special benefit. Instead, they appear to be arguing that under section 7.175(2)(b)(3) of the Eugene Code, the City may impose assessments for sidewalk improvements only on those properties which are physically connected to the sidewalk for the entire length of the sidewalk in front of the person's property. Section 7 . 175(2)(b)(3) states, in part: "Parcels abutting a sidewalk shall be liable for a proportionate share of the cost of the sidewalk, based on the front footage of the parcel abutting the sidewalk. fI Absent this complete physical connection, the objectors appear to argue, the properties would not "abut" the sidewalk, and therefore, the Eugene Code would not permit assessments to be imposed. For the following reasons, we conclude that objectors read subparagraph (3) too narrowly. lThe Beckleys apparently also argued that they did not have access to Highway 99 or to the sidewalk. In fact, as the attached access permit and diagram demonstrate, they do have that access. The Eugene Code does not define the term "abut" or "abutting". The local assessment ordinances as a whole, and the specific language addressing sidewalk assessments, demonstrate that the City may assess the Beckley and Spotten properties. The specific language related to sidewalk assessments in EC 7 . 175(2)(b )(3) demonstrates that the City Council intended that the City be able to assess property such as that owned by the Beckleys or by Mr. Spotten. Language in subparagraph (3) provides, in part, that the City may assess the cost of a sidewalk to those properties which are located on the opposite side of the street from the sidewalk: "The cost of the sidewalk on one side of the street may be assessed to both the parcels abutting the sidewalk and the parcels on the opposite side of the street from the sidewalk, . . ." (Emphasis supplied). The City Council, in subparagraph (3), has authorized the assessment of property which is not connected to the property, may not have easy access to the property, and is separated from the sidewalk by an improved right-of-way (i.e., the street). The objectors' properties are connected to the sidewalk, even though there is some unimproved right-of-way located between the sidewalk and the objectors' properties. The objectors have easy access to the property. This provision authorizing imposition of assessments for properties on the opposite side of the street demonstrates the Council's intent to authorize an assessment for property which is located on the same side of the street as the sidewalk but is separated from the sidewalk by unimproved right-of-way. Our conclusion is buttressed by the other provisions of the Eugene Code related to local improvements. The definition of local improvement demonstrates that the Council intended that property to be assessed would be parcels "specially benefitted II by the improvement. Property is specially benefitted by a sidewalk improvement whether the owner's property is immediately adjacent to the entire sidewalk, or is in close proximity to the entire sidewalk and immediately adjacent to part of it. As the discussion above demonstrates, the objectors' properties certainly obtain a greater benefit, and a more specific benefit, as a result of the sidewalk construction than does the remaining property throughout the City. In sum, the objectors' argument regarding the term "abut" must be rejected as inconsistent with context and intent of subparagraph (3), as well as the remaining provisions related to local improvements. If the City may impose a sidewalk assessment on a property owner located across the street from a sidewalk, it would make no sense to conclude that the City may not assess a property located on the same side of the street as the sidewalk. Therefore, the hearings officers should conclude that the City lawfully may impose the assessments. HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK p.e.- CITY ATTO YS ~ Glenn Klein GK/gb Attaclnnent cc: Gale Mills gb\gkcity\h99-abut.op I ,,;.'.,. e:.:~ , , , ... .:.. " I ~ ... ---' .J r- (~.,~".. ilF ~. ~......'S~.~ i.