HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5: Ordinance Levying Assessments for West University Alleys
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Action: Approval of Minutes, Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings
Official and Adoption of an Ordinance Levying Assessments for Improvements
Consisting of Alley Paving Located in the West University Neighborhood Generally
th
Bounded by Willamette Street, 19 Avenue, Kincaid Street, and Franklin Boulevard; and
Providing an Immediate Effective Date (Contract 2005-30, 2005-29, and 2005-28)
(Job #4172, 4309, and 4310)
Meeting Date: February 13, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 5
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Paul Klope
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5246
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City Council is being asked to approve the Hearing Official’s Minutes, Findings and
Recommendations dated February 6, 2006, and adopt an ordinance levying assessments for
improvements consisting of alley paving located in the West University Neighborhood generally
th
bounded by Willamette Street, 19 Avenue, Kincaid Street, and Franklin Boulevard. (See Attachment A
for descriptions of alleys.)
Please note: This item has an immediate effective date. An immediate effective date requires a 2/3
majority or 6 affirmative votes from the council to enact. Ordinances without an immediate effective
date do not take effect for 30 days. Without an immediate effective date, an additional 30 days of
interest expense will accrue.
BACKGROUND
The West University Neighborhood area generally bounded by Willamette Street, 19th Avenue, Kincaid
Street, and Franklin Boulevard is adjacent to downtown and is the City’s most densely populated
neighborhood. Due to an increase in criminal activity and nuisance behaviors in the last few years, the
riot of 2002, and concerns about the decline in the appearance of the area, former Eugene Mayor Jim
Torrey and University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer formed the West University
Neighborhood (WUN) Task Force to develop immediate and long-term solutions to the safety and
livability issues facing the area. The task force was comprised of neighborhood stakeholders, such as
residents, local business owners, and non-profit organizations. Representatives from the Eugene City
Council, Planning Commission, Police Commission, and the Associated Students of the University of
Oregon were also included, as was staff from the City and University. The meetings were open to the
public and run in an informal manner to invite broad participation by other interested members of the
public.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060213\S0602135.doc
The City Council held a work session on June 9, 2003, to review and approve the WUN Task Force
Final Report. The City Council directed the City Manager to analyze the recommendations of the Task
Force and provide the council with an implementation plan. One of the high priority, long-term
recommendations was to improve the alleys in the neighborhood.
The City Council held a work session on November 24, 2003, to review a report from the City Engineer
covering feasibility and estimated cost to improve the unimproved alleys, funding sources, range of
estimated assessments, assessment code issues, design standards, timing and a proposed implementation
plan. The City Council directed staff to proceed with the implementation plan to improve the
unimproved alleys, and to pursue other potential additional funding sources to replace Community
Development Block Grant monies for the non-assessable costs of improvements.
On January 12, 2004, the City Council adopted a motion directing staff to proceed with design and
bidding of a project to improve the unimproved alleys within the WUN.
On March 8, 2004, the City Council held a work session on proposed changes to the assessment code
pertaining to alleys.
On April 12, 2004, a public hearing was held before the City Council on proposed changes to the
assessment code pertaining to alleys. Various assessment methods were considered using examples
which showed the financial impact of each method to properties on the West University Alleys.
On May 10, 2004, the council took action approving (5-2) changes to the assessment code pertaining to
alleys to assess all costs of the alley improvements to abutting properties.
On May 24, 2004, the City Council took final action approving (6-2) changes to the assessment code
pertaining to alleys. The second action on May 24 was necessary because the City Charter requires a
2/3 majority approval of the entire City Council to change the assessment code.
The 23 alleys in the proposed WUN Local Improvement District were separated into three bidding
contracts and bids were opened on April 5, 6, and 7, 2005. The low bidders were 2G Construction for
Job #4172 and Job #4310 and Brown Contracting for Job #4309. Property owners were notified of a
public hearing regarding formation of the proposed LID and the public hearing was held on April 20,
2005. The City formed the Local Improvement District on May 9, 2005. Construction of the project has
been completed, final actual costs have been tabulated, and final assessment costs have been calculated.
Property owners were notified of the final assessment hearing ten (10) days prior to the hearing as
required by Eugene Code. The final assessment hearing was held on January 30, 2006, to review the
final project cost, consider comments on the proposed final assessments, and to provide evidence to be
included in the ordinance levying the assessments by the City Council. Seventeen property owners
attended the hearing (see Hearings Official Minutes). Correspondence received from property owners is
included in Attachment B in the Memo to the Hearings Official.
Costs were distributed per Eugene Code 7.175, and as outlined in the council-adopted Hearings Official
findings and recommendations, and the resolution forming the LID.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060213\S0602135.doc
Per Eugene Code, the assessable cost for each alley is calculated and then one half of the assessable
costs are apportioned to the properties based on their front footage abutting the alleys, and one half of
the assessable cost are apportioned to the properties based on the area of the properties within 160 feet
of the alley, as measured at right angles from the front footage of the parcel. The assessments were
calculated separately for each alley based on the existing uses and zoning of the property within each
alley. The assessable front foot costs were calculated based on the existing use of the parcels and the
assessable area costs were calculated based on the permissible use of the parcels under the zoning of the
City. Weighting factors were applied to the front footage and area of each property per the use and
zoning of the property as prescribed in Eugene Code and as listed below:
Single family dwelling or duplex 1.0
Other residential 3.0
Commercial or General Office 10.0
Industrial 10.0
Other 1.0-10.0*
*According to the most intensive use of the parcel most comparable to the use listed above as
determined by the city engineer. Costs listed below are the estimated costs calculated at the time of the
formation of the LID.
Total Assessable Cost $1,670,779
Non-assessable City Cost $ 3,670
Total Project Cost $1,674,449
Below are the final costs based on actual project costs:
Total Assessable Cost $1,788,602
Non-assessable City Cost $ 63,720
Total Project Cost $1,852,322
The total assessable cost for each alley and the weighted front foot and weighted area cost for each alley
are shown in Attachment D in the Memo to the Hearings Official.
The non-assessable City share for this project is funded from Transportation Utility Fund, Stormwater
Utility Fund and Wastewater Utility Fund in the amount of $63,720. The Transportation Utility Fund
portion is $24,961 and included repair of several existing alley driveways and street pavement
preservation work. The Stormwater Utility Fund amount is $18,453 and included repair of existing
stormwater systems. The work funded by the Wastewater Utility Fund cost $20,306 and included repair
to existing wastewater systems.
The final project costs were higher than estimated. This was due to higher-than-expected staff costs for
engineering and public involvement, and additional construction costs for overexcavation to stabilize the
base of the alleys prior to paving, extra tree preservation work, unexpected underground utility
conflicts, and additional repair work to existing pavements, the storm drain system and the wastewater
system.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060213\S0602135.doc
Following mailing of the proposed assessment notices, staff received new information from property
owners that indicated the assessments for four properties should be adjusted. For three properties, their
areas were reduced, and for one property the use of the property was changed. Further detail is included
in the report to the hearings official. The adjusted final assessment amounts would reduce the final
assessment amounts for these four parcels a total of $26,954.86.
There are two alternative methods to cover the costs for those adjustments. The first is to redistribute the
assessment costs for each of the four affected alleys. Per Eugene Code, this would require a new public
hearing, since the adjustments and subsequent cost redistribution would increase assessment costs for
the other property owners in the four affected alleys. Also, holding a new public hearing would cause a
delay in levying the final assessments, increase the financing costs for the project and increase
assessments incrementally to all the property owners in the LID and to the City. If this method is
chosen, the estimated increase in costs due to interest expense from the delay is about $8,500 per month.
The second method to cover the cost of the adjustments would be for the City to pay the costs with funds
from the Road Fund. If the City pays this cost, it will reduce the total assessable cost to $1,761,647.
The ordinance levying assessments reflects the second method with a reduction of the total assessable
cost of $26,954.86 and this amount being paid by the City.
Assessment financing, a 10-year payment plan through the City, is available to all property owners
within the improvement district as identified by Eugene Code, Chapter 7. Of the 160 properties in the
LID, two (2) property owners qualify for a 5/6 subsidy under the low-to-moderate income subsidy
program. This City-funded program only applies to owner-occupied residential properties in the LID.
The total cost for the low income subsidies is $8,819.96, and is funded from the Street Subsidy Fund.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The assessment costs will be distributed as outline the council-adopted Hearing Official’s Findings and
Recommendations and Resolution forming the LID.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Special assessment provisions adopted as part of an LID resolution cannot be modified during the final
assessment process if they result in increased costs to the property owners. The final assessment hearing
was to review the calculations to assure conformance with the requirements stated in the LID resolution
and the Eugene Code.
Per Section 7.187, the City Council can take the following actions:
1. Approve the Minutes, Findings and Recommendations of the Hearings Official of February 6, 2006
and adopt the ordinance levying assessments.
2. If after review of the proposed assessment and determination that the assessments should be
modified, staff would be directed to publish a new notice and a public hearing must be conducted.
New findings would then be prepared for City Council adoption.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends approval of the Minutes, Findings and Recommendations of the
Hearings Official and adoption of the ordinance levying assessments.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060213\S0602135.doc
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
1. Move to approve the Minutes, Findings and Recommendations of the Hearings Official of February
6, 2006.
2. Move to adopt an ordinance levying assessments for improvements consisting of alley paving
th
located in the West University Neighborhood generally bounded by Willamette Street, 19 Avenue,
Kincaid Street, and Franklin Boulevard; and providing an immediate effective date.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance-includes Hearings Official’s Minutes, Findings and Recommendations
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Paul Klope
Telephone: 682-5246
Staff E-Mail: paul.w.klope@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060213\S0602135.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
. AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
CONSISTING OF ALLEY PAVING LOCATED IN THE WEST UNIVERSITY
NEIGHBORHOOD GENERALLY BOUNDED BYWILLAMETTE STREET,
19TH AVENUE, KINCAID STREET, AND FRANKLIN BOULEVARD; AND
PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. (CONTRACT 2005-28,
2005-29, AND 2005-30) (JOB # 4309, 4310, AND 4172)
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. On the 12th day of January, 2004, the City Council, by motion duly passed, initiated
the proposed local improvements consisting of alley paving located in the West University
Neighborhood generally bounded by Willamette Street, 19th Avenue, Kincaid Street, and Franklin
Boulevard.
B. After due notice and a public hearing before the hearing official on April 20, 2005, the
City Council formed the Local Improvement District and authorized construction of the local im-
provements on the 9th day of May, 2005.
C. The actual cost ofthe local improvements is ascertained to be $1,851,144.98, and the
amounts to be assessed to, and borne by, the specially benefitted property, and to be borne by the City
or others, have been determined in accordance with applicable provisions ofthe Eugene Code, 1971
("E.C."), as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
D. The City Council has established the method of calculating local improvement
assessments in E.C. 7.170 and 7.175.
E. A public hearing on the ordinance, as required by Section 28(2) ofthe Eugene Charter
of2002, was scheduled before the hearing official as authorized by Section 2.007(4) ofthe Eugene
Code, 1971, on January 30, 2006. At least ten days prior to the scheduled public hearing before the
hearing official, a notice containing the information required by E.C. 7.185 was posted on a public
bulletin board at City Hall and given by certified mail to the owners of the parcels of real property
subject to the assessment. At the time and place specified therein, the hearings official considered
the assessment report of the City Engineer and Finance Officer and the testimony and evidence
presented at the hearing.
F. At least ten working days prior to the Council meeting, notice of the Council's
consideration of this Ordinance was published in the Register Guard, and the Ordinance was posted
on the City's web site on the same date, as required by Section 28(1) ofthe Eugene Charter of2002.
Ordinance - 1
Q:\PROJECTS\PROJ-2\4172\Assess\ORDINANCE FOR COUNC1Ldoc
G The Council has reviewed and considered the assessment report ofthe City Engineer
and Finance Officer and the hearings official's findings and summary, and based thereon,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The hearings official's summary is hereby made a part ofthe Council's record in
these proceedings, and the hearings official's findings, including those regarding compliance with
E.C. 7.160 to 7.190, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby
adopted.
Section 2. The actual assessable cost of the local improvements consisting of alley paving
located in the West University Neighborhood generally bounded by Willamette Street, 19th Avenue,
Kincaid Street is $1,752,827.44 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 oflot within
the described local improvement district as set forth on the assessment roll attached as Exhibit C
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which includes those properties whose owners qualified
for the Street Subsidy Program.
Section 4. The City Council does hereby determine that each parcel of land or lot herein
above described is specially benefitted to the extent ofthe 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 oflots or parcels ofland against which said several amounts are assessed, and
may be paid, with interest on the unpaid principal amount 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 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 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 improvements;
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.
Ordinance - 2
Q:\PROJECTS\PROJ-2\4172\Assess\ORDlNANCE FOR COUNCIL.doc
Section 6. Upon enactment of this ordinance, the City Finance Officer shall send notice of
the assessments by first class mail to the owners ofthe assessed parcels containing the information
required by E. C. 7.190 and enclose therewith an application for paying the assessment in installments
according to the terms set forth in Section 4 of this 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 these improvements.
Section 8. An immediate effective date of this Ordinance is necessary to allow the City to
begin immediate collection of the assessments that will be used to pay the obligations the City has
incurred for this project. Enabling the City to begin collecting assessments will avoid increased
interest costs and conserve limited City resources. Therefore, 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 readoption over a Mayoral veto by two-thirds of all members ofthe City
Council.
Passed by the City Council this
Approved by the Mayor this
_ day of
, 2006.
day of
, 2006.