{IGHWAY DIVISION MPPLICA TION AND PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT APPROACI.J ROAD ~HW^Y N^MG MJI..EPalNT __ PERMIT NUMSc;R . OSA .9516 3 €N(),INF.Eo RS ST" "ION PACifiC HIGHWAY WEST ~~YNUMt:i(t~......- FN1Y 1 Wes t L. ~._ Lan.~. ;;TWEEN OA NI:J\A (.ANOMARKS 119.83 .~_ 1547~~ AP'PAOACti TO SE.RVE ------.. 5.01: Or- HlGt1WA'f o NORTH Q' EAS'I o SOUTH (j\ WEST HfG HWA Y RGr.ERENC€ M^P A NO A. TT ACj'(J::n DRI\WINtl: NUMRe:ns --._---~ LAKfWOOD CT ~UC^NTN^MF.~DADORESS AND PATTISON AVE DB-G. NO. E:lONU 'FteaUfR€D 106-- - 6 AMOUNT OF BONO r- I REFERENCE o yES 0 NO OAR 734.5().a2S(6) II\IStJHA"'ce REQUIRED RGF(R~NCG o YES ~ NO OAR 734~SO.Q~) AMOU"'IT $ o AOMINISTRAT'VEf'EE [J TEMPOR"AY DEPOSIT WA I V ED CI '(:(;K NUMOEA l704~21400l00 2728 MO BECKLEY ROBERT C BECKLEY FREDERICK C 2600 W 291"f{ Et1(';F:~E or~ 9 -; -40 S x OA Tf. (-:OMPLETE ^7~~~ OATr AEGeON (!NGINCCn L ~ x ljTIl,1TY PER..OT 5UPEIl\/I!:OO AP1>AQ\lAL'O" 1'; x AI~J:tf'tOAC;H nOAO COMPL810N DATE: -~! ~.~ .. .~.sr~~~~CG; O^R 73...50 O~.(1(4) l'he appHGam dcdiY'e!: 1r\.:l1 he/~ is 1he 0 or Ie~ of I:h:: rc.aI prapcny nf1i'?inioQ ....... "t..o..~ ~~ hilJhw''-'y ..,., I\.il'$ VId ~..,tul.iAla(Jrit.y ." ap~ (0( 11"'- p..;mit. ",""wn U,i~ 3p ~tion hi approved by Che Dr.pMtmenl of rftruspnrt;lcton. tho ~t bi wtJfecC td d'8 'kW'ms and orO'4'iSk'JIl5 CCI'ltafn6d hatein and fs~ f\ereto: and the 18tnl!l of Qrugun "4. mlnJ$1T4'tJwe RuJe. Q\ap(er 734.. Di'-is;on 50.. id'l is by Ihia r6fetence 1'~ * pou1 of tfli~ pcnnit. Copt..."':i of the RuCc n\i1Y bo obt.Dinnd from tnn Oi:itrir:t MnintnnnncA RI~" QI1IQO ~ of p&'rr1iC ondet the$e ~ul;stion:; is J'1CIt . rftlding at ~nc.e wie1 the ~ti1tQlM\;S., planning ~!s '" UlO ~ (X)(1lpI'et,e.~ I>Ian (or the.... P6rn~ a'tt e-~ SUb' ~ ID Ute 4ppc'0riJ of City. ~ty QC Qtt'Jef goyarn~l.~ "8~ ~ ptn1 StJpecvt$Ion O'"W the &&ction of ~y or aU1hority '" regu(at81:ana use by me,m,* of T~ 1IlvJ1Q6 ~=r=.~ ~1~7 appIanr~ I'es~tifity to obtain 4I\y~. ilpptoval induding, W'hare appIicah'e. go.-anmont dn~ti9R Qf cxmpIi.vw>J Mrtth th9 $~tll1lwtd6 SPl::CIAl PROVISIONS 1 ~~rlf the proposed application reqlJire~ trHffic oon~oI devices and/or special road construction.. tile applicant snalt provide 8. copy of this applic.aUQn 10 tile alfectQd lOcal govemment. The ()f'iginat appliQ(Jtion must be s;~ned bY' the local government official. >CN.. GOvE . ~'i'l O,!CIAl SIG TURc. ... lITLl: ...,- /f-/./!-/ o~~ /.. . - .."'.-. . ,CU,t"t/~ ;'..0 ~j,c Il i\/ (~ I ((. L- ..__._.. ",w'.n _.. .__.._ ~. _. / (.. / 1_ ~ !..c-/':-3 . 2- Tne apl'hcant or r'\i~(Itr'a(.1o' shall rlotity the DistriCt MainlenanC"..E! Supervisor.s office at least ~ hours in ad"8nr...e of commencing woric and after completiog "'0 wor'k, (:Qveted by this porrr'iI. (O^H 734-50-040) Telephone Nur'nbcl": YPE 4 APPROACH ROAD - CURBED HIGHWAY NOTe: All material and WOC"kmansnlp Shall be i("t accorda~9 with tho cur- renl state of Oregon~~~~~~~r~ ~.~(tc:atiotl fOf Highway Cor1struction. f D r \It y. -</W Lin_':..~1.~_~L // A ~ w - 35 t ANGLE OF SKEW W,..=: 49 I APPROAC"'...H TYF+ x = 51 CURO TYPG K -- 10' E N...._N. '.'=-:1- r..sc.~ ~2f7i - Ace HAil NOTES~ w.... W1DTtf OF DRIVEWAY K := DISTANCE FROM FACE OF CuAS.O BACK OF PRESENT OR FUTURE WALK OR 10 FEET. WHICUEVER IS LESS W, = SEE TABLE A ON nE.VERSE: x :::; SEE TABLE ^ ON RCNERSE ~LCon(: A.-J -1C 'PLAN 1 l 06/03/96 MON 09:44 [TX/RX NO 8272] ;, { , 12 .:5 IS t$ 15 .'" 11 17 ., I) tG r2 t:) 1:)- M l' tt ~I l.t ~O 2;,) n 23 ;.:~ 22 27 :)" .. 30 2:~ ~l;l ~. 3l 26 .. :JC "3ot ~::t 3C 21 33 .14 $$ $6 )0 ~:) ~ '31 ,. ~ ., .a .'4 .... )... $ 1) 4'4 415 ...8 36 ...5 .,' 4l9i ~ C€N("AI.. JlQ"Tts ,.~ DfUVEWATS t ~idtII d' 4r1-eWOf(" '" ~ .. ...... * I!r::r. ..~. . l.lI( .. ... d;.'-- .ram Me>> qI ..-It ht DOc:." "" ""'t'~ 61 l'w1~ _III.... "'....1. ~~t .'41~ it. Ie>>. 3. ~ c-,I....",o ........q ;. ill ~ CorII'IfO~. c_tr_......~ .. ~ qf ~H __ .aU.r_.1tw) ea-.d""'" _M ~ IW..... ... -Aft._.. A._ $""",. ~.. om, wn..t. "'a,,, 4......... 'JIIt .?tl'l DIll (M) t""f.&. t.&~: ""'" A(toQ .. T..- .-Ie_,- 5. "'-'I~ ~1.Ariot ..... 6:aJlftO'I cw-c<<1. .,.d ..JOrt<or ~ wfIoIr. .""-' CII\ ttfct.n.. I Eltlfo'""'v I ClrM.c t .............~1 j ~:~a~~) i / A..., t-!;4-;~. e ~ I 'J ..* I · -.;-' L- T ~. :r~:~~~.'" :.::~~. C""'I_'. evflt ;: tit ..,ifI, r Ii..e HALF' PlAP( r-L ~r--1 b-J C"'" HALF ELEVATIQ"f c..l l < Rt-caote ~-f"::-'-' c-: 3.tfWd. c.J HALF' ELEVATfO,., (4.LTEAjot..TE &~ON: :OJ.OPt] _ CONCRETE CURBS TYPE B ~_ IlL; ;.klnd .. ",c ~~I TYPE a-I ~~ 6C i<llellit iII\ .c fitIa_......m ...t 00. TYPE C C~'''al ~I~.. coo," TYPE 0 rOl tc,nc 1'ra....-:M4..' TVPEF r Of' At: . &I"",oll .... G ~. 1'.,..,..... n t 0"" .."....,. ,...,.... ,. e-}i. 1 · ~lIIIr;)w.."- . alt., 1:.-- ].e.e:. : ~..oI'fJf". of 0lII". -- .~,., .......... .........,.... - ";;;;tno A(: DlIfV. TYPE G f09 AC IsI-n. ... AC P...",.,a' fL_~ ~ I . r.. ,. cI . · r..... a.arJ.!!of IlO(. - tt.-'GII::Mt .. ""'... ..a-.w,.. - - -;'nh AC"",. TYPE G-I F.,.. AC i.",..d _ Iv: ".".."'.n" CLJRB ENDING DETAIL tF_ tjPt CoO.O-l,. (Calrb) r).t"~""'L lItOTES Fott ~tlIt:T( cUJIln.. l. ~ -r- · r- ~"'QI. V.',., .he9fI_ OIOM 01 01 all":'.. Z. ~oeo~ !1180,~~~...~.r ... .,,"" ,., iC'Wf1lo .~. Yorl' o. .1Mtvft '" ph)", ft - lit. . ['i" ......:r ~..... f. of ~ .i '.~ -.,:II p..... .= % ~:: W . 1<4-.... ~'"[ .:: ~[~I 01 ... ~. ~n "- or ~; tilt ~l W . TYPE 0-1 TYPE E t:Dr c_ ""'.II'I.nl F... .&(: ,.......""'..,,' ~.r~ . '. in .~~ - ;-1""tqot I iGrH tit, popct .. . SU - C~. po.. ....... llI"c(lef. ~'~ '1- -&a-~r.. 'S.",. TYPE F-I . rot IIJ:. ;.1~ 0'0 ~. "'--...... DRIVEWAYS ~-AO c..".~ ----- r-r--:... ....-...--'- 1-L... .., < _ Tr.... A t;.vlbt..::s .:~ 'lP" C e-m ,,-- ,~ . $~C.TION C-t; fOil blll\tE.,.."TS ~ 0Ii\ .a:!. TTf'E A ~OhTla~o CEMENt ~Q"C~~TE tYPE 4-1 ".$PMA\.T C:QIICIlICTE S,-* ....~ Is... oft"'" .) 7 ~~~i. _~ .- 0 \! ?i1(:.-.4 .. SECTIOf.f A-A ':il~f ~~bIC CS-. Mac,' ... I ~i ~,~~~~:ir'~~ ~ ~::J:"hUl~ .. " G j ~'M~1-_ ~~ I ;'-J SE(;'t'ON A-.A :.~_. ~i I -~ '-"" .-;~ LSECTIOH 0-$ ......looM ~ ~ ........ ".! -,- ~ T SECTION B'" B IfII$ERT A I:PMini.- ...--... ,.. l(k~ ~ _ I'I~. ..riftl, """petS *'~ MONOLITH Ie CURB a GUTTER 1_ t1t "k ~M9kt\ II..... dcI;.:.e.nf ...~. ......Slapt If. Sl~ .,. 'N"'" o.nlr ,.....n "'. .........41 b "I""",~, ~ 1 ~bllllf"l" . fI1"'. ~II ,;.,.iI. .. ,... TYPe ... ".~"", - '"...,". AclI::i. ..... IhIIa."'CIr. TYPE A f'w at,: ~"m.n., TYPE #l.-I rat <:one-. ~n' SIDEWALK RAMP .'~'ZI '0 j~ , .. .; " _!: .\ F"LAJI ~..:J. a>4"__ _ · ~- c..b.- ~ foI b:"t:WG,. -- lei .. 'ult ""'..,,, €LCVATIO,." SECTtON A-A ,. ~,O:!V'!J":!!.- WDI \Dbf. ... .,,~ A" pt.". ~ .. 41"'4'._ It, ~Ri~~ ~~~~.~ ::=~:-':._. -II ,.,Mb of l..,..rch S,. ~ :-~t~ :"t~t*:~ =:=' ::~ "(:~'~.::.nf'.~:":''':;:' :'1I~ (: ~~r.i iJ.Ui~:.ft::';'i:.MH;: ~t'til"obec lr.Mi'~f' ~119'" .""'.. 6. ::a:lGvr t.. ". Ai) · 18" ~. YrMY.. ~,.,...I'I Oft ........ " _ ...~ ? ~.1I _r"~ .....11 .t..ll'. "'_/~ I~ ...,,_, aae' _-' ...J.... O'hrt-r.'iu ~ '" tI't 1lI;,tc.I64. 6. ~ "'II i" -.'."9"' ...~ I....... CDI(".~ _I ~-,... ...,.... ::;;.t. itt1'wJ't"At ,:~:'';::: :1::-" .,:.. ~t Ii". ...., .._1 ':1 :.) 06/03/96 [TX/RX NO 8272] MON 09:44 ..~' ~" " , ... + ~.f i ". 1._...... t:", . ~ '. " - '-; f" , '! , ',' ' '- ( " ' . MrEMORANDUM' \ - \ 4 ~. ~ ~ 1 ...-.. . -. '. C,ate: May 21,1996 .' . ~. ~ J From: ' , Jeff Lankston, Acting City Engineer To: I Hearings. Official ' , - , SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND ACCESS DRIVES FOR HIGHWAY 99 (PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST) FROM BARGER ' DRIVE TO ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD (~ONTRACT #94-506) (JOB #~!28) . ,,:BAC,KG~OUND, I l' . The overall improvement project from Beltline to Roosevelt Boulevard~ was. initiated by the Oregon pepartment of Transportation (0001) through its 'Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and was incluqed in the City of Eugene's Capital Improvement P~ogram (CIP) . since May, 1991. The City Council, through its annual adoption of the CIP, authorized staff to proceed with initiation of the design and bidding of the project in accordance with Eugene City Code 7.160(5), and enter into an intergovernmental agreement with qOOT regarding funding and associated responsibilities. The agreement encompasses the section of Highway 99 North. from Beltline to Roosevelt. This project was divided into two phases. Phase 1, was from ',Beltline to Barger and was more rural in chara_cter. No assessments were levied for the phase 1 ~ection. Phase II was from Barger to Roosevelt, which is more urbanized and includes . , construction of curbs ,arid gutters,.sidewalks, landscap_ing, signals, lighting, and some media,n , islands~ .' , " The City Council formed the Local.lmprovement District (LID) on March 7,1994. The project has been completed and final assessment costs ha,va been calculated. . .PROJECT ' " . . The assessable portion of the improvement included approximately 17, 750. linear feet of curbs and gutters, 10,900 square yards of sidewalk, and 3,830 square yards of concrete driveways. : J.... ASSESSMENT, " Under City of Eugene assessmen.t policy, improvement costs for the concrete sidewalk, driveway, and curb and gutter will be distributed to the abutting property owners with the balance, financ~d by_ the City, County, and ODOT. Below are th'e final unit ass~ssable ~osts. SidewalklCurbs/Gutters/Driveway $35.00/front foot " The assessable unit costs are based on the low bids received prior to construction. The property owners were given an es~imated amo,unt, (not to exceed $35.00 per front foot) at the : LID hearing.:' ' ' . , ' . - , ' . , \... . " J. ;-,' , ." ," ... -.~ t' . . ;:- .) '. \" .,' 1 . . . ,ODOT and Lane County have financed pavement restoration, landscaping, lighting and traffic . signal iniprovements., . ~ '. . " . . :,. . ..' ....'" .' ,<'.' ,:'" "', . PROPERTY OWN~RS CONCERN.S/ISSUES. .'. City staff received a.letter from 'Mr. Dwight W. Davis (tax lot 17-04-22-14-03300, 17-04-22-14- 00400 & 17-04-22-14-00300)~ He feels that his property has been wrongfully assessed three times. Mr. Davis has written that they pay substantial property taxes and in fact, for the value of the property, their ta~es are higher than other facilities that they own throughout the United States'. . For this, he believes "the City should not asse~s for these improvement$. (See attached Exhibit "An). , ' ..,.J "As indicated above, Mr. Davis has three tax lots and three separate frontage with three related assessments. Property owners, were given written information, of the pending assessment . . before the LID formation by the council on March 7,1994. Mr. Davis purchased the properties after the formation of the LID. The former prope~y owner was informed of the LID hearing.. o~ May ,14, 1996, . staff received a letter fromTime Oil Co. (Tax Lot 17-04-26-21-01300) in which they expressed dissatisfact~o"n with the City for not installing two access driveways. ( See ~ attach~~ Exhibit liB"). . . OOOT has jurisdictio'n of the right-of-way and therefore control the access to properties. One of the goals for improving safety on Highway 99, was to limit the number of access points to the highway. The City of Eugene, working with COOT's p~rmit system, coordinated with property owners to locate needed access points. In addition ODOT only approved the one access location. Time Oil Co. has 177.19 feet, 'of frontage and .i~ t~erefore benefited by these " improve.ments." '" .. ; Mr. Beckley at 1735 'Highway 99 (Tax.-Lot 17-04-22-14-0.0100), does not agree with the City's determination of the 'amount of frontage ( ~ee attached Exhibit "en). The City has assessed Mr. Beckley for 417.69 feet of frontage for sidewalk' and" driveway, and 571.69 feet of frontage for curb and gutter. Mr Beckley feels that since there is extra right-of-way between the concrete improvements and his property line, that he should not be assessed except for only 120.4 feet that is directly abutting. This extra right~of-way. is owned by ODOT and is contiguous with the . remainder of the right~ot-way and therefore should be considered, part ot the right-at-way. This tax lot should. be assessed for its total frontage. The City also receiv~d a letter from Lane Shelter Care Agency at 780 Highway 99 (Tax Lot 17- 04-23-33-00700). Mr. Don Schmieding indicated that Lane Shelter Care .had purchasec;i the property from' the Housing Authority.on May 1, 1995." He wanted to know if they would be . obligated to pay the assesslJ"lent (~ee E~hibi.t "D~'). . He was told they are owners by Lane County records. and that they would be obligated to pay the assessment. He was also, informed of his rights that seller$ must disclose the pending assessment. M & J Inve.stments have several is~ues ranging from concrete islands to paying for ,storm water . discharge. Also, the issue of paying for the, asse~sment (see Exhibit IC~"). .Staff will do a site visit and will address hi.s issues. . . \ . . l ~ ~ ,. , '- '. , .. t'... ., . " : '~ :,-.,>t.R~COftll,""ENDATION,~ " : , , ).: I . \ ~ . ; '\ . ',The 'final improvement costs are comparable to those quote~ at the local improvement hearing and are lower than projects of similar ~ize. Staff recommends approval of the assessment as ' , . calcula~ed and th,~t, the Councill~vy the '~nal 'ass~ssment. I~' ',I :-'- '"I _ .. ", I , .. \ e:\suppo~\proj..95\2_728hrg.m ' . - , . , - ~. ..... ; /., '. '.,' , ,> , I I t . \, ~ .-... l 't .. f' ~ ~, . " : ',I , " .. \; ~ ~ . , ,.' I i' , ') , ..~ -..... , . .( - I.,' ... j \, . "I, " > ~: t l ", .',.", :..~.: ..~ -~'..r..__': I ~., I ~ ~:- '" " /- . ~ : . " I' ,( , / -.: , { ' " . . " . .. ,,',~ ,'; :'.;;.tit ~~i,if t: ; '~:J~:~:' '! .., I' ~ " '", "~f.' '. '.' . . , ". . , -,.': ,..' ...,I.:'~~.;::3.~ii_~lIl1err . z' .Jr::... . '. .... ", . .' ',:~~~;'-~:', ',"':', ,::.~'~iltt'if~~~~~& ",~~~:.: '" " ,P E G.t\.S tJ s. \ G:.R 0 u. P.,~ ..""....~.~~, ~ 't,., . ~::,.:..:..: ~.,;,..~,f;~:,_....,: .,':. _':',.:,,'.'-,.'~_:.::.."~,,::,,~.:, ".:".':,:_;,..""'.~::~'Y,.~"..'::~_.,,,,:..,~",:,,':..~~,...-o.,..-..-:.~.-.~,...'~:".,.::..":,':.,',..:'.._'~,:"',:":.',.'""'~_,_'~,:":.~.~,';~<",,,,.,_'.~.:,~..",'::_~:._.",',..,':'_:,.....'.":":"""~......>.:..;.._:,,~,::;_.::.....~_:.',~....~.. ....:':__....,. ~ .7.,-. .... '. . , . . " ,,<.,' . .,' ::: / '<~'t:k~~\f:~ ;;5~~ri : ' I~r::. :~>_. :.;: ::,,:\. ." , . , " .' " "" .,' <,. < :d~~;~i:i:~~ ~'~:~, : ~.!::i~:j, ,-.1""""'"/''''' . · . May 15,'1996 · '.' , ',~''':'',~~g:1~/;",;'f:)~f]~ 'I'~~;-; . ~'.r . .".. -, . . . . '. . . . "'..-, t.,,}.. r.: .' . '~,' "~~'&~ ""', ~: .~;t:;-,,, h . . , l . .".... ,.-.' ~: :,:'::..~:~;.;7 ::~.:.S::~~. ~~ r .,--: .~}i:::" .'. .;' i .. '. . . ....,.;-- ""_' ~"~;if;':.. .,") ":''''3'~~'' ..,,:' ~:ii!.: "W~Jr,-:. ~ ." C' . .- ~ '. ....;:l~;-r.. ,~~:' . ~~~~~..: ;:' . . . < '- - , ).r . i.:. . \.0... " ~ ~~:f 'n' "~'A ". .," .' '. . ..' . ,. '; . ..., ;'..O;O~~ :':':f'~~'~~~f:~f~::t," . . ~ "\ '. '. . '. < A ....,~ .:- "j "'~ I <B'ftA,I,;;'~ ".4- .. . . . .' :..' ~"'Q..JIlo." ~~/'~}:~~,*:r'i;P,t1 '~U',:. '. . "'Y""">"""~;:, CltyotEugene,..: ::'~~~':':!~~,~~$::~<L/ h ~~~,:i,>~~!t~f~'~.i,~e{.;!:'W":'~~~~~~~744~ ,> .... ~~ ~~i-IJV""~'" l ' >~,,<', , " RE: Acct.'#1,994.050~-0190,..o200 and -028'0 , .. " I' We appear to have been assessed three times for improvements along Hwy. 99 apParcD.tly::;~t~€};.; . " , · ' , ,'. .... "P.~t'?1~;tri,:r;';~' . adjacent to our ptoperty but at 1601-99 No~ Eugene, Oregon. . . '. ".:. ,,;:;~;~,~',?;;,,!,,::, ': : '.' . " ' , ' . , .' , , . , . . .,',',' ',~,:~:i;,&~~N~':"<il~~;};~:,:: . : We do not recall asking for or taking part in any approval process for these '. .. ::;;"'~~;~'~~~~'"' ..' ~~-ti!it~{: . improvements. - ','. ' ," , · " . ,( ~'\:;:~f~.U~j:' - I~~~.fi ;~", . I ' , , ' ' , " · " ' :" '. . " '.' '. . ..', . . '. " ',' . .,' ;,.:;:.::~~;.t~\i:~f~ii ..' ~~\~!;'i, ',As you may know, we pay substantial property'taxes, and in tac~ for thevci1ue of th~ . :ti~;~i~~~lts~f;;':,' " property our taxes are higher than other facilities that we own throughout the United ,:;>fW~1!~:'1f;::';,'. States. Because of this we believe we should not be assessed this amount. . . ',; "'>;~t~r'f/ :':<~~.:'. ( I. ',. 4'~: ~ t 4 #": , . ./. -~;? :i::~s~f~!'~2:~~/;i':', ..... . ~ l :. i ' -. ~ - ~ ,.,.~" ~ ,~ ~- ., -~" ~ \ : I' I.. " 110 "J_ ..... \' , " \ ... t .: t . \.. .'. ~. . . ; . ~ ! ..... ~ . JIIIII " '. 1 . , + .. ~ . - - j . By copy of this l~tter I am asking ~at our written objection to this assessment be made. ' -befor~ the qity CoUncil.- . .. ". I.. . , '-:." '. .' I . '.. " '. . . .~"".~. - --.I. ...... _... . _. __.. , ',,' , ','::.) ,,' '-,' Sin~e:re~r,' ': ' " ." " .' , i' ".: .,,~' .:' . "~~;""o" _..~_.._~':"'_.' ___ '.'_~ . ..' .,." ~ '. ": ' " . . . .' ", . . :.~.' : . ," . . · , " . . ." f"... ".." " f . '.' -..' I , \ '. . " . .-) . j ..' '/: .' ," '..... ". ~ . , I?wight ~. Qavis " '_ ":l'o ..:. DWO:nfc":.,',~ ,,' .- Encls." .', : cC:. I. City .ErigiDeers, Publif? ~orks Dept. 8~8 Pearl St., Eugene, OR.,97401 . '''.. I " /- , . " .' f: . ~ I, · . t\....\l ~68eug\d~c\OS 14~~doc ,'- . . . 114t'4 Ah,int: J.fC):u.l. . . \X'~llnut Ct,,'\.-k 0 . CA 94;.l)(,. (~un q ~c'J.c'lS' n. J:o. y '':;(,.0",,011 , - ~ \. . . ~ , / -t .~' .!)I\~~~;:" . ~ ..:'.::, " "', RENO ~"" RICHMOND LOS ANG~LES . -,.... " I. ' P~ONE 285.2400 . CABLE ADDRESS: TIMOIL ( FAX ) 20'6- 2 83 -80 36 " T o o N E r" r , s T I M E TIME OIL CO. · EXHIBIT B I : - 2737 WEST COMMODORE WAY ,P.O. BOX 24447 , SEATTLE, WA98199-1233 SEATTLE, WA 98124-0447 'j, . .' .J,' ~ .-.. ~ ~ -'. May 14,':~9-96 '.' ',"_' - " ., . ., .' City Engineer ." . ", Public' Works Department. '.. ," 858, Peart" 'Street . J:ug~n_~, OR, 97401 ; . Re: . Improvement Resolution #4404 aUf Property ~ddress 539 Hwy 99N E.ug~ne Or~gon (03-0.41) " bear:City~:'Engineer: ~ ." , As owner of the above-referenced property, Time Oil Co. 'hereby registers its dissatisfaction. with the City's works of improvement 'a.nd objections to the proposed assessment. Time . Oil's property is a small parcel, burdened with 'substantial building setbacks. Time had requested that the City: inst~1I two access driveways on its_ property; one at either erid of the 'frontage .on Hwy 99. This proposal would have allowed for convenient- and safe public access to Time's facilities. ' Instead, the- City installed a single entry in the, center of the' property's highway frontage. This en~ry .hinders b~th the convenience and the safety of the customers who might otherwis'e patronize the busines~es on our premises.. ' For this reason "we oppose the proposed assessment. We have received no real benefit from the improvement and do not feel we should pay for someth~ng of little worth to Time Oil. , Very truly yours, -TIME OIL CO. . "', Linnea ~ong . Corporate Co LL: ag , cc:,'Wes .Meacham . , , .,. '. 5/16/9,~~lltemp.doc ._," ,.." ., " -. :(. .~05/21/96 1.3:08 'l:541 341 5802 CITY OF EUG FI~ liI 001/002 ,,' --.-... ....... -,,~ 'I' .__..~ ",1 , , ~ ~ '. I..;' . . _ 'It.. .... ~ T,; . ~ , f:. - . ~ ~. . ,\ " ,,\ ~ '....; /".,. , . '. ,::>: -- ;'.,.' " , : ~ EXHIBIT c a: '. .. ( " .' . . . 'ANDERSON & CLAYTON,' , . . '. l" ~ ATIOANEYS AT LAW .- ! LAAFlY J. ANDERSON PAUL 0. CLAYTON . 1358 Oak Str..n' , . Fn Box 84 "'. :'".,_, .', Eugene. OR 97~1.. . , (S03) 484-0110 -(503) 345-3581 Fax No.. 503-4&4.76'2 " , :i ~' . :" - - -~ .... ,i May 21, 1996. R EC E j V E 0 ~ ., ~ .'~JA)' 2 'I '1995 !,:' .~~,~:';" HAND DELlVERIm - ~ .. i FlNA~CE; DE"PARTM.ENT . CITY OF EUC ENE , ,". ><.,." '".' , ' .. City......E;nqineer' . . .' Public:'''~orks 'Department . , . 858 Pearl:.. Street ' J,,:,: ,'E~gene, '/O~401 - \;,. :, ' :.:--.-.. - . - ':. . :-: ,'," " . RE:' Ho,tice of Proposed Assessment re: Account No. 19~40506-0179 1735 Highway 99N project The unders1gned represents Robert C. and Frederick C. Beckley who are, the owners of the following described property to whom a Notice 'of Proposed ,Assessment. has been forwarded:. I Assessors :May. & T~ Lot No~:' , 17-04-22-1'4-00100 TAnIS ACCOUDt;.,'No.: '411478 Property ;Addres~: .17'35 HW-Y 9,9N,. EUGENE ,Property. ~fect~ by ,the ~rovement:,1410Ra6262a7 - Improveme~t Resolution No.: 4404 This letter: shall constitute 'an objection to the proposed assessment an~. ,.a request 'that this objection be submitted to the Assessment He~rinq Officer as an additional comment and objection for use in connlection with the public hearing now schedUled for May 21, 1996.! ' . I I The primary dbjection is based upon the understanding that the particular property involved is being assessed for 'sidewalk and curb areas baised' upon front footage portions of sidewalk aqd curbing which I do not directly abut the identified property. The allocations fo~ sidewalk, curb, and gutters where other agency I ' . ownership (Department of Transportation) creates a buffer and no . I " - . . .... ~. . . , , ' , I '. " ',' . . '<,. . . - I \ ;' !, . ' I . ... ."; - j; ........