City Recorder
Mayor
Ordinance - 3
Q:\PROJECTS\PROJ-2\4172\Assess\ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL.doc
CITY OF EUGENE (PROD)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
EXHIBIT A
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
PROJECT LEGAL:
ALLEY PAVING LOCATED IN THE WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD GENERALLY BOUNDED BY
WILLAMETTE STREET, 19TH AVENUE, KINCAID STREET, AND FRANKLIN BOULEVARD
CONTRACT NUMBER: 2005-00030
JOB NUMBER: 93004172
ASSESSABLE:
160 PENDING
o ON HOLD
o LIEN DEFERRED
$1,752,827.44
$0.00
$0.00
$1,752,827.44
ASSESSABLE TOTALS:
160
CITY SHARE:
CITY PAVING
CITY SANITARY
CITY STORM
LOW INCOME SUBSIDY
$51,030.01
$20,305.05
$18,453.24
$8,529.24
CITY SHARE TOTALS:
$98,317.54
TOTAL COST OF PROJECT:
$1,851,144.98
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUBJECT: PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF
ALLEY PAVING LOCATED IN THE WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WILLAMETTE STREET, 19TH AVENUE, KINCAID
STREET, AND FRANKLIN BOULEVARD (CONTRACT 2005-30, 2005-29, AND
2005-28) (JOB #4172, 4310 AND 4309)
BACKGROUND
The West University Neighborhood area, generally bounded by Willamette Street, 19th Avenue, Kincaid
Street, and Franklin Boulevard, is adjacent to downtown and is the City's most densely populated
neighborhood. The alleys of the West University Area are an important element in the character
of the area. Some businesses in effect front on the alleys, and numerous residences of both single
and multi-family character use the alleys as the primary means of access.
Due to an increase in criminal activity and nuisance behaviors in the last few years, the riot of
2002, and concerns about the decline in appearance of the area, former Eugene Mayor Jim Torrey
and University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer formed the West University Neighborhood
(WUN) Task Force to develop immediate and long-term solutions to the safety and livability
issues facing the area. The task force was comprised of neighborhood stakeholders, such as
residents, local business owners, and non-profit organizations. Representatives from the Eugene
City Council, Planning Commission, Police Commission, and the Associated Students of the
University of Oregon were also included, as was staff from the City and University. The
meetings were open to the public and run in an informal manner to invite broad participation by
other interested members of the public.
One outcome of the West University Neighborhood Task Force was an evaluation of needed
improvements to reverse negative trends in the area. The Task Force identified the unimproved
or deteriorated condition of some of the area's alleys as a part of the problem. One of the high
priority recommendations of the Task Force Report was improvements to those alleys in the
neighborhood that were deteriorated below standards.
The Eugene City Council received the Task Force Report and held several work sessions on the
recommendations. One of the outcomes was a series of actions regarding alley improvements.
The City Council held a work session on November 24, 2003 to review a report from the City
Engineer covering feasibility and estimated cost to improve the unimproved alleys, funding
sources, possible assessments, assessment code issues, design standards, timing and a proposed
implementation plan. City Council directed staff to proceed with the implementation plan to
improve the unimproved alleys, and to pursue other potential additional funding sources to
replace Community Development Block Grant monies for the non-assessable costs,of
improvements.
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD Page 1
On January 12,2004, City Council adopted a motion directing staff to proceed with design and
bidding of a project to improve the unimproved alleys within the WUN. On March 8, 2004 City
Council held a work session on proposed changes to the assessment code pertaining to alleys.
On April 12, 2004, a public hearing was held before the City Council on proposed changes to the
assessment code pertaining to alleys. Various assessment methods were considered using
examples which showed the financial impact of each method to properties on the West
University Alleys. On May 24, 2004 City Council took final action approving changes to the
assessment code pertaining to alleys.
The 23 alleys in the WUN Local Improvement District were separated into three bidding
contracts. The low bidders were 20 Construction for Job #4172, & Job #4310 and Brown
Contracting Job #4309. Property owners were notified of a public hearing regarding formation
of the proposed LID and the public hearing was held on April 20, 2005. The City formed the
Local Improvement District (LID) on May 9,2005. Construction of the project has been
completed, final actual costs have been tabulated, and final assessment costs have been
calculated. The property owners were notified of the proposed assessments and the pending
assessment hearing ten (10) days prior to the hearing.
PROJECT
There are 23 alleys in the project. The total length of the alley frontage is approximately 6,300
linear feet. There are 160 tax lots that front the alleys. The City design standards were used to
improve the alleys; to develop all deteriorated alleys in the project area to a standard 14-foot
wide concrete alley including catch basins and piping from catch basins to the City stormwater
system.
ASSESSMENTS
In accordance with the Eugene Code, each alley block is considered as a separate element of the
project. The cost for each block is calculated separately and the properties along the alley are
subject to assessment based on the characteristics of the property.
During initial consideration of the issues that led to this project, the Council examined the
Eugene Code and made changes to the alley assessment provisions. The assessable cost for each
alley is calculated and then one half of the assessable costs are apportioned to the properties
based on their front footage abutting the alleys, and one half of the assessable costs are
apportioned to the properties based on the area of the properties within 160 feet of the alley. The
assessable front foot costs are calculated based on the existing use of each parcel. The assessable
area costs are based on the most intensive use allowed under the property's zoning. Weighting
factors were applied to the front footage and area of each property depending on the use and
zoning of the property.
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD Page 2
Single family dwelling or duplex
Other residential
Commercial or General Office
Industrial
Other
1.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
1.0-10.0*
* According to the most intensive use of the parcel most comparable to the use listed above as
determined by the city engineer.
The Eugene Code calls for the costs of alley construction to be assessed to the property abutting
the alleys.
Estimated Costs Based on the low bids received, the Engineer estimated the costs of the project
to be:
Estimated Total Assessable Cost
Estimated Total City Cost
$1,670,779
$ 3,670
Estimated Total Project Cost
$1,674,449
Actual Costs. The final actual costs were higher than the estimated costs.
Total Assessable Cost
Non-assessable City Cost
$1,788,602
$ 63,720
Total Project Cost
$1,852,322
The non-assessable City share for this project is funded from Transportation Utility Fund,
Stormwater Utility Fund and Wastewater Utility Fund in the amount of $63,720. The
Transportation Utility Fund portion is $24,961 and included repair of several existing alley
driveways and street pavement preservation work. The Stormwater Utility Fund amount is
$18,453 and included repair of existing stormwater systems. The work funded by the Wastewater
Utility Fund cost $20,306 and included repair to existing wastewater systems.
The final project costs were higher than estimated. This was due to higher staff costs than
expected for engineering and public involvement. Also, there were additional construction costs
for overexcavation to stabilize the base prior to paving, extra tree preservation work, unexpected
underground utility conflicts and additional repair work to existing pavements, the storm drain
system and the wastewater system.
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD Page 3
Adjustments
After the proposed assessments were prepared, the City engineering staff received numerous
petitions requesting that the proposed assessments be adjusted. Three of the petitions concerned
the area calculation, and offered proof that the area of the parcel in question had changed since
the City compiled its information. The City Engineer proposes modification of the proposed
assessment to correctly reflect the current property area. To avoid having to recalculate all the
assessments, the City Engineer recommends that the difference be absorbed by the city. The
Hearings Officer concurs with this recommendation.
The Eugene Code specifies a series of weighting factors and includes a grant of discretion to the
City Engineer to determine the most appropriate weighting factor for property other than
residential, commercial or industrial by use or zoning. Several petitions or requests were
submitted to the City Engineer, requesting a different weighting factor be applied. One petition
concerned a difference in use, where the property had been weighted based on the assumption
that it was a commercial use. When evidence was supplied that it was actually used primarily as
a residence, the City Engineer determined that it was appropriate to recalculate the weighting
assigned under the use category for the front footage component of the assessment (but not the
area - zoning calculation). This determination appears to be a valid exercise of the City
Engineer's authority, and the hearings officer supports the City Engineer's determination that the
assessment be recalculated, and that the different costs be absorbed by the City.
A number of other petitions were submitted, seeking a change in the applicable weighting
factors. The most common request was for property owned by non-profit organizations to be
given a lesser weighting than otherwise similar for-profit commercial property. The City
Engineer determined that the Code did not allow such a distinction because the Code speaks only
of a general zoning category, where there is no distinction between non-profit and for-profit
commercial uses. This is a determination by the City Engineer that he lacks the authority under
the code to go beyond the actual categories set forth in the code; that is, that his authority extends
only to categories of use that do not fit within the categories listed. This reasonable
interpretation was, at lest implicitly, confirmed by the Council in this case when it had before it
the proposed formation of this local improvement district and the request by the Garden Club to
be reclassified because of their non-profit status. The Council's intent on this is also
demonstrated by the fact that when they were considering the adopted code language they also
had before detailed illustrations of how the proposed code language would apply to the West
University Neighborhood
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement in this project has been extensive. The project originated with the West
University Neighborhood Task Force. The Council has also been extensively involved in both
the evaluation of the Task Force Report, and in work sessions considering the Code, and
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD Page 4
initiation of the project. This public involvement included decisions on which alleys needed
attention. The public involvement continued with a well attended public hearing leading to the
formation of the local improvement district.
Public involvement continued, and has culminated in a well attended public hearing on the
proposed assessments. Minutes of that meeting are to be found in the attached Exhibit A.
While the members of the public who appeared at the public hearing described in Exhibit A
objected to at least a portion of the assessment proposed for their property, few expressed any
doubts about the need for the alley improvements. A few members of the public who appeared
suggested that, rather than their property being assessed the entire cost of the improvements, the
City should pay a portion of the costs of the improvements. Most of the arguments suggesting
that the City pay some of the costs focused on the allegation that the improvements were
motivated by the need to correct problems leading to and associated with civil unrest in the area.
These property owners argued that, because the motive behind the improvement was to address a
problem that concerned either the entire neighborhood or the City as a whole, the costs of the
improvements should be shared more broadly.
The allocation of the benefits of a public improvement is a difficult policy decision, one that the
Council must make. In this case the Council was responding to the civil problems in the West
University Neighborhood when it examined alley assessments and established the current policy.
After discussing the improvements needed in the West University Neighborhood, the Council
looked at the Code policies and made it even more clear that adjacent property owners were to
pay the entire cost of the alley assessments. It is difficult to imagine a more clear affirmation that
the present assessments reflect Council policy.
Calculating and assigning benefits looks at tangible matters such as present and future use of the
public improvement. But it also looks at other, less easily measured elements of the overall
benefit of a public improvement. The question is not whether others might benefit from a public
improvement, the question that the Council must decide is whether the benefits received by the
properties to be assessed are reflected in the assessments they receive - whether the properties to
be assessed are sufficiently benefited to justify the assessable costs levied on them.
Of course the public in general benefits from public improvement projects, that is why the
projects are initiated as a public improvement. There are many public improvement projects
where there are no assessments levied. This is no doubt in part because of a determination that
no particular property benefits more than any other property. Where it is possible to identify
properties that do benefit more than the general run, then it is possible to consider assessing these
properties. In the case of the alley improvements, it is true that the West University Task Force
recommended alley improvements because this would help address problems of the West
University area as a whole. The problem of unrest in the area was one important factor, although
not the only one. Certainly the neighborhood and the City can benefit from improvements that
are designed to lessen the risk of unrest. But who among all the property owners in the City are
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD Page 5
the first and primary beneficiaries of actions that reduce the likelihood of civil unrest taking place
in the West University alleys? As a part of the extensive evaluation of the proposed
improvements that led to this point of final assessment, the Council several times affirmed its
judgment that the primary beneficiaries would be the property owners along the alleys.
There were many requests to look at individual cases, and arguments that others might use the
alleys more than the property owners making the argument. The City Charter requires that
assessment policy be set by a general ordinance. A case-by-case analysis of benefit based on use
would not only be impractical, it would be impermissible under the Eugene Charter and Code.
The Code assigns costs based on the Council's decision about benefits, which presumably
includes easily measurable and less easily measurable benefits. The only discretion left with
regard to alley assessments is the determination as to which of several categories any individual
property best fits. The major change in the code leading up to the assessment for the alley project
was a reduction in the number of categories available. While other allegations were, incorrectly,
raised concerning Constitutional violations, a Constitutional violation would be more likely if
there were unfettered discretion to consider each property on its own merits, or perceived lack of
merit. Beginning with a decision by the Council that the primary beneficiaries of alley
improvements are the adjacent property owners, the policy directives lead to this point where the
question before the Council is whether the benefits of this improvement are assessable to these
property owners under current policy. Because the current policy was set after considerable
examination of the conditions and implications of needed improvements in the West University
Area, it seems clear that the proposed assessments are a valid implementation of the Eugene
Code.
Several property owners challenged the methodology of assessing costs. It was suggested that
some of the costs should not have been included because they could not be characterized as
"actual costs" which are the only types of costs allowed by the Oregon Constitution. The costs
challenged included the engineering costs and the administrative costs. Actual costs are costs
actually incurred in the process of making the improvement, and that is all that has been included
in these proposed assessments. Some questioned the validity of including those engineering
costs which occurred before the Council approved the local improvement district. If one
examines the totality of the improvement process, one can see that it would be inappropriate to
not include these costs.
Improvements are constructed mainly by private contractors who bid for the opportunity to do the
work. The opening of the bids is the event that initiates the local improvement district, but it is
not the first work involved in the project. Before the bidding is possible, design work must be
done, so that there is something upon which the bids can be based. The work by the City
engineers to prepare the design for the bidding is a necessary and direct expense of the
improvement project, because, without this work there would be no improvement project at all.
The Eugene Code documents this logic. Section 7.170 of the Eugene Code provides that the
includable direct costs extend to engineering costs. The practice of allocating costs to projects
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD Page 6
according to the work performed to further the project is the standard practice within the City's
engineering section, and it has withstood independent examination in the past. There is no
reason to suspect that it was done in anything less than a completely professional manner in this
project.
Another property owner questioned the legitimacy of using the engineering costs set by the City
Manager's administrati ve order. Establishing costs for City services by consideration of the
factors that the City Manager used in establishing the engineering costs is a standard procedure.
In any large organization, there are other costs for personnel besides the salary or wages paid to
the person. It is legitimate to include these costs, because they are costs to the City for the
engineering services provided by City personnel, and that is the purpose of the City Manager's
order. It makes no difference that the administrative order discusses charges for private
improvements. The City cannot charge different rates for the engineering services it provides to
private individuals than it charges to itself.
The final challenge to included costs was a challenge to the City's inclusion of administrative
costs, which are calculated by using a standard five percent of the other costs. These
administrative costs are actual costs of the improvement. They are costs that are difficult to
calculate during the implementation of the project, since they include costs which are not finally
capable of being calculated until the project is completed and the assessments are levied. Rather
than increasing the cost by delaying the assessment until all these costs are fixed, the City has
chosen the process of calculating a standard cost for these elements, and assigning that standard
to each project. Since this calculation is based on a large number of projects, the five percent
standard is a reflection of the experience and is the best reflection possible of actual costs. There
is no better available means to calculate these costs. The method reflects, with the accuracy of
experience, actual costs of the improvement project. To exclude these costs would be
inappropriate, because it would mean excluding actual costs of the project.