}.. t . ~ 4 :',' ~ . : .i . " '; ,- '-,',:! , , I ~ .. ,....; ,~.. 05/~1/96 lJ:U~ '~";j 41 J41 ~CSU~ -',) . .- ._. ,1.,...: . ~ .... ~ ~ ...... _ - .'-; ':ci ty of .'rBuge~e " '-.','!~': . Public .Works.-. '. ._: :'.~':M~Y '.:~1 ~. 1996,' ~~~e _ 2 "'_.' . / I . oJ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~. (..,.1. J. l Ut l:.Utl .t J.!~ l. . .~~ ',: I -- .! . .. ~ UU~I uu-, · EXHIBIT 'C . " , " f. J-' -. ", \ . \.,: access benefits' to the assessed property appears to be used in the front footage caloulation. Those portions of sidewalk, curbs, and ,gutters which do not'directly abut or are not "immediately adjacent ,to the subject .property sh~uld not be used in caloulating the front footage benefits. .Very' truly yours, . . -. J, - , ANDERSON ~,. CLAi~ON . / .'\ \'., ..... J?L9.ul'n.;; <:layton :. ',' - , - DC/ d ..,-.~ " , .' -., ,p a "\ .,..... '-I .' - :.,' '-:, . '.'." .. ',: ", /- _':"'; ','. . '... .:' - '.. ; T . . - , , -.....; ", . .l ~ ~ co:' Rob~rt' C '._ - -Beckley' 'I Fre~e~iok c. Beckley, , ' -.:', '.' . \'" - ~ity:'ofEugene ..' , _Pub,lie, Works '. , 860. We~t Park, Suite' ~ ,Eugene',',,',OR ~7401 . \ .' :, .. ; !" ' . i; . ; ,I ,,; 4. -. \ . i, . j " "f . ~ l. , . . . I ~ : ':.{ ';." :- , - <'. '.-"" I. '. I . . ~ : '\ .,' I \ ~ l ; , ,.)", ':. -~.;':""';;~:~i , '. -, I~_ ;~.;. I""" ~ ..-. .' .,~.~"'!~-~' '.~-: ... ~".;, :;~ .r.... ~ - ~,' r ,:c\,: \;: .:::,.-. '., .L -.-....>,. ~ .~. ~. '~ ~ ...~ .... . ~.J . , " ...' .. ~ : + ~ ~ 't \ ~ '\... ...\;;" , \}. ~ j-. ..... . ~ . . .~ .t .. ~ ~. ~ . i ;.. , 'III ~~ ~~ ~ ._..~. '.. ~. ~. ~,.. .'.. ~. . of I ' ,t " . . ~ r' . ... .. ~ 4: i" \) ~ "S ~ ~. ~ . I ~ , - r.", r - ~ .:. . ~:;~:,. ,. X '\,' , ..:::/....i\:.,.:.: ..... '::' ":' .' '.~:~ -"...\'. "~" '. . ~'~" : . .:~.':. . ~ . " : .:" ;7," :", ;' \ ".('.':' ':. . '.', /~. :'\V..:~ '" j' \a · ~ . ;- . 0/~ i~ ~ ,';,'\::;.~; ::; .' . . .. , ~r' '"--')0' " '.', ~ ',."' . . ,~.~'/.. ." :<~ , ~ .. . \(~. I ,; ~ r ; ~.rP \.... \\\~ "".. · f3<1~' ~ ;,,:.> .' " ,-v ~ : )\.(~~~ I . . . .~: ~.:(' '. -<' ~ ~\ ' ,"\ ~1.~ . ~ \0'" . , ~~ ~ c:,"\JIl. . , O"~\)G~~"\'(\\i\..\) ~ ,\0 ~Q""'S~ ~ ~1"9"'op..~~~ "'~o \ '" . . ."\y..~ \Q~ l\G\'/f" , . ~'fC..c\'(\~ ~ . tkS '/ ", I ' NW .' COR' Ole. 43 . FOUND 2"'40.0AK' STf>>;IPS. B1.S ,5/S ROD GONE . :~P~ACED S/S:ROD SURV~~~D ~NSP:EVIOUS N 13065:49. ... 20740 E 7700.04 '. ........ ....~~~~~:tr~t~j:'; . ':\"'1.t.. ~~G ~C:, :.~~""",,~~'::, '.: I :: .n... ~ S ,0 ~y..O cT: ,~"\~": .:'.:- A · O"ff.- Op..~ ~~ . ,\y,~ ~ -. ~.:~....~:{ . . .9" _ .,\y,\\O\\ ~O~\l~' ~ '!b~ ~~~-~. . ~"\ ~ .' ." "'~.f p..'\ \ 'to"'''' 'l\p..'< ~O', r......'\ '. ';': s ~ ,,}~ Q~ cJ)\\ ~ ~ ,..'1 ....:;;~:',;;.<: - ~ \~~1~~;~ ~ (;y,< ....':':<:<:,.;.~' r . . ~. I / + . '.. - . SW COR . . 50SEPH OGLE lC..43 .- ~/= · ROD FO. IN' , , " . NOT'eisf~~tiO (1917)" . ,-. N 10031.99 IN THI'S SURVEY E, 7650.23 . . ~'E,. . (. ~~€ qA' , Q~ "'t \ q \ ,,"i . \ '1;:~ ~ ~U'\. A,6 C, , . C .I -,,..G~c,O' \lO~ ~... ,0 \)~'. ,?&. i.. T \ . ~ · ~~~ \ C, \, ~ \. \,.. \ ~ ~ ,,,,~ O~~~\OO'f.. O~ t' ~,~f~b.}"'~ '. ~y.C.\ t(~?, ,:,." ~,,~ ,::' Q\\ \\rt.)';;.. ~'t \",. c:, :t;\Q : \ ~\) \ ., ~~~;;I~ ' STONE FOUND" - . r , ~ . F I J" 77 5 IX IN SIONf IN FT I FAA PI un AlSO FOUNo 196... IlEST AT S Es~gNRE 40;0 l=EET .. . JACOBS PLAt / (, . ~ :OUNoCOR. JACOBS PLAr .. : . SURVey-~T~~, ~NW~REVlnus' : C.S.F,. 207..0 fH X ON TOP : ~., .~"~~1'~': . ~_.,-_.._'.,...- .= ':'0 0 ' '/ I,. ,'. , " -,. -~ . . I . .,; ; r , ... [!:~~lt~~:1~l{?~;<,;cJfii(~;L'.>..:'r.~~;;~~~.:.. ". - . ,'.'. '. . !~, ,,;,/::', t ~"-'::Y;~;<T~)ANE- '.'.. " . - /~;:. :SHELTERCARE . Phone (503) 686-1262 · FAX (503)686-0359 ':"',,: ." ,_ ,i790 West li.~h Avenue · Suite ~90 · PO Box 2333$ · Eugene. Orego~_ ~7~02,.;' - , !-',:' ,~1:-- ~1\~.':~: ; , - - , . May_- 21 t -.' -,~ 996 '-. . . ;. j- Assessment 'Hearing Officer c/~ City.... ~ngineer ' -.'Pub,lie Works D~partment 8.58 P~ar 1-' St. - . :Euge.n.e, Or'.- .-97401 Re: .Account Number:, 19940506-0860 Property Address-780 Hwy. 99 N Property Affe~ted-2059R952424'l . Improvement Res .', 11 4404 .;. ". i', _, ,< . . - _t... "",....: . L" ~':t' ...... .Sublect pro_perty was conveyed to our Agency from the Housing Authority' and Community Service Agency of Lane County on May 1, 1995.. We are a non prof i t social serv ice' agency serv ing "chronical,~y ment~lly ill'-'cit~zens at ~hi,s.~site. We called the engineers office and were referred -to Mr. Gale Mills, as ,we ha~ questions' regards' to the date of the . assessment obligation, to asc~rtain if our acquisition of the . property o~ May 1, 1995 would obligate us to pay this assessment; we also h~d a question as to the delineation of charges and if the charge was for 'two -dr i ve aprons ~nd the .and sidewalks fronting this property;' there is another drive apron quite adjacent on another property. We desired a delineation of charges. We left a voice mail message, but to this time, we have not had a response from Mr. Mills. 50-, although this may not be the-forum..for such questioris, they are unanswered. We are unable, to appear at 'this. public hearing, but do request consideration for alleviat'ion .from this unexpected cost. We utilize this facility as part of a county -wide mental health system,-working.'with and funded by L~~e Coun~y Human Ser'vices; the.refor, prope'rty is put :to public service- use'. We were only -abl'e to acquire this property' by utilization' of .a state grant; arid h~ve no_ budge~ allocated for SU~~ a substantial .ch~~g~. We ask 'for alleviation. . -, (. ~. . .,;: , .: _.:.':_.:Sinc.~-r' 1 \ " ", - , .' . ': C . '. .: D~n -'.SchmJ.edl n .;......:fi'scal. .Directo '\ ~~. . ': ;~ ..." ~", . ~ . -,I - .{. , i . tl'-;-,, n. ~ .-...~ -~. ~ _ _ .~ . _, , I ..: ~. ": .' . ,~~ l ~: . L. ".. :_"':..,-.,' 'tn" _~-.. r ....'~ '~~'.~~ 'r_'". , ._ i". , . ,i FROM : M&J INUESTMENTS PHONE' NO. : 541 935~356. r r P01 . ~, . . \ \ . . E'A k: b: tll '.~ 1(.. ~ g~\efri\'\\s~~1* l~q,",OSO~~1~~} '"\? ~q(f " 9 l""k. C~'Mel'\+' ':L~ \,0 ",a s . ~O'~ ~ l:~~ ~.~ ,^.4-~r o( '1l~D "J~W(',. k~bo~ Ga......~('.-j lA.S PV-';(,'~~s.~ ~~~1'o-r:~ ~ ~_.J , ...... ~. - A~ . . "~'_-:- "100 . u~.""',-~..lCe...s. " - \ ~~""""""'1~~~~'''~'~~ · t'O: !...~,:. '\) ~.Qi ~~ .eNA PJ1oss~,.ri tJ<tJ'l~.,~ ~~.I ~~ ~.~ ~~.'n\.~\c.'~~j~' . .~~ ~ W IN""{'-~l q'J ~("lA...f.c.,( ~l ~.sJr-<<fA.lr:~,b t:-c.. .w~. v-( t. '((... ,.'0" . Iv"\~ ~~k~~, h~~,..\J'~'~ : ~s _'-n'A- ('\~~~.~'~j ~ 'f~ ('v ,- I '~r~'~ ~.D ~~,. Jf'~tl'^~~ tl.x~ ~~~c.~"M" ~ ~~ ~~,,.r.j ~s., uJ~ ~ w'"It,. <:1 ~(., ~"- t.4f . '. .b" () ~~ G.v;h~, J I (I.'I:~S C:.\., f I ~ !).(. -f f~S ('1tJ{'t\. --(~.~. S t (h.. \..~.~ v~ ....r l~.~.1 ~.4.41L .' ". C (t ~. :r,. (,( " Q 6,.ore-t'tot- ~f' 1k.1- .tA.~ e~ocu'~ ~'s b.:.~ /..1 ~e.~ ~ ~ 4 ..r br f\ t:.J,~\l.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.<.. ~ ~J~(j,~ L4.W~u.:~ ~0~1~S.+- ~ cJ.~. ~ _ (,;'f~ . '~'\~.IOV"&~S ~ c.~h,~o.,^ tJ~ k4l'" ~ ~~f lAS~ ~~O"'-btU44- . ~~.~. ~ ~f ,~~,,-~,.{bY" ~i)'O\~M5 (.0' .~C( b i~~ o..(~~e....~..J ~ r,Je., 6,,"~ .r\A.-r.~~~\ ..r~~ Stki ~ w:fk r~.4.iJ.~'l a.C ~ t)<a -T ;-~ '- "i.~/"," ~:.u... .-.t::~~~~~~;~~~:~ ~~~;r;~ .~ .6b JL~~:ltt.~~~ .'-~t- fu P'1 .', .....a tb 4-~ O'l.o- 0-\~~'\'tl , ~.~fd,^,~~";J- \"'4~ ~.J. ~ ~ .. .V'~ ~.g..S~ t"-"rt1 ~ ./"t\~~\)~ ~ tt~'r.~^"'r'~l \4.r ~ ~~.\ ~;""\ ,:...~I"",:. LJ..:.-.S c\~ ~~. ~ t~~..t1ln ~J'~ ~. .o:..~ '. ~.~~ ~ h.D.,~_., ~ (bJ~ I. ~ ~ ~(~ ~ I~~.~~ ~~ .~..~~_f). ~~~,-. p..9~~G~: . ~.~ .-&\-~ db ~ '. fA<l,-c-~~ -c&Zj .~ VJ^t,~~ 1 ~... .41 .' . ~ ~~~ t..p . ~ 1'~,.NJ;5t;,.~\. k~, o'~.}..~~~~.~,.~ f'Y\a~'\ /v... .'~t:...~_~"-JL~.( \"..L""(f , t)vJ~ tp<- p ....::~.~. · (1,'1 . L-A;..,(....:O U'~'''...P >'t:-J. ,l.f1. &-m11'obk. c."!l- ~ o-~....~ t ..0.,..:or .-r;..) C:C::~ cv..,- c.~"I'" '....l- J'l_..:~_~..~ (Tt;, U. ~~ ..~~r~ ~~~. (~.JJt.G ..~.~k<T &L, . ~ ~ "M-~J. (_~ 1r~"}k~ ~. lv. t~ I~'~"" ~~~. ~c?~." ..Q.~,...? ~~~"'1 ~ v'(o.t-~ .J-u~'~ ~.' ~~fr,~'~-:"J '~~f ......."':~~0~' ~....A/J1J l~;.r-.:~,}(.. ~ ptr./'"?Ji. ~.~. M~'-~~~ . EXHIBIT C, Special Assessment Register is not attached; it is on file and available by written request to the City Recorder's Office.