All of these costs, engineering and administrative and similar costs, are what some objectors
referred to as "soft" costs, as opposed to the "hard costs" reflecting the payments made to the
construction contractors. Nothing in the Constitutional limits on assessments, or state laws or the
Eugene Code makes a distinction between "hard" and "soft" costs. Both types of costs exist
because they are actual costs, without which the project would not be accomplished. The Eugene
Code clearly establishes that all actual costs, hard and soft, should be included in the assessment.
The final argument raised by property owners concerned a challenge to the timing of the charges
included in the assessment. The Eugene Charter provides that amendments to Eugene's
assessment ordinances go into effect six months after adoption, and can apply only to
improvements authorized by the Council after the effective date of the amendments. The
Council was careful of its timing when it began its progress toward completing the alley
improvements. As it first considered proposed amendments to the assessment ordinance, the
necessary procedures and time limits to accomplish the West University alley improvements
were laid before the Council, and the Council took pains to act appropriately within the time
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD Page 7
limits set by the Charter.
There is an established process regarding the development of any improvement undertaken by the
City. Council initiation is always the first step. As discussed above, the first stage is to have the
Council designate the project as appropriate for initial development. That allows the Engineer to
begin design of the project. Only after the project is designed and the costs are estimated, does
the question of its categorization as a public improvement subject to assessment come into play.
Not all projects that involve public improvements are of a type where the Council chooses to
make the project into one where assessments are levied. If the Engineer determines that the
project is appropriate for the Council's consideration as a public improvement subject to
assessment, the Engineer will initiate the process that will take the project to the Council for the
Council's consideration and, if the Council approves, for Council authorization as a public
improvement subject to assessment.
It is at Engineer initiation, before Council authorization, that the particular processes called for in
the Code for assessable public improvements begin. These processes include notice, a public
hearing and an opportunity to remonstrate. The objection to the process for this alley project was
raised as a due process violation. There is no evidence of a due process violation. The process is
one that is well established, clear and affords property owners opportunities to be heard.
Although assessments may include costs incurred prior to the Council's authorization of the
improvement, property owners have several opportunities to be heard on the project, on the
decision to proceed with it as an assessable improvement, and then also with regard to the
amount of the assessment. In this case there was greater than usual opportunity for involvement,
including observation or participation in the work of the West University Task Force. The
Council had before it the process, including the degree of public involvement, when it considered
the project in light of the Code changes to the assessment process, and again nearly a year later
when they authorized the improvement as a project subject to assessment. There was ample
process.
Certainly, no property owner is eager to pay an assessment. The decision on the distribution of
the costs of public improvements is a policy decision taken at the highest level. Local
improvement district assessments are a traditional and commonly used process of sharing the
cost of improvements. The decisions in this matter concerning the policy changes that set the
assessment procedures to be followed, the initiation of the project, the creation of the district and
the final assessments, were all made at the high policy level, or were made in accordance with
those policy directives. No matter how they are articulated, the objections all ultimately are
objections to the policies set by the Council and followed carefully in this proceeding. Because
the Council's policy decisions were made while they were using the West University area as the
model to illustrate the impacts of their policy choices, it is very clear that the requirements of the
ordinances, as well as state law and the Oregon constitution, were followed exactly as the
Council intended.
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD Page 8
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
With regard to the proposed final assessment, the Hearings Official finds that notice of the public
hearing was provided and all the property owners were given an opportunity to participate in the
hearings. Letters informing property owners of the hearing and notification to property owners
of the intent of the City to characterize the assessment as an assessment, not a tax, as required by
ORS 305.583(5), were mailed to the property owners.
The overall cost of the project was greater than originally estimated. This is quite possible in
such a complex project involving numerous locations, each with poetically unique
characteristics. The increase was not excessive, and is justified by the city engineer's report.
The Hearings Officer 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 that 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.
The Hearings Official also finds that the proposed final assessment, calculated and recommended
by the City Engineer is reasonable and consistent with the Eugene Code. The Hearings Official
recommends that the Council act in accord with the City Engineer's recommendations, adopting
the ordinance prepared for the public hearing, levying the assessment as set forth by the City
Engineer.
R~ectfully submitted,
. / /7
"'C;o / /
'''"/ ./ /
v;:;~ . /:1-.. ,//..... /-"'---
,::/,//:1./ ';;'5" "",? z
Milo MecWam
Hearings Official
Dated: February 6, 2006
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD Page 9
Exhibit A
MINUTES
Local Improvement District Assessments
Proposed Final Assessment for Improvements Consisting of Alley Paving Located in the
West University Neighborhood Generally Bounded By Willamette Street, 19th Avenue,
Kincaid Street, and Franklin Boulevard (Contract 2005-30, 2005-29, and 2005-28) (Job
#4172, 4310 and 4309)
January 30, 2006 Public Hearing
Hearings Official Milo Mecham convened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. He described
the subject matter of the hearing and procedures to be followed at the hearing. Present at
the hearing representing the City of Eugene was City Engineer Mark Schoening,
Principal Engineer Paul Klope and Project Engineer Steve Gallup.
Principal Engineer Paul Klope began the City's presentation by briefly describing
the project's history. Mr. Klope explained that the project was initiated by the Eugene
City Council in January, 2004, in response to the recommendations of the West
University Neighborhood Task Force. The Task Force's report on improvements needed
in the neighborhood to address social and criminal problems in the area had
recommended alley improvements as the second most important action needed in a list of
ten priorities.
Mr. Klope explained that, after the Task Force had made its recommendations, the
Council reviewed alley design standards and the assessment process for alley
improvements. While the basic process was largely unchanged, the Council had made
some small changes to the Code language, designed to clarify that all costs associated
with the alley improvements would be assessed to the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Klope described the improvement process up to this time. After the project
design work had been done and bids on the project received, a public hearing on the
proposed formation of a local improvement district was held on April 20, 2005. After
the Council approved the formation of the district, work was begun. Work has now been
completed, and final costs calculated. Mr. Klope explained that the total final costs of the
project was $1,852,322. Of that amount, the total assessable cost is $1,788,602. The
non-assessable costs to be borne by the City, $63,720, were to pay for street work and
repairs to existing driveways adjacent to the project, and the non-assessable evaluation
and repairs to the City storm drain and wastewater systems needed during construction.
Mr. Klope acknowledged that the actual costs for the project were higher than the
estimated costs that had been announced at the formation of the district. The increase,
approximately $178,000 came from over-excavation needed to stabilize some of the base
prior to paving, extra tree preservation work, unexpected underground utility conflicts
and additional analysis and repair work needed for existing improvements, and higher
staff costs than expected.
Alley Assessment Minutes
Page 1
Mr. Klope then turned to a discussion of the assessment process and how
individual assessments had been calculated. The Eugene Code describes a process of
assessing properties for alley improvements based on both a front footage basis and an
area basis. Properties are assigned shares of the total cost, based on their current use and
the greatest possible use, determined by the zoning of the property. Mr. Klope finished
his presentation by discussing and responding to requests by property owners in the
district, requesting consideration of special factors that they felt deserved reconsideration
of the proposed assessments. Mr. Klope first responded to several requests where the
City Engineer felt that the request did not warrant a modification of the proposed
assessment. In these cases the property owners had requested a reduction because the
location of their property, or the nature of the use of their property meant that they did not
use the alley at all, or used the alley less than adjacent properties. Mr. Klope explained
that the assessment was not based on traffic volume in the alley. Mr. Klope also
explained that the assessment was based, in part, on future use of the alley. Therefore, it
was considered proper to assess a property even though they might choose to not make
much use of the alley because future property owners could change and make use of the
alley.
Mr. Klope also discussed four properties where changes to the original assessment
calculations were proposed. In three instances, the property owners had shown that the
area used to calculate the assessment either was not correct, or had been changed due to
partitioned. In these circumstances the assessments were recalculated to properly
measure the actual area of the property in question. In one circumstance, the property
owner had shown that while zoned commercial, the property was primarily used as a
single family residence. This additional information caused the City Engineer to
determine that the present use classification should be changed from commercial to
residential. In these four cases, the City could either recalculate all the other assessments,
send out new notices and hold another hearing, or the City could elect to cover the
additional costs itself. In this case the City Engineer recommended that the City absorb
the additional cost, because this would save time, and avoid having to add additional
interest charges to all assessments. Mr. Klope also discussed the City's low income
subsidy and elderly deferral policies. In this proposed assessment, two properties
qualified for the low income subsidy.
Approximately twenty property owners, or their representatives, attended the
hearing. After Mr. Klope had finished his presentation, the property owners in
attendance were invited to address the hearing.
The first property owner to address the hearing was Ms. Lee Grey, who lives on
Mill Street. Ms. Grey began by noting that the city standard for alleys is seven inches of
concrete. Ms. Grey questioned the need for such thick paving, especially in alleys such
as hers that get little traffic. In response to Mr. Klope's explanation that the depth was
selected to give the alley surface a long life, even in the face of potential later changes in
use along the alley, Ms. Grey pointed out that it also made future changes or work in the
alley more expensive. Ms. Grey's primary concern was some damage that had been done
Alley Assessment Minutes
Page 2
to her property. Ms. Grey explained that after she had given permission for the City
crews to come on to her property, the sidewalks on the property had been removed. This
not only caused immediate damage to her property, but also increased erosion. Mr.
Klope and Mr. Gallup, the project engineer, acknowledged that the sidewalk had been
incorrectly removed. Mr. Gallup explained that after investigation, the City felt that it
would be best to replace the sidewalk. Mr. Gallup promised to work with Ms. Grey to
start the process to replace the sidewalk.
The next property owner was Mr. Rob Bennett, the owner of the Eugene Manor
Apartments. Mr. Bennett was one of the property owners who had requested
reconsideration of the assessment. As he explained, his property does not make use of
the alley. The alley does not go all the way through to the next street and the height of
the property and the alley is different, so that changes to the property would need to be
made to make use of the alley. Mr. Klope responded that it was the conclusion of the
engineering staff that the property could make use of the alley if they chose to do so, and
it was likely that use would increase sometime in the future. For that reason, the
engineering staff concluded that the present decision to abstain from use did not lessen
the overall benefit the property received from the improvements. The hearings officer
asked Mr. Bennett about other uses of the alley, pointing out that the Task Force report
had discussed emergency vehicle access. Could, for example, the improvements help
access for fire vehicles? Mr. Bennett replied that he did not think so, since there was
adequate access from the street to the property.
Janet Calvert appeared on behalf of the Eugene Garden Club. Ms. Calvert, the
President of the Garden Club, questioned the accuracy of the City's calculations. Ms.
Calvert acknowledged the value of the improvements. The alleys were better, and the
Club's access was better. Nevertheless, the Garden Club disputed the reasoning that
assigned a value of 10 - the value to be assigned to commercial property - to the Garden
Club, a non-profit operation. Ms. Calvert argued that the weighting factor should be
reduced to a lower weighting factor. City Engineer Mark Schoening acknowledged the
Garden Club's request and the difficulty in determining the weighting factor. Mr.
Schoening explained that he had determined that, within the limited discretion allowed
him by the Eugene Code, he felt that he was required to conclude that the non-profit was
in the same class as for profit commercial property.
Mr. Frank Krebs was the next person to address the hearing. Mr. Krebs described
his property as being used for residential purposes for a long time. Even though the
property is zoned commercial, it contains only residences, residences that are now being
used by several families. The alley does not provide parking access for his property, and
it is mostly used by other property owners along the alley. Mr. Krebs acknowledged that
the alley should have been improved, but he reiterated that the assessments on his
property should not have been based on the highest category of weighting for commercial
property.
The next member of the public to speak was Mr. Dennis Burri. Mr. Burri owns
several small buildings at the entrance to the alley near 14th and Mill. Mr. Burri pointed
Alley Assessment Minutes
Page 3
out that the property is dedicated to small offices for dentists and other health
professionals. Mr. Burri felt that the size and volume of the traffic generated by his use
of the property was slight. Mr. Burri also questioned the need for the improvements. He
explained that the alley had been paved with asphalt and had not had any problems. He
did not feel it was appropriate to make the changes. Mr. Burri felt that it was improper to
assess his property so much when the apartment complex across the alley used the alley
much more, but was assessed less. Mr. Klope responded to Mr. Burri's concerns about
the different assessment methods by making reference to the Council policy on the
weighting factors, which determined that commercial properties would be given a
weighting factor larger than for residential properties.
Mr. Bill Olson, who owns several properties in the West University
Neighborhood, touching several alleys, was the next to speak. He explained that he
found the assessment methodology very confusing. He did not understand why the
assessment should be different for properties on different alleys. He also felt that it was
double taxation to charge people for both the front footage and the area of a property.
Another property owner in the audience stated that he did not feel it was right that the
city should collect more than the cost of the assessment by using weighting factors.
Mr. Klope acknowledged that the process of weighting and assessing half for area
and half for front footage was difficult to understand. He assured the attendees that the
weighting procedures did not result in the City collecting more than the cost of the
project. He explained the process in some detail. The Eugene Code requires that each
alley is assessed separately because of the different mix of properties and uses along each
alley. The weighting process does not result in the total charges being more than the cost
of the project. The weighting only determines how the actual costs are divided among
the properties along the alley. Mr. Klope used a white board to illustrate a hypothetical
alley assessment, showing how the total amount to be assessed was divided in half. One
half was assessed to properties based on their front footage, with weighting assigned
according to current use. The total front footage is determined by multiplying each
property's front footage by the appropriate weighting factor. Then each property's
portion is determined by dividing the total by the property's weighted front footage. A
similar process is used to divide the other half of the assessable costs among the
properties according to area and the weighted values assigned based on the permissible
use, as established by the property's zoning designation.
There were several questions of Mr. Klope based on the methodology. Mr. Klope
repeated portions of the process to answer the detailed questions. In response to a
question about why the Council had chosen such a complex method instead of simpler
methods, City Engineer Mark Schoening indicated that it came after rather extensive
Council consideration. The weighting method had originally been established in the
Eugene Code decades ago. During the Council's consideration of alley assessment
processes in 2003 and 2004, the Council had considered other options. Eventually the
Council returned to the established method because they could not find a method that did
a better job of spreading the costs among owners that reflected differences in use and
potential use of the properties. Several additional questions were asked, including how
Alley Assessment Minutes
Page 4
two properties along the same alley of roughly the same size could have differing
assessments. Mr. Klope explained again that if properties were zoned for different uses,
or if they were now being used differently, the weighting system would result in different
assessments, even though they were the same size.
The next member of the public to speak was Mr. Philip Farrington, representing
Peace Health. Mr. Farrington began by describing the two properties owned by Peace
Health that are subject to assessment. Both properties are used for parking, one for
contractors who might be working on the Peace Health facilities in the area, and the
second for valet parking for the physician's building. One of the alleys is also used as a
"slip lane" to help access the parking garage in the area. Mr. Farrington indicated that
actual use of the properties and the alleys adjacent to the properties is very small. He did
not believe that it was appropriate to use the same weighting factors for these properties
as was used for commercial properties in the area. Mr. Farrington noted that the Code
made a distinction between different types of residential use, and he felt that there should
be a similar distinction made for non-profit and for profit uses of assessed property.
Mr. Farrington also questioned the appropriateness of the allocation of costs and
the assessment methodology. Mr. Farrington questioned whether it was appropriate
under the Code to charge property owners all the "soft" costs of the project. He felt that
some of these costs were ordinary costs of city operations, and should not be included in
the assessment. Mr. Farringdon noted that in street assessments, the City had decided not
to assess one hundred percent of the costs to the property owners. He felt that this would
be appropriate here as well, which would mean that the property owners should not have
to absorb all the overhead costs of the project.
Mr. Farrington closed by arguing that there were other properties in the area,
properties that were not being assessed, that benefited as much or more than the Peace
Health properties. Using the 160 foot depth measurement in the Code, Mr. Farrington
argued that here were several properties within 160 feet of the alley, that had access
across neighboring properties and thus used the alley as much or more than do the
properties along the alley. Mr. Klope explained that while the original discussion arising
from the West University Task Force had been concerned with the entire area, the Local
Improvement District only included properties abutting the alleys that were improved.
Mr. Klope also explained that the 160 foot depth was limited only to properties abutting
the alley, and concerned the maximum area of the property that was subject to
assessment.
The next member of the audience to speak was Mr. Bill Kloos, representing
Diamond Parking. Mr. Kloos began by describing the difficulties that he had
encountered when he contacted Eugene Public Works for more information on the
assessment process. The morning of the hearing Mr. Kloos had contacted the
engineering staff and had requested access to the engineering files. Mr. Kloos had been
told that he must file a public records request, but had not yet been granted access to the
files. Project Engineer Steve Gallup told Mr. Kloos that Engineering had tried to contact
Alley Assessment Minutes
Page 5
him later in the afternoon of the hearing date, but had not been able to tell him that
arrangements had been made for him to view the files.
Mr. Kloos requested that the record of the hearing be kept open to allow Diamond
Parking an opportunity to submit additional comments for the record. The hearings
official described the difference between this hearing process and the hearing processes
that Mr. Kloos had more experience with. The present hearings process was established
as a means for the Council to gather evidence that the Council needed in order to make a
decision regarding the assessment of property. This hearing was a part of a larger
process, which had been moving forward for several years. Because the construction had
been done, there was a debt that was accumulating interest while the process was being
completed. A significant delay in the process would result in the accumulation of more
debt, which would in turn require recalculation of all the assessments and a new hearing.
For that reason, the hearings official was unwilling to delay the process. The hearings
official did allow Mr. Kloos an opportunity during the week before the hearings official's
report was due to submit any additional statements that Mr. Kloos felt was appropriate.
Mr. Kloos indicated that he would be able to comply with the time allowed if he
was able to get access to the files. Mr. Kloos then turned to a discussion of the proposed
assessments, based on the information that he had. He began by questioning whether the
calculation of costs had been done in the manner required by the Eugene Code.
Specifically, Mr. Kloos questioned whose time costs, in the City Engineering Division,
was being charged to the project, what period the costs included and what hourly rate was
used. Mr. Klope explained that the hourly rates were based on the rates set in the city's
administrative order on the matter of rates for engineering services. Mr. Klope also
explained that the allocation of staff time for this project had begun when the Council
authorized the project and the engineering staff began the design work. Mr. Klope
promised to provide Mr. Kloos with copies of the applicable administrative orders.
Mr. Kloos also asked about the overhead and administrati ve costs assigned to the
project. He noted that the reports he had reviewed established these costs at five percent
of the total costs, and he wondered if there had ever been any examination of the
legitimacy of that figure. The Hearings Official asked Principle Engineer Paul Klope if
the calculations in this instance were the same as followed in other assessments. Mr.
Klope indicated that it was. The Hearings Official asked for confirmation that, in other
assessments where these same procedures were used, the City commonly paid a much
larger percentage of the total cost of the project, including administrative fees. When Mr.
Klope confirmed this, the Hearings Official informed Mr. Kloos that this seemed to
suggest that the City Council had carefully reviewed the charges associated with public
improvement projects, since they were investing a portion of the City's limited funds in
the projects.
The next person to address the hearing was Lloyd Helikson. Mr. Helikson began
by saying that he was there to represent his mother, a long time property owner in the
area. Mr. Helikson called the hearing's attention to a statement made by city engineer
Mark Schoening to the Eugene City Council in January, 2004, where Mr. Schoening
Alley Assessment Minutesa
Page 6
estimated that the assessments for the West University alley project would be in the
neighborhood of $2000 to $4000. Mr. Helikson pointed out that the assessment on his
mother's property was nearly four times the high end of the estimate, at over $15
thousand. Mr. Klope discussed the timing of that projection with Mr. Helikson. Mr.
Klope explained that that estimate had been very early in the process, and that since that
time, the price of elements of construction, especially concrete, had escalated
tremendously. Mr. Klope felt that these price escalations, as well as the uncertainties of
making project costs early in the project, accounted for the difference in projected costs.
Mr. Helikson also raised some specific objections to the proposed assessments.
Mr. Helikson did not believe that it was appropriate to have such a high percentage of the
total (28.5 percent) represented by engineering fees. Mr. Klope assured Mr. Helikson
that that was not an unusual percentage for engineering costs. Mr. Helikson also asked
about the propriety of the City beginning to charge engineering costs to a project before
the project was approved by the Council. Mr. Helikson noted that in this case the charter
required that assessments for a project could not be initiated until six months after any
Code changes affecting the assessment went into effect. Mr. Helikson believed that it
was a violation of due process to include charges for the design work done before the
latest ordinance affecting alleys went into effect. City Engineer Mark Schoening assured
Mr. Helikson that his department had been careful about the timing of this project. The
question of charging before the local improvement district was formed had been reviewed
by the city attorney and the attorney's conclusion was that this was appropriate.
Mr. Helikson also noted his objection to having to file a public records request to
review the file. Mr. Helikson felt that he should have been afforded immediate and free
access to the files in this matter.
Mr. Helikson questioned whether the proposed assessment complied with the
requirements of the Oregon Constitution, which limited assessments to actual costs
incurred by the government. He believed that the engineering costs included factors such
as the budget needs of the City, and therefore did not reflect the actual costs to the City.
He also argued that the fixed administrative fee of 5 percent was not appropriate, since it
probably did not reflect actual costs.
There being no further inquiries or statements, the hearing closed at 8:25.
Alley Assessment Minutes
Page 7
., PeaceHealth
January 30, 2006
To: Milo Meachem, Hearings Official - City of Eugene
From: Philip Farrington - Peace Health
Re: West University Alley Improvement Project
While PeaceHealth is pleased with the physical outcomes on the alley improvement
project, and has enjoyed collaborating with City staff and representatives, we have
concerns about how the costs are being apportioned for project assessments.
PeaceHealth owns property abutting the alley east of Patterson/south of Broadway (Tax
Lot 6900, see Attachment 1) and the E. 11 th Alley between Patterson and Hilyard (Tax
Lots 400 and 800, see Attachment 2). The former property is a vacant residentially zoned
parcel used as a parking lot for contractors working at Sacred Heart Medical Center. The
latter abuts commercially zoned tax lots housing the Physician & Surgeon's North
medical building, a parking area used primarily to support valet parking services at the
medical building, and a slip lane for vehicle egress from a parking garage immediately
west of the medical building. Prior to the alley improvement project, both alleys were
paved with asphalt.
Per information received from City staff (Attachments 3 and 4), PeaceHealth will be
assessed a total of $106,422.09 for improvements on these two alley projects. Additional
information provided by staff (Attachment 5), reflects the actual paving costs for each
alley, as well as other "soft costs," such as charges for City engineering and survey staff.
It's my understanding that for street projects, there is a limit on allocating such costs to
the abutting property owners to less than 25%. In the case of the alley improvements,
however, the entire cost of City staff time was allocated to the abutting property owners,
representing about 30% of the total project costs being assessed.
City Code (EC 7. 1 75(6)(d)), provides that assessments for alley improvements
".. .include all the costs of the alley improvement, including, but not limited to:
1. Catch basins and pipings from catch basins to storm sewers for properties
specially benefited by the basins; and
2. Intersections of alleys, and intersections of alleys within streets."
It would appear that the allocation of alley improvement costs was based upon an
interpretation of Code that "all the costs of the alley improvement" would also include all
staff time necessary to administer the project.
However, my interpretation is that the Code requires that all "hard" costs be included in
the assessment for alley improvements, and while only two types of such capital costs
beyond mere paving are included, the intent was not to include a sample but not all
possible infrastructure improvements. I don't believe Code intended for property owners
Testimony re: West University Alley Improvement Project
January 30, 2006
Page 2
of abutting properties to bear the costs of staff time, as that would be assumed to be a
sunk cost by the City already borne by property owners through the tax structure.
Moreover, if precedence exists for limiting the apportionment of such administrative
project expenses on street projects, then they should be similarly limited to an alley
improvement.
At its core, the basis of the alley improvement project was a Council-initiated response to
rioting in the West University area a few years ago, with the intent of improving
alleyways within the neighborhood. As noted above, the alleys abutting PeaceHealth-
owned properties were already improved and fully paved with asphalt. So although
PeaceHealth will benefit from, and bear its proportionate cost, for further improvements
to these alleys, we contend that allocating all administrative costs to the total assessment
is unwarranted, and that the City's costs should be internalized as the improvements were
not initiated by the abutting property owners.
PeaceHealth also requests that the City reconsider the weighting factors applied to the
alley projects. For example, the alley east of Patterson/south of Broadway was given a
weighting factor of 10 (applied to the front footage, based upon existing use). As noted
above, this property is residentially zoned and used not as a for-profit pay parking lot, but
for contractors periodically working on renovations at the Sacred Heart Medical Center.
The Code notes this distinction in EC 7.475(d) as a use that is "a service and
convenience" for the property owner, not as a profit-making venture. Yet this parcel was
assessed the highest weighting factor (" 1 0"), whereas other residentially zoned properties
with parking areas abutting the alley were given a weighting factor of only "3" (see
Attachment 2).
Similarly, the parking area north of E. 11 th Alley west of Hilyard is used primarily for
valet parking patient cars during physician visits in the abutting Physician & Surgeon's
Building. Because valet parking is provided at no cost (in fact, tips are not accepted)
solely for the service and convenience of patients at the medical center, and not used as
intensively as a for-profit parking lot, the parcel should therefore not be assessed the
same weighting factor as a for-profit lot. Also, the parking garage south of the alley has
its own fully improved lane providing egress to Patterson Street, with most ingress and
egress movements being made off the main driveway on E. lih Avenue. The University
of Oregon's Riley Hall, which abuts the alley on the north side, has a parking lot serving
students and visitors. Yet the weighting factor of" 1 0" was again assessed on the
PeaceHealth-owned properties, while a "3" was applied to the University parcel.
In summary, we request that the City apply a lesser weighting factor to these properties,
as is allowed under Code, and reduce the amount of staff administrative costs apportioned
to abutting property owners as part of the assessed costs for the alley improvement
project.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
2
l____~
SEE MAP 17 03 31 14
~
~
~
, r "n -- nh , 1 , I
~ - -: - - ~ .~- - - - - ~-~t.~""~"'-='~'~
,1: : <5 i . i i - iE]'
!\I :;; . J ~ l , -,
1 ~:;: 1
01"
~~l.?~ - -~ - ~n
11- " 0 ~~'''z~,1 ... ~ ~
, ~W'V _'I
1 ~f~'~ ~ I ~ ~ i~ ~1
~~I 1
';:l.""....... I
~ I'. I. II
~~
'r;: I
1 I:; I
I ~~ I
~n>@ it'l:
~ i ;~ :
i I i_hn_nnh~
: ___,.f'.' I!
I~:~____L___
1 'I
I
"
. ..
:t" i
N
~.i
0"
i~
"'.lO'"",
~', '
~ I ~
8'
~:;;
~-
...~ J;
QQi
:::
\ OJ> ".
FERRY .::~J,"!~
- STREET- ~,
L-'" '", ... ~~: ~;
I~ i~~q ~ i~ 0 ~
I \1;"-\ o~~
,j' 9000 ~~"'", "
~~;J3:
i~ ~:l ~C!?il
I" 8!. 1
~ ",~n:" I~ '"
f~;
>'.....~ ~I
~
o
~
:e:
~
N
.,
I !I~
I,Ju';'''''''"
_ _ ----.tlJlrARD ST~E~ _ _
~
~ i
'1
:'
fTI
C-.....J
Cl
fTlO
ZCoJ
fTI
. - ~ a ~. . ~ . ~" ,r
i ~ ~ ~; f. ~ ~! ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 8!~
ii
~~~~~~~~~i~~~~fr
~~~~~n~,.n~~<.'~
;~
~~~~~@~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~
CoJ
N
N
CoJ
SEE MAP 17 03 32 24
-~ I
>C)
ZAl
\~ J>
.J) I
(/j I
r-n
o
Z:>
'~ X
,>
'---'I'l
Zz
---1
(j)
~
'-...
.j>.
Z
?E
'-...
~.j>.
~Z(j)
~ fTI fTI
f;; (")
-. (") .
nOCoJ
~ -c.!"
~Z
~ =< :-i
::: -.....J
0 ~
'"
'" :::0
N
N CoJ
N
::f
~
s:::
Z fTI
> C -.....J
0 Cl
()) fTI 0
V. Z CoJ
"- fTI
CD CoJ
N
N l>
CoJ ..,
-I
l>
(')
J:
~
m
z
-I
....
u
;0
o
'-
m
o
-i
-i
o
-i
)>
r
O)>m
OOZ
Z:;::G)
(f)--
-iZZ
;o-nm
cmm
om~
-i Z
is G)
z 0
-n I
- )>
Z ;0
)> G)
B m
z
G)
W <.n
010
~q
0';:;::::......
r
C
:;::
u
(f)
C
:;::
""
J>.
J>.
W
J>.
o
W
J>.
...
"" <A ""
~
-0>
<.n
W
-Ol
J>.
W
:".
Ol
<.n
J>.0lJ>.
J>.00l
-w-......-I'.)
J>.J>.~
00l--J
w<.Oo
J>.0l0
""
""""""
---J
0>
Ol
0,
<.n
--J
W
W
<.n
J>.<.n0
WO><D
-W~-.,JW
NOlO>
J>. <D 0
cn:"""'<.n
N '" <D
""
N
'"
-....
J>.
o
o
J>.
""""""
~
'"
W ~~O
<.n--JJ>.
NO>N
Cnwo
J>. "'--J
."
""""""
~
0>
"'"
N
c.n
o
f-
."
N
o
-0>
--J
<D
'"
N
~-
""
N
;:r; ~-~
--J 0> 0
--J N N
0l0l0
"" ""."
0>
..;::.. (J'1'W
N --J 0>
W..r.::..~
'" '" <D
O>O>J>.
<A""""
~
---J
J>.
J>.
<D
--J
'"
J>. <.n
~0lJ>.
--J0l~
J>. N <D
."
""""""
-0>
'"
W
'"
J>.
W
:".
Ol
'"
J>.0lJ>.
_A_D 0)
W ~ N
J>. J>. ~
00l--J
W<oO
J>.0l0
r
C
:;::
u
(fJ
C
:;::
""
'"
J>.
_Ol
N
--J
o
o
u
~.
n-
O
~.
$1
:;::)>orO-i<u)>
)>-iOOOO)>(fJO
nib~8~;;;O~;ii
;o;oC cZxQ;o
'j;Zr rG) r-i
rm-i -im -iCii
(f)-<)> )>x mZ
~ ~~ ~G)
Z -
(D(f) Z
)>m G)
r
N
I
(fJ
m
;0
-i
o
9[
:;::
)>
(f)
o
Z
(f)
C
u
u
r
-<
u
)>
<
m
:;::
m
Z
-i
(f)
m
;0
::;
o
m
(fJ
rrrrrrrrr
CCCCCCCCC
:;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;::
-Ouuuuuuuu
(f)(fJ(fJ(f)(fJ(fJ(f)(f)(f)
CCCCCCCCC
:;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;:::;::
t:A-tAt:At:At:At:A-tAt:At:A
J>.
5.-) -..J W (J'1
mw -...Jw WCJ1CO
<.OmmWUlA<.O-..JA
WO-.J(J1<.nNO'>CO-...J
OOO......NlnNOCO
OODA(J10.t>.Oc.o
<A
t:At:A~t:At:At:A-4:f)t:A-(f}
~
N
o
N
<0
w
<D
~
--J
J>. ~
W -...J _w.CJl
mw -...j-w W U'1 ():)
(.QQ)Q)wrnA<O-.JA
WD-.JU'1U'lNmco-...J
606~Nc.nN6Co
DQDAU10AO<.O
""
t:At:At:At:At:At:At:At:At:A
~
:...
--J
'"
<DW
--J 0>
~rv
~ <D
X-..
Ol
--J
<D
o
N
J>.
m .w.c..n
-.J-.t>. WNCO
mNo.t:>.Nmw
(J'lOO......-.,JwO
mw6m~~~
(J1......-....jA.:::..COC'O
""
iAt:At:A-YJiA-tAt:At:At:A
<0
<.n
00l
Co~
0<0
?F.co
W
W N
Q) A......oo
WOOWU10-..,JOA
<.n6WCoONl:.n(nW
t.O0(J10WN-.J~(O
."
iAt:AMiAt:A-tAt:At:At:A
'"
W
00l
~~
'" N
-j2.-...J
N
~ ~ Ol
W OW......OU1tOW
...... WNOJ:""":"""Cn-.,J
o oc.oO<.O<.O-..JCO
."
t:At:At:AiAiAt:At:AiAt:A
~
~
-J>.
0<0
<0:-"
Ol'"
2f.w
J>. ~
'" WJ>.
Q) O-.JWON<.D,CO
Q) i:noeni:..c.nN:"""
A Abo.CJ1......WWN
...
t:At:At:At:A-tAt:A-tflt:A-tfl
OW
o~
<DJ>.
cf2.N
J>. ~
o oO.+::o.ow.+;:..o
en om'-...1oN-...JCo
(}l 0><.00..;::..............0
."
t:At;A-{AW-(fl-b'liAt:At:A
N
o
N
-<D
W
<0
J>. ~
W -..J 5N_CJ1
mw -..JW WCJ1CO
<DO'lcn<.,..)UlA<D-.JA
WO-...J(J'lCJlNmco-....j
666:"""Nc.nNOCo
OOQA<.l10AQtO
--J
?fa
",'
$1
o
o
:a-
m
$1
-i
o
9[
~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~<.O~m~A~
N 0> N
co ~~~~~~~-.J<..r1(]lAAUU ~~AA~~
-i-i)>-irrrG);lJ-i-i-i-i-i~~-iG)~-i-i-ir
II;o-irrrI;oIIIII;o-iII;oIII-<
)>)>rm)>)>)>)>-<)>)>)>)>)>rm)>)>-<)>)>)>~
ZZ)>;oZZZZ)>ZZZZZ)>;oZZ ZZZ
OOZ(fJOOOOZOOOOOZ(f)OO)>OOOO
<DNO~~~~uOo>OlOl O~ u5 ~~
-i-i~)>~~~~:;::-i-i-i~~O)>~~:;::~~~O
II Z ;orIIIII)>ZI;orIIIu
~~~O~~~rr~~~~~^O~rr~~~p
;0;0 ~~~~~~;lJ~;o;o;o~ ;0 ~;o;o;o-i
OO~mOOO;o;OOOOOO;o~o~;oOOO-i
:;:::;:::;::;o:;:::;:::;::OO:;:::;:::;:::;:::;::~~:;::OO:;:::;:::;::~
II ~--JOlW:;:::;::IuI^I ;oI:;:::;::)>~O(fJ
)>)>'" -i-i-i )>)>rzrOl-<r rm)>o
~~-i~III~~~-i-<O-<-i-n-<~-i~~^Z
)>)>~ObbbII)>ni~~~~~~II;O-<b~
rrO:;:: -i-ir;OOOOO:;::O-i-i-i-i 0
~~ ~O>--J~OO~~-ib-iO -i0000~:;::
-<-<Ol-i-i-ir--JOl-<ZO O)>OlOIII:;::r:;::
-i-i-iIII~-i-i-i u)>uz-iu)>)>r--n-
OOI-i ~IIOb~5~~~)>~~;~~~
~~ 0 r u~-im-i 0=1)>)>;0 r;o
rG) I m ~mm;om mr~O m~
rI)> -< -i;o;o;o --J;o~m -<m
~ ~~~ ~ ~~-<-< -i
)> (fJZZ Z 0
r 0 I
r Z )>
m r
-< ~
)>
r
r
m
-<
~~~~~MW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
-~
W
o
0,
Ol
J>.
~
'"
NW~N~~N~~N~~~~wm~N~~~N~ ~
~m~o~mw~m~O~~~WN~mNW~~~ 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g ~
~mN~ro~~~rn~rooomw~~~woommNO
~~~~~~moom~m~woomwam~~~~~
WAmOOA~rnmOO~OO~OO~~~AmA~~~
."
M~M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
:...
o
0>
<D-O
--J '"
<.o~
0><0
?F.-.J
u
Ql
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~.
rnNrn~~Nw~Nmm~~w~~N~~m~~O ~
OO~W~Noowoooo~m~~mo~mOO~NWOO
~m~~oomm~~~oooomwom~WAmm~o
~OOO<.o~<.o~w<.o~oo~woooowomww~m~
WAAOOAOAoooomOOO-.JOON~~A~omm~
."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'"
0,
~~
'" .
NJ>.
cF-w
N
-J>.
'"
--J
0>
<0
~
o
Ol
<D
--J
--J
--J
--J
N
N
0> W
--J W
0i:..
J>.O>
0>
J>.
o
N
J>.
."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'"
o
o <.n
i:..:---J
"'<0
XJ>.
-'"
o
'"
--J
<0
J>.
."
~~~~~~~~~~w~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
o
-0>
OW
to~
OlN
?ft..0>
~
<D
o
N
.0
--J
J>.
N
J>.
~ ~~~~ffi~ffiffiWffiMffiffiMffi~ffi~ffi~ffi~ffi
o 0
o Ol m
O:---J -.J
<D 01 '"
~<.n (J'l
~M~~ffi~~ffiM~ffi~~~~~ffi~~~~~~MM
~
-~
W NWCJlN(J'l(J'lN(J'l(J'lNm<.n(J'l(J'lWmCJlNCJl-,JCJlNm
~O mm(J'lO(J'lmm~mOOO~-.J-.JmNAmNW-.J(J'lA
O~ rnNN~~Nw6Nroo~~ww~N~~~~NO
om ~~~~~~~m~~~m~~~o~m~~N~~
6~ ~w~~m~~oo~~oooomw~~~woomw~o
o~ ~m~~~~mm~~mrnwoomwom~~~~~
~~ w~moo~~oomoo~oo~oo~~~~~~w~~
J>.
J>.
J>.
:".
'"
OCOO'-OO'-N~">O
~^-<O mO::zi-o
ro-ocn~~~~~~~~
'< )>-i;o" ;0)>0' -<;0
~~~:l>::=o~gl;("):l>
^mO--J-im (fJOO
rG)c:lNO" mZ-i
0)> z:> (f);;jo
urm (fJ)>0
mr !/) :;::o(fJ
C -i m-i-i
u ~ ~o!2
:( S5~
m -i;o
~ !2~
~ ~:j
Z ~~
m co
Gi ~'G
55 ~~
o )>
;0 (fJO
I u(fJ
o ;oI
o mm
o )>m
~ 5i-i
r I
m m
-< m
(f) -i
(fJ
o
'"
<JJ
Q
~
o'
:J
o
=<
C
~
C
~
o
o
~
o
~
u
Ql
<
'"
Q
::[
(f)
o
3
o
~
~
o
=;.
'"
$1
l>
...,
...,
l>
(')
I
S
m
2
...,
CJl
-i
o
9[
Eugene Garden Club
1645 High Street · Eugene, OR 97401
January 30, 2006
TO:
City of Eugene Hearings Official
Janet Calvert, President
Eugene Garden Club
1645 High Street 97401
As President of the Eugene Garden Club, I am here to question the accuracy of the
calculation resulting in the $15,803.73 assessment for alley improvements. The
improvements were much needed and access to our property has improved.
FROM:
The Garden Club property was assigned a weighting factor of 10, the highest factor. While
the Garden Club is clearly not residential, nor is it general office, commercial or Industrial. The
residents living in the apartments that surround us, frequently use our parking spaces. Many
days of the week no one visits the club house. It is, in my opinion, "Other".
Mark Schoening, City Engineer, states in a May 2005 memo to our attorney, "The table in
Eugene Code 7.175(6) simply assigns a factor from 1.0 to 10.0 to a land use category and
for those uses not listed in the table, directs the City Engineer to select a factor according to
the most intensive use of the parcel most comparable to the uses listed in the table." It
appears that the City Engineer does have discretion in the assignment of the use factor.
We believe that the Garden Club should be assigned a lower factor, and therefore
assessed less than $15,803.73.
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC
OREGON LAND USE LAW
375 W. 4TH STREET, SUITE 204
EUGENE, OR 97401
TEL (541) 343-8596
FAX (541) 343-8702
E-MAIL BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM
January 30, 2006
Milo Mecham
Eugene Hearings Official
c/o Lane Council of Governments
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: Hearing on Assessment for West University Neighborhood Alleys LID
Testimony of Diamond Parking and Joel Diamond
Dear Mr. Mecham:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the owners above. Today's staff report to you indicated, on
page 2 item 10, that my clients contacted staff and indicated they would be appearing at this
hearing. My clients own the properties identified on the Assessment Map documentation as
Sequence Numbers 540, 580 and 620.
I ask that the record be left open in this matter, until such time as the Public Works Engineering
file on this matter is made available to me for inspection as a public record. I visited public work
engineering today to inspect the file. Staff confirmed the file was present, but would not allow
access for inspection until approval by the City Recorder's Office and upon filing of a public
record inspection request. I filed the public record inspection request today. A copy is attached
to this letter. Inspection has not been allowed yet. I have no idea at this point when inspection
will be allowed.
Under EC 7.170(1), the costs that may be assessed include the costs of construction, engineering,
interest on warrants, advertising, and providing notice of assessments and overhead. It is not
clear, from the summary documentation that has been provided to me thus far, that the "project
total" costs to be assessed includes only costs that are allowed. More detailed information is
needed. That information may be in the public records, which have not been provided yet.
At first blush, it appears that some of the costs claimed to be project costs are not costs that may
be included. For example, the "project direct total" is $1,202.939. In addition to this, there are
indirect costs of$650,703. The indirect costs are 54% of the direct costs. The vast majority of
the indirect costs are an "engineering charge" ($546,217). It is not clear what is included in these
indirect costs. Are all of the "engineering charges" for city staff within the scope of what can be
charged to this project? When did these city staff charges begin to accrue? Was it when the City
Council authorized the LID? Was it before that time? The Hearing Official needs to determine
what costs are being charged to this project, for what period of time, and whether those charges
are appropriate. My clients can provide more detailed information for the Hearings Official to
Milo Mecham
January 30,2006
Page 2 of2
consider when the City makes the files available for inspection.
/
(
Enc!. Public records request
HP LaserJet 3100
Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner
SEND CONFIRMATION REPORT for
Law Office of Bill Kloos
541-343-8702
Jan-30-06 3:12PM
Job Start Time Usage Phone Number or 1D Type Pages Mode Status
379 1/30 3:11PM 0'49" 541 682 5414 Send. 2/ 2 EC144 Completed ......
Total
0'49"
Pages Sent: 2
Pages Printed: 0
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC
375 W. ..'" STRIEET. 8VlTE 204
EUOENE.OO '1401
nil ($4'I)043-tSM
FAX (541) 3434102
E-MAil BILLKlOOSOl.NlOl..l&EOAEOON.CON
OREGON LAND USE LAW
FAX TRANSM IlTAL SliFEr
1 am transmilling - _2_ - page{s), Illcluding this co.....er sheet
From Bill Kloos
Dale January 30. ]U06
Re: Public Records RCljucs{
To: City Reconkr, Via fa.'\: (541) (lS2-)-114
Dear Cily Recorder:
I ask.ed al the engineering COllllter lhis moming III inspect.-\ city engineering fde on Job No. ~172.
Steve Gallup contirnh;d llle file was intact at his olliee, bUllhat I would have to make I pub he
records request through ~'nur office. and thaI il Jl1i~t he <l 11I,Hlc:r of days before the a.pprova.)
came
Attached is a Vllbl1c records n.:qw...'::il to \'lslJ;,dly tflSpcct;\ llle;lI the CIty Engineering Department
Please let me know wht:n ! Ull msp,:cl the tile
Thank you
The infortnltiolll.:olluincd in this r AX I1'CBa~c is inh::n,1~d only for the pnsonalmd con{i~ntial use O(lbe des.i~ted
rtcipicul abo\'e Thi~ message may be an allom"'y-dicu( cnnunUlIICilllOfl, ~r.ld as s_uth!s pn'llkged.nd cOJlfidtnnal. If the
rt&der of this l'n('sugc 15 llClt lht' inlem1cd r~clpil.:nl ur an ag~nt rl.:spofblhk 1111 ddlvcnng It 10 lhe: intended rccrp.ent, ~ I.JT
hereby notificd thai YOII rC(j::lvl.:d lh,s dl),,;UlllClll in ('fror. a.nd a.ll~' rt'\'I~'''''', r11~~~nun.UlOn. r.hstribution, 01 <opyi.K: O(thlJ.~lU._C
is slTictly prohibiTed_ If YOll 'ec<,,,'~d lhi. IllC~qc:... II< <'llCl!. nky,... n'Hily liS IIIUT1CthMdr hy lclephone.nd ~Nm the UOllnll
Il1I:sugc TO t1~ hy n",d, Tha..nk ~'O\l
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC
OREGON LAND USE LAW
375 W. 4TH STREET, SUITE 204
EUGENE, OR 97401
TEL (541) 343-8596
FP0<(541) 343-8702
E-MAIL BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM
FAX TRANS MITT AL SHEET
I am transmitting - _2_ - page(s), including this cover sheet.
From:
Date:
Re:
To:
Bill Kloos
January 30,2006
Public Records Request
City Recorder, Via Fax: (541) 682-5414
Dear City Recorder:
I asked at the engineering counter this morning to inspect a city engineering file on Job No. 4172.
Steve Gallup confirmed the file was intact at his office, but that I would have to make a public
records request through your office, and that it might be a matter of days before the approval
came.
Attached is a public records request to visually inspect a file at the City Engineering Department.
Please let me know when I can inspect the file.
Thank you.
The infonnation contained in this FAX message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated
recipient above. This message may be an attorney-client communication, and as such is privileged and confidential. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you received this document in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message
is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original
message to us by mail. Thank you.
c
City Recorder's Office
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793
(541) 682-5042
(541) 682-5414 FAX
(541) 682-5045 TTY
~~
~UJq
'hTJ/00
/ /
~N c4~uo I
Address:
Name: ~ \ \,/L \( t/1G D ~
~'\[. Ll "., ~\
Telephone/Fax: 'SV\") t\--(7 <0 1>\;1 ~- ~ tv 'Z..-
/
Date Requested:
. \)' \..l ~L17O ~ e LAv DV\ ~ ~
E-mail:
~6''\/.~
Will this information be used for commercial purposes? YES 0
NO lS}i
Have you contacted any other City of Eugene employee about this request? If yes,
name of employee contacted
Records/Documents Being Requested (Z.EQvt E$ \ '\"O\N.s(0- L ~ (LfJ""~
G--4~'NW1l-/~ C\ 'V\ (, Lb OrJ LI ~ ~ fZ..r ~z,
,
~'-~ 'V\I\ e\l1Vfhd\~~ ~\) U:- L\ \r L
/
Please attach any additional background information that will help
City staff to locate the records requested
Please see reverse side for important information about the City of Eugene's
Public Records Request Policies and Procedures
......UI.IU........U.,UIl....'U'UI..........II........II........................Un1..nl......................................u..............ullAlO..n..a..-....--.__...........""1.vn"'1~
For Staff Use
Information provided via
D Telephone
D E-mail
D Letter
o
REQUEST COMPLETED by
on
Objections to Proposed Assessment
City of Eugene
Improvement Resolution No. 4833
Alley Project
Re: Proposed Assessment for Alley Paving- f}\\~ J.. <=t
566 E. 18th Ave., Eugene
Tax Account No. 0600138
Account No. 200501001-1640
By: Lloyd Helikson, son of property owner Doris 1. Helikson, and on her behalf
Property owners object to the proposed assessment for the following reasons:
Introduction: As we understand, the alley project is the first time the city has ever
mandated construction of alley paving with assessment of abutting property owners. The
plan was apparently precipitated by student ""riots," none of which occurred near the
Helikson property. On January 12,2004, Mark Schoening, City Engineer, told Eugene
City Council that ""the project was slated to cost $1.6 million in its entirety and the
estimated assessments were between $2,000 and $4,000." Ex. 1. The proposed
assessment for the Helikson property is $15,948.81, about four times the highest
estimated assessments. Assuming 160 assessed property owners for the assessment total
of$I,786,857.33, the average actual assessment is about $11,168. Property owner
generally objects to the assessment for these reasons.
Specific objections of the property owner to the proposed assessment:
1) City has failed to submit sufficient evidence to support claim that proposed
assessment is based upon "actual cost" of the paving of the alley adjacent to owner:
a) The Oregon Constitution provides: "The total of all assessments for a local
improvement shall not exceed the actual cost incurred by the governmental unit in
designing, constructing and financing the project." Or Const Art 11, sec 11 b(2)( d).
Oregon statutes defme ""actual cost" as ""all direct or indirect costs incurred by a
government unit in order to deliver goods or services or to undertake a capital
construction project." "'Actual costs' include, but are not limited to, the costs of labor * *
* engineering, financing * * * administration, accounting* * *," etc.
b) City is basing the assessment in part on an Engineering Charge for the alley
project of$509,380.59. This amounts to about 28.5% of the total assessments for the
project of$I,786,857.33. According to discussions with Steve Gallup of the City
Engineering Office, the Engineering Charge was based upon '"Charge-Out Rates" for each
city position.
c) Use of the Charge-Out Rates to determine the amount of the assessment is not
proper for several reasons. First, it does not comply with the City Charter requirement
-, .
that the procedure for assessments be governed by general ordinance. I In this case the
Charge-Out Rates may not be used for assessment since they were set by Administrative
Orders of the City Manager, and not by the general ordinance of the City Council. See
Administrative Order Nos. 58-04-14-F and 58-05-07-F for Charge-Out Rates effective for
FY2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, respectively. Exs. 2 and 3.
Second, the Orders indicate that the rates were set pursuant to Eugene Code 2.020.
However, Code 2.020 indicates that fees are to be set based, not solely upon "actual cost"
as required by the Oregon Constitution, but upon policies, enactments and directives of
City Council, the amount charged by the City in the past, the full costs of providing the
services, the amounts charged by comparable providers, the revenue needs of the City as
determined by the budget and the hourly rates of engineering employees. Code 2.020 (2).
The Orders expressly state that they were based upon these factors. Exs. 2 and 3. They
were thus not based solely upon "actual cost."
Third, the Orders setting the Charge-Out Rates indicate that they were for
purposes of complying with Code 7.130. which is specifically only for engineering costs
where the City does not provide the engineering for the proiect, unlike the alley projects,
where the City provided the engineering for the project. ("The city engineer shall charge
a fee set pursuant to section 2.020 of this code to cover the costs, including overhead, of
engineering, inspection and review services performed by the city on all private or public
improvements not engineered by the city. ")
d) City has not supported its claim for the Engineering Charge with evidence of
actual costs consisting of wages or wages plus benefits for City engineering staff
classifications, with the hours billed for each classification as part of the alley project.
Therefore, the entire Engineering Charge of $509,380.59 used as part of the overall
assessment should be deleted from the calculations. There is no evidence in the record of
actual costs of the time of city engineering staff, and the assessment therefore should not
include costs of such time. If this reduction is applied to the assessment at 566 E. 18th,
the new assessment would be reduced by roughly $4,545.41 to $11,403.40.
e) This writer has not been able to obtain timely adequate information as to hourly
wages and benefits of City engineering staff classifications and the hours billed for each
classification on this alley project, so as to allow calculation of the actual costs of wages
and benefits for the project. See discussion below. However, some information has been
provided to allow some rough estimation of the impact ofthe City's failure to base the
assessment on actual costs of wages.
For example, as of May, 2004, the average charge-out rate for all engineering
classifications was $74.38. Ex. 2 (Charge-out rates were increased as of July 1,2005, Ex
I The Eugene City Charter, section 38, provides that "[t]he procedure for levying,
collecting and enforcing the payment of special assessments for public improvements
shall be governed by general ordinance." Section 39 provides that amendments to such
ordinance requires 2/3's vote of the City council, and that "such amendment may not take
effect for six months after the council adopts it and may not apply to an improvement
authorized by the council before the effective date of the amendment."
-;)..--
3). The average salary rate for the same classifications was $27.71. Ex. 4. The writer
was told by city engineering staff that the fringe benefits for city employees was 35.25%
for the fiscal year 2006. If these fringe benefits were the same in 2004, the average salary
rate including benefits would have been $37.48. This is essentially half of the Charge-
Out Rates. With the reduction in benefits due to PERS payment reductions, and with the
increase in charge-out rates, the charge-out rates may currently be more than double
actual wages and benefits.
f) If actual costs determined by actual wages and benefits were essentially half of
the Charge-Out Rates, the Engineering Charge used as part of the overall alley
assessments would be reduced from $509,380.59 to $254,690.30. The total assessments
for the alley project would be reduced by the same amount to $1,532,167.04, or a
percentage reduction of 14.25%. If this reduction is applied to the assessment at 566 E.
18th, the new assessment would be reduced by $2,272.70 to $13,676.10.
g) City is also basing the assessment in part on an administration fee of
$58,769.15. This is apparently based upon the 5% Finance Fee established by
Administrative Order No. 44-04-04-F. Ex. 5. This portion of the assessment is not valid
for several reasons. First, the Order was not a general ordinance as required by the City
Charter, and thus cannot be used to base assessments. Second, there is no evidence that
the 5% Finance Fee reflects the "actual cost" required to be charged by the Oregon
Constitution. There is no evidence of "actual costs" to the City in the amount of
$58,769.15, or any other amount. It should be noted that these amounts are in addition to
the financing charges associated with installment payments for any assessment, as set
forth in the proposed assessment.
h)The finance charge of $58,769.15 represents 3.3% ofthe total assessments, and
5% of the contractor charges. Removal of this charge would presumably reduce the
assessment for the property at 566 E. 18th by roughly $526.31.
2) Lack of Uniform Assessments
The writer was advised by City Engineering staff that not all unimproved alleys
within the Local Improvement District were identified for mandated alley improvement
and assessment. The assessments therefore are not uniform within the District. Some
property owners with unimproved alleys were assessed and some were not.
~
L oyd Helikson
Date: January 30, 2006
4~dL~
Doris 1. H son
Date: January ~ 2006
2-1
J31I.
3.
_. ~ ~
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Chamber--City Hall
January 12, 2004
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT:
Gary Pape, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny
Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon.
COUNCILORS ABSENT:
Scott Meisner.
Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS
Bureau of Land Management Proclamation
Mayor Torrey stated that although the City of Eugene had received a great deal of recognition for the West
Eugene Wetlands Project (WEWP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had not received appropriate
recognition as a partner to the City for this project. He read a proclamation citing the community
appreciation and gratitude for BLM's work.
Council President Pape presented the framed proclamation to Julia Dougan, who accepted it on behalf of
the BLM.
Ms. Dougan thanked the City for the special tribute. She commended the City of Eugene for its conserva-
tion efforts, stating that the most effective conservation programs were conceived and carried out at the
local level. She stressed that the common goal of the project was to balance conservation and development.
She remarked that she had never worked with City staff who were so professional and creative prior to
working with Eugene staff members.
Joint A ward from Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve and Department of
Defense for Supporting Employee Participation in the Oregon National Guard
Bob Noble, manager of the Eugene Airport, noted that Mike McNatt, a member of the Army National
Guard and an employee of the airport, was recently called into military service and was now stationed in
Fort Hood, Texas, on his way to Iraq. Mr. Noble commended Mr. McNatt for his work, adding that he
hoped for his expedient return.
Mr. Noble related that Mr. McNatt had written a letter to his superiors expressing his appreciation for the
support he received from Airport staff with regard to supporting his service and the logistics around his
MINUTES-Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
January 12,2004
Page 1
ex. I-I
D. Approval of Additional Funding for West University Neighborhood Lighting
E. Approval of West University Neighborhood Alley Improvements
F. Adoption of Resolution 4783 Acknowledging Receipt of the City of Eugene, Oregon, Com-
prehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve the items on
the Consent Calendar.
Councilor Bettman stated that she had submitted corrections to the minutes electronically. Mayor Torrey
deemed them corrected, as there had been no objections.
Councilor Bettman pulled Item E.
Councilor Kelly said he had submitted a correction to the minutes via e-maiL Mayor Torrey stated that,
\-vithout objections, the correction was approved.
Councilor Pape pulled Item C.
Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, \-vith the exceptions of
items E and C, passed by unanimous vote, 7:0.
Councilor Bettman asked staff if West University Neighborhood alley improvements would preclude the
opportunity to pursue 100 percent assessment or another strategy aside from the block grant monies. Mark
Schoening, City Engineer, responded that the block grant would not preclude assessment strategies.
Councilor Taylor registered her opposition to mandatory assessments on residents for improvements that
mayor may not be of benefit to them. She asked staff to estimate the range of cost for the individual
property owner. Mr. Schoening replied that the project was slated to cost $1. 6 million in its entirety and
the estimated assessments were between $2,000 and $4,000. Councilor Taylor opined that unless a
neighborhood was in complete agreement on a petition for improvements, she could not support assessing
the residents.
Councilor Kelly noted that this item would be before the council several more times. He stressed that the
item under consideration was merely to initiate the design process. He stated that staff was going to
conduct thorough public outreach and residents would certainly have abundant opportunity to provide
input He commented that he would be attentive to the few single-family homes with owners in residence
that were left in the neighborhood so that it would not create an undue burden on them.
Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item E passed, 6: 1; Councilor Taylor voting in
opposition.
Councilor Pape commented that he was concerned \-vith the relationship between the City and the Eugene
Water & Electric Board (EWEB). He felt that when perfunctorily granting them the authority to take on
$30 million in debt, more background information was in order. He stated that he would not vote against
Item C at this time.
MINUTES-Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
January 12,2004
Page 7
Ex. 1- )..
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-04-14-F
of the
City Manager of the City of Eugene
AMENDMENT OF' FEES FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
PRIVATELY CONSTRUCTED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND REPEAL
OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-03-11-F.
The City Manager of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
A. Section 2.020 of the Eugene, Code, 1971 authorizes the City Manager to determine
and set fees and charges to be imposed by the City for services, goods, use of municipal property,
and licenses and permits. In accordance with the procedures set forth therein, and the further
authority of Section 7.130 of the Eugene Code, 1971, fees for engineering services for privately
constructed public improvements were established by Administrative Order No. 58-03-11-F on July
14,2003.
B. Pursuant to that authority, on July 14,2004, IissuedAdministrativeOrderNo. 58-04-
14 and notified the Mayor and City Council that I intended to amend the fees for engineering
services for privately constructed public improvements, which were established by Administrative
Order No. 58-03-11-F as set forth in the Notice attached thereto.
c. The Notice was a Iso posted at two locations at City Hall and published in the
Register-Guard on July 19, 2004, and made available for inspection by interested persons at the
offices of the City Manager, 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401, during normal business hours
(8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, exclusive of holidays). The Notice provided that
written comments would be received for a period of 15 days from the date of posting. No comments
were received within the time or in the manner required by the Notice.
D. I find that amendments to the fees for engineering services for privately constructed
public improvements are necessary in order to comply with the requirements of Section 7.130 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, that the fees charged for those services recover the City's costs, including
overhead, engineering, inspection and review services performed by the City. In determining the
fees, I have considered the applicable policies, enactments and directives of the City Council, the
amount charged for these services by the City in the past, the full costs of providing these services
supported by the fees, the amounts charged by other comparable providers, the revenue needs of the
City as determined by the adopted City budget, and the hourly rates of engineering employees.
E. Based upon the above findings and the findings in Administrative Order No. 58-04-
14, the fees for engineering services for privately constructed public improvements should be
amended as proposed.
Administrative Order - Page 1
1Zx-\ ~-I
On the basis of these findings, I order that:
1. The fees set forth in. Exhibit A are the fees to be charged for the services set forth
therein as of the effective date of this Order.
2. The unamended fees established by Administrative Order No. 58-03-11-F remain in
full force and effect and are incorporated into the new fee schedule attached as Exhibit A.
3. Administrative Order No. 58-03-11-F is repealed as of the effective date of this Order.
Dated and effective this ~ day of August, 2004.
~~ ..~ K\~
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
Administrative Order - Page 2
(
EI- . }.-:L
En~ineerin~ Services Fee Schedule
(Effective August _' 2004)
Public Works:
Class Description Per Hour Fee
9074 Principal Civil Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $99.00
4111 Civil Engineer II. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $86.00
4110 Civil Engineer I ...................................... $82.00
4086 Senior Real Property Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $86.00
4085 Real Property Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $82.00
4073 Engineering Associate ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $82.00
4074 City Surveyor (formally Senior Survey Technician) .. . . . . . . . . $80.00
4013 Assoc. Engineering Technician. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $79.00
4012 Engineering Technician. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $70.00
3521 Principal Landscape Architect ........................... $86.00
3520 Landscape Architect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $82.00
5209 Sf. Trans. Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $84.00
3519 Landscape Designer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $79.00
4014 Land Use Review Survey Tech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $79.00
9198 Eng/Dev. Review Manager ............................. $99.00
5055 Office Supervisor. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $55.00
4016 Geographic Info. Tech II ............................... $52.00
0327
0326
Program Spec. B
Program Spec. A
$52.00
$47.00
0044 Admin. Aide II . .. . . .. . . . . _ _ . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . $45.00
i
/
Exhibit A to Administrative Order No. 58-04-14-F
~x .1-- 3
Employees Temporarily Assigned to the Professional Services Fund. . . . . . Other employees
may be charged
at an hourly rate
(based on
monthly salary)
plus fringe
benefits.
As-Constructs & 11 Month Warranty Inspection Fees:
(Fees are based upon the bonded value of the public improvements.)
Small Development (less than $25,000) ........................... $289.00
Medium Development ($25,000 to $100,000) . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . $499.00
Large Development (greater $100,000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $788.00
Exhibit A to Administrative Order No. 58-04-14-F
Ex. )-~
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-05-07-F
of the
City Manager of the City of Eugene
AMENDMENT OF FEES FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
PRIVATELY CONSTRUCTED PUBLIC IlVIPROVEMENTS AND
REPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-04-14-F.
The City Manager of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
A. Section 2.020 of the Eugene, Code, 1971 authorizes the City Manager to
determine and set fees and charges to be imposed by the City for services, goods, use of
municipal property, and licenses and permits.
B. Pursuant to that authority, and the further authority of Section 7.130 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, on June 28, 2005, I issued Administrative Order No. 58-05-07 and notified
the Mayor and City Council that I intended to amend the fees for engineering services for
privately constructed public improvements, which were established by Administrative Order No.
58-04-14-F on August 6, 2004. The proposed fee amendments were set forth in the Notice
attached as Ex. A to Administrative Order No. 58-05-07.
C. The Notice was also posted at two locations at City Hall on June 29, 2005,
published in the Register-Guard on July 2, 2005, and made available for inspection by interested
persons at the offices of the City Manager, 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401, during
normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, exclusive of holidays).
The Notice provided that written comments would be received for a period of 15 days from the
date of posting and publication. No comments were received within the time or in the manner
required by the Notice.
D. I find that amendments to the fees for engineering services for privately
constructed public improvements are necessary in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 7.130 of the Eugene Code, 1971, that the fees charged for those services recover the
City's costs, including overhead, engineering, inspection and review services performed by the
City. In determining the fees, I have considered the applicable policies, enactments and
directives of the City Council, the amount charged for these services by the City in the past, the
full costs of providing these services supported by the fees, the amounts charged by other
comparable providers, the revenue needs ofthe City as determined by the adopted City budget.
E. Based upon the above findings and the findings in Administrative Order No. 58-
05-07, the fees for engineering services for privately constructed public improvements should be
amended as proposed.
On the basis of these findings, I order that:
Administrative Order - Page 1
C:\Documents and Settingslcewemcr\Local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\OLK78\05 Engineering Fees - 2ao (00 120 1 06).DOC
ex" 3-1
1. The fees set forth in Exhibit A are the fees to be charged for the services set forth
therein as of the effective date of this Order. '
2. The unamended fees established by Administrative Order No. 58-04-14-F remain
in full force and effect and are incorporated into the new fee schedule attached as Exhibit A.
Order.
3. Administrative Order No. 58-04-14-F is repealed as of the effective date of this
Dated and effective this
day of July, 2005.
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
Administrative Order - Page 2
C:\Documents and Seltings\cewemcr\Local Seltings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK78\05 Engineering Fees - 2ao (001 201 06).DOC
Ex. 3.-]
Public Works
Ent!ineerinl! Services Fee Schedule
(Effective July ~, 2005)
Class
Proposed Per
Hour Fee
9074 Principal Civil Engineer.... ..... ........... ....... ..... ..................... ........... '" $105.00 e--
Description
4111 Civil Engineer II .............................................................................. $91.00 ~
4110 Civil Engineer 1........ ................. ........ ... .... ..... ................ ................... $87.00
4086 Senior Real Property Officer ........................................................... $91.00
4085 Real Property Officer ....................................................................... $87.00
4073 Engineering Associate ........ ..... ..... .............. ............ ......................... $87.00
4074 Surveyor (formerly City Surveyor).................................................. $85.00
4013 Assoc. Engineering Technician ....................................................... $84.00 €-
4012 Engineering Technician 2 (formerly Engineering Technician) ...... $74.00 e-
4009 Engineering Technician I (new class) ............................................. $63.00
5209 Sf. Trans. Analyst ............................................................................ $89.00
4016 Geographic Info. Tech II. ............. ........................... .......... ............... $55.00
0327 Program Spec. B .............................................................................. $55.00
0326 Program Spec. A .............................................................................. $50.00
0044 Admin. Aide III .............................................................................. $48.00
(previously incorrectly referenced as "Admin. Aide II")
0042 Admin. Aide II (new class) .............................................................. $34.00
Employees Temporarily Assigned to the Professional Services Funds
Other employees
may be charged at an
hourly rate based on
salary, fringe
benefits, and
overhead costs.
Exhibit A to Administrative Order No. 58-05-07-F - Page 1 of2
C:\Docurnents and Settings\cewerncr\Local Settings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK78\05 Engineering Fees. 2ao - Ex. A (00120128).DOC
6.5-3
Description
Proposed Fee
As-Constructs & 11 Month Warranty Inspection Fees:
(Fees are based upon the bonded value of the public improvements.)
Small Development (less than $25,000) .......................................................... $306.00
Medium Development ($25,000 to $100,000)................................................. $529.00
Large Development (greater $100,000) ........................................................... $835.00
Exhibit A to Administrative Order No. 58-05-07-F - Page 2 of2
C:\Docurnents and Settings\cewemcrlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files\OLK78105 Engineering Fees - 2ao - Ex. A (001201 28).DOC
0.3-L{
Rate Comparison for
Professional Services Staff
Prepared by
Margaret Boutell
Management Analyst
Public Works Administration
May 2004
Ex,lf-I
INTRODUCTION
The 2004 rate study compares the professional services rates of the City of Eugene's
engineering and landscape architecture staff with those of private engineering consulting
firms that contract with government agencies. Nine City positions were compared with
Oregon Department of Transportation (OOOT) data acquired from OOOT's contracts with
private consulting firms.
Analysis shows that the charge-out rates for the City's positions are less than those of private
firms for every position except one included in this study,
METHODOLOGY
Information for this study was obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation and
the City of Eugene's Public Works Administration ~ivision. OOOT gathers information
annually from their consultants. They provided a spreadsheet based on 44 consultants'
audited or submitted rates during 2002-2003.
In the past, data was collected by contacting private firms and requesting information, which
was difficult to acquire, especially information about base salaries and profit. The advantage
of using OOOT's data is they require private consultants to submit that information in order to
do business with the state. In addition, more data points were available than in previous
years.
The City's data was obtained from Public Works Administration staff who revise the
Professional Services Fund Rate Model on an annual basis. The information in this report is
based on the FY04 Final Rate Model, encompassing rates in effect from July 1, 2003 to June
30,2004. Though the dates of the rate model is out of sync with the dates of the summarized
consultant data (by 6 months), this was the most current information provided by the
consultants.
Matching the private firms' positions with the City's positions was difficult. OOOT had listed a
greater number of positions than the City, based on the consultants' information, and the job
titles didn't match. No job descriptions were available, and OOOT does not release the
names of the consulting firms, so no further data could be acquired about the job titles.
Matches were made by comparing similarity of job title and pay range.
from ODOT
2
Cv Cf - J
Landscape Architects and Designers at the City of Eugene generally provide different
services than Landscape staff at private firms. At the City, Landscape Architect staff have
the same level of responsibility as Engineering staff for managing projects, from cost
estimating, creating and implementing plans and specifications, bidding, and overseeing
inspection through completion of the project. For this reason, the landscaping positions have
been compared with the private firms' Senior Engineering Planner, Project Engineer, and
Senior Technician positions.
RESULTS
Results indicate that the City's charge-out rates are generally lower than the private firms as
illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1 Charge-out rates
City Position
Principal Civil Engineer
Civil Engineer II
Engineering Associate
. Associate Engineering
Technician
Engineering Technician
Principal Landscape
Arch itect
Landscape Architect
Landsca e Desi ner
City
Charge-Out
Rate
$90.00
$78.00
$77.00
Private Firm
Average
Charge-Out
Rate
$115.00
$98.00
$82.00
$67.00
$63.00
$81 .00
$70.00
Rate
Difference
$25.00
$20.00
$5.00
$3.00
$7.00
% Rate
Difference
28%
26%
6%
Standard
Deviation
22.0
17.0
11.0
4%
11%
12.0
12.0
The most noticeable differences in charge-out rates appear in the higher-ranked positions of
Principal Civil Engineer, Civil Engineer II, and Principal Landscape Architect. This pattern
was noted in previous studies of this nature.
Only one City position is higher than the private firms' average - the Landscape Designer.
The difference, however is minimal compared with the differences in the higher-ranked
positions (-3% compared with 26% to 51 %).
In Table 2, a comparison of salary rates reveals little contrast between the City and the
private firms.
3
r:;- i , 4- 3
Table 2. Salary Rates
City Position
Principal Civil Engineer
Civil Engineer II
Engineering Associate
Associate Engineering Technician
Engineering Technician
Principal Landscape Architect
Landscape Architect
Landsca e Desi ner
City Salary
Rate
35.04
30.71
28.12
23.53
22.39
30.71
28.12
23.08
Private Firm
Average
Salary Rate
40
34
28
28
24
34
28
24
Rate
Difference
$4.96
$3.29
-$0.12
$4.4 7
$1.61
$3.29
-$0. 12
$0.92
% Rate
Difference
14%
11%
0%
19%
7%
11%
0%
4%
Standard
Deviation
7.50
5.00
3.40
3.50
3.50
5.00
3.40
3.50
As in the comparison of charge-out rates, the higher-ranked positions of Principal Civil
Engineer, Civil Engineer II, and Principal Landscape Architect show the highest percentage
of difference in the comparison of salary rates. Yet that percentage is lower than the
differences in charge-out rates (11 % to 14% vs. 26% to 51 %). The rest of the City's positions
closely match the average salary rates of the private firms.
Table 3 shows the total markup rates for the City are lower than the total markup rates for
private firms.
Table 3. Markup rates for the City and
private firms
Total Overhead
Markup Markup Profit Markup
City of
Eugene 2.64 2.64 nfa
Private Firms 2.76 1.68 1.08
Markup rates for private firms comprise some dissimilar elements from the City's markup
rates. Private firms exclude reimbursable expenses from their overhead markup because
they are able to track photocopying and telephone expenses and bill clients for those
separately. Private firms may also choose to bill for administrative staff time as a separate
expense in their contract. The City's overhead markup includes reimbursable expenses
private firms may bill for separately, including a portion for administrative staff time.
Profit for private firms is sometimes saved by the company for future investments or capital
expenditures, with at least a portion going to employees in the form of bonuses or additions
to their retirement or 401 K plans. Due,to the dissimilarities which comprise overhead markup
and the fact the profit markup is sometimes used to compensate employees in private firms,
total markup is the best comparison.
4
C;:,} W - Lj
The City of Eugene will be reviewing its Personal Services Fund rate model in the coming
year to more accurately reflect how the City does business and provide a better comparison
to the private sedor.
5
&.' 4-!J
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 44-04-04-F
AMENDING ASSESSMENT-RELATED FEES; ADOPTING AN
ASSESSMENT ACCOUNTS FEE SCHEDULE; AND REPEALING
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NOS. 44-92-08, 44-92-09, 44..94-11, AND 44-
94-14.
The City Manager of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. Section 2.020 of the Eugene Code,1971.authorizes the City Manager to
determine and set fees and charges to be imposed by the City for services, . goods, useQf
Inllnicipal property, and licens~.andpennits. Sectio~2.922and2.02:?ofthat Codeauthopze
the City Manager to establish the interest rate to be charged 011 sUlllSduethe City.
B. In accordance with the procedures setforththetem,. on August 25, 2004Ti~s~ed
Administrative Order No. 44-04-04, .anduotified the MayorandCity Coundlorsthat IprQPose(f
to .amend assessment related fees, adopt an Assessments. Acco4Ilts...F ee Schedule, and . r<meal
Administrative Order Nos, 44-92~08, 44-92-09, 44-94-11, and 44...94-14.
C. .The Notice was..alsopost~ at two 10catiollS..at.City Hall and published in the
Register Guard, a newspaper of general circulation withlnthe City on September 3, 2004,. and
made available for inspection by interested persons at me City's Financiat. Services Office, 100
West 10th Avetlue,Suite4oo,Eugene,0r~gon 97401 dllring nonnalbusiness hours{9:003'1l1.to
5:00p.m.,. Monday. throu.ghFriday; exclusive oiho lidays).
ovided that written comments thereon would be r
f posting and publication. No comments were re
e Notice.
ASSESSMENT ACCOUNTS FEE SCHEDULE
(Effective for Assessment Accounts Included in
Local Improvement Distriets formed after October 15, 2004)
AU Assessment Accounts:
Financial Services Fee (charged to, and included
in all assessment accounts, based ontotal
assessment, excluding engineering costs)
5%
Assessment Installment Accounts:
Interim Interest Rate
6% interest
Long-Tenn Interest Rate
1.5% above rate
payable by City on
the long-term debt
Special Assessment AdministnUive Fee
$420.00 plus ~% of
Property owner' s
asseSsment
Equivalent Assessment Adrriinistrative Fee
$ 1.75tmoIlth
onthly or semi-annual payment
ved ten (10) days or more
. due date)
$S.OO or 5%
whichever is greater
B ~':'4
~----_._.-._._----------~-_._..-..-_.-._.....__....-_._..----.--.----.------..---.----.-.----..-............--......-..--.-...,--~-.....-.---.-.--.--........----..-.._-_..--..--,---....--". .~..-::T'--t..,-~...:..~
A,J
RE:
Assessments for Alley Paving Project
Assessors Map & Tax Lot No. 18-03-05-2201600-000
DATE:
January 30, 2006
FROM:
Bernice Balie (Lee) Gray
My property at 1857 Mill Street was assessed for $12,483.92 to pay for the alley paving
projects. I wish to address several concerns in protesting this assessment.
1) The property consists of a house, which I have lived in on and off since 1955, and
the house has never been a rental. Attached to the house are two apartments, and
there is only one parking spot on the property adjacent to the alley, so we have
very limited reason to use the alley. It is a half alley. However, according to the
city's formula, we were weighted by 3 for the 3 units, even though there would be
use of the half-alley by only one of the three units.
2) I feel the assessment is excessive, as a homeowner with two rentals, there is no
way I can raise rents to defray the costs of the paving. Also, if my house was sold,
the paved half-alley would in no way provide a greater selling price.
3) Are the costs involved reasonable? On our block there is a full alley running
North-South which gets most of the use. The alley adjacent to my house (going
East-West) is a half alley, and it is only used by two houses. Although two other
properties do extend along our alley, their access and parking spaces are on the
North-South alley. The half alley next to my house, is actually only used by my
house and the house across the alley. So there is very limited use of the alley. I
question the Department of Public Works choice in paving the alley with 7 inches
of concrete, which I understand is standard for regular roadways which have high
volume usage, since our alley has very limited use. The City in choosing the 7 "
concrete used the "Cadillac" of paving materials, when a less costly road surface
treatment such as asphalt would certainly have sufficed. If the City chooses to put
in a top-of-the line expensive high-end road in a low-use area, it seems to me the
property owner should only be charged for the reasonable costs of materials that
would be sufficient for the project. There would be no incentive to the City to be
economical in future projects, if it is able to pass costs of the most expensive
solutions when more cost-effective solutions were available. I protest the cost as
the City has a duty, I feel, in making assessments to consider economic
repercussions on property owners. To do otherwise is disrespectful.
Page 1 of2
Page 2 of2
4) I signed a statement giving permission to the City to come on my property in order
to do their project. However, when I returned home after the project was
completed, I was quite surprised to find the City had taken out a sidewalk that was
entirely on my property and abutted the alley. The City did not ask for permission
to remove the sidewalk. The city did not replace the sidewalk. I feel the City is
responsible for doing no damage in the process of their work, and by not replacing
the sidewalk my property has been negatively impacted. The sidewalk performed
two important functions. First, it served as a barrier against the ground eroding,
holding the ground in a confined space. With the rains, this problem has became
very clear, the dirt is now washing down the slope at the edge of my house and
onto the newly paved alley. Second, the sidewalk acted as a barrier which kept
cars using the alleyway from accidentally coming up onto my lawn. If you were to
see the lawn now, you would see large ruts in it where cars have gone over the
alley onto the front and side lawn. It is very unsightly, and I strongly feel the City
of Eugene must credit my assessed account for the cost of reinstalling the sidewalk
or must reinstall my sidewalk to make my property whole. As it stands now, the
curb appeal of my property has been compromised and there will continue to be
erosion as a result of the removal of my sidewalk.
5) I ask for the assessment to be reconsidered for the reasons I have noted.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~
B. B. (Lee) Gray
Dear Mr. Mark Scheming
City of Eugene
Public works
1/31/06
Thank you for your time. After the assessment hearing I realize that my property at 935
Patterson, tax lot 17-02-32-23-06400, was possibly placed into the wrong zone rate. I
realize that it is zoned commercial however I feel that it should be assessed at the .03
rate! The reasons that I feel this are the only fair way to tax this property are;
1) The apartments in this area are taxed at the .03 rate
2) My lot is very small (50* 100) and the benefit from the alley improvements are
realized by the other property owners not by my building. No parking in the rear.
3) The property has always been and still is residential, multifamily housing, with no
hope of changing because of the lot size.
4) The alley is used mainly by the two restaurants (Carls Jr and Manolas), the parking
lots and the student's short cut to their U of 0 housing on Patterson.
I ask that you please adjust my assessment to the .03 rate for both Frontage and By
Area.
Thank you for taking the time to consider the adjustment.
Frank Krebs
1410 W 25 Ave
Eugene, OR 97405
953 4024
1~ L /;Ji
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC
OREGON LAND USE LAW
375 W. 4TH STREET, SUITE 204
EUGENE, OR 97401
TEL (541) 343-8596
FAX (541) 343-8702
E-MAIL BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM
February 6,2006
Milo Mecham
Eugene Hearings Official
c/o Lane Council of Governments
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: Final Argument on Assessment for West University Neighborhood Alleys LID
Testimony of Diamond Parking and Joel Diamond
Dear Mr. Mecham:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter after my having had an opportunity to review
the file at the city engineer's office. I offer the following points for your consideration in your
recommendation to the City Council. Generally, these points have been made by me and others
either orally or in writing. My intent is to summarize them in a shopping list fashion for your
consideration in preparing your report to the City Council.
1. Article 38 of the Eugene Charter requires that procedures for levying assessments
shall be governed by general ordinance. Here the procedures, and the resulting costs, for levying
assessments have been set in part by Administrative Orders. See orders attached to the written
testimony of Lloyd Helikson. This violates the charter provision.
2. Article 39 of the Eugene Charter provides that by 2/3 majority the City Council may
amend the general ordinances that prescribe assessments. That was done here, according to the
Staff Report, on May 24,2004, when the Council changed the code provisions relating to alley
improvements, to require all the costs to be paid by abutting owners. Article 39 also says that
when such amendments are made, the changed provisions are not effective for six months, and
they may not be applied to any improvements authorized by the council before the effective date
of the amendment. Here the authorization for the improvements may have been given by the
Council as early as January 12, 2004.
3. The Oregon Constitution provides: "The total of all assessments for a local
improvement shall not exceed the actual cost incurred by the government unit in designing,
constructing and financing the project." Or Constitution Art 11, sec 11 b(2)( d). Similarly, the
Eugene Code, EC 7 .170( 1), anticipates that the assessment will be for the "costs" of the project.
Here it appears that the City billed "soft costs" to the project based on "charge out rates" adopted
by administrative order. These do not reflect actual costs. Furthermore, the soft costs charged to
the project include an "administrative fee," which is set by a city order. This does not reflect
actual costs of the project.
Milo Mecham
February 6,2006
Page 2 of2
4. Finally, under BC 7.170(1), the costs that may be assessed include the costs of
construction, engineering, interest on warrants, advertising, and providing notice of assessments
and overhead. The city began assigning these overhead costs to this project at the start of 2004.
The LID was formally established on May 9,2005. That is the date when overhead costs that can
be collected through assessments should begin to accrue.
Thank you for your consideration. I would like to request a copy of your report to the City
Council.
Sincerely,
Bill Kloos
C: Client
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 30, 2006
FROM:
Mark Schoening, City Engineer
TO:
Hearings Official
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF ALLEY
PAVING LOCATED IN THE WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY WILLAMETTE STREET, 19TH A VENUE, KINCAID STREET, AND
FRANKLIN BOULEVARD (CONTRACTS 2005-30, 2005-29, AND 2005-28) (JOB #'S
4172,4310 AND 4309) (SEE ATTACHMENT "A" FOR DESCRIPTIONS OF ALLEYS)
BACKGROUND
The West University Neighborhood area generally bounded by Willamette Street, 19th Avenue, Kincaid Street,
and Franklin Boulevard is adjacent to downtown and is the City's most densely populated neighborhood. Due
to an increase in criminal activity and nuisance behaviors, in the last few years, the riot of 2002, and concerns
about the decline in appearance of the area, former Eugene Mayor Jim Torrey and University of Oregon
President Dave Frohnmayer formed the West University Neighborhood (WUN) Task Force to develop
immediate and long-term solutions to the safety and livability issues facing the area. The task force was
comprised of neighborhood stakeholders, such as residents, local business owners, and non-profit organizations.
Representatives from the Eugene City Council, Planning Commission, Police Commission, and the Associated
Students of the University of Oregon were also included, as was staff from the City and University. The
meetings were open to the public and run in an informal manner to invite broad participation by other interested
members of the public.
The City Council held a work session on June 9, 2003 to review and approve the WUN Task Force Final Report.
The City Council directed the City Manager to analyze the recommendations of the Task Force and provide the
Council with an implementation plan. One of the high priority long-term recommendations was to improve the
alleys in the neighborhood.
The City Council held a work session on November 24, 2003 to review a report from the City Engineer covering
feasibility and estimated cost to improve the unimproved alleys, funding sources, range of estimated
assessments, assessment code issues, design standards, timing and a proposed implementation plan. City
Council directed staff to proceed with the implementation plan to improve the unimproved alleys, and to pursue
other potential additional funding sources to replace Community Development Block Grant monies for the non-
assessable costs of improvements.
On January 12,2004, City Council adopted a motion directing staff to proceed with design and bidding ofa
project to improve the unimproved alleys within the WUN.
On March 8, 2004 City Council held a work session on proposed changes to the assessment code pertaining to
alleys.
On April12, 2004 a public hearing was held before the City Council on proposed changes to the assessment
code pertaining to alleys. Various assessment methods were considered using examples which showed the
financial impact of each method to properties on the West University Alleys.
On May 10,2004 Council took action approving (5-2) changes to the assessment code pertaining to alleys to
assess all costs of the alley improvements to abutting properties.
On May 24, 2004 City Council took final action approving (6-2) changes to the assessment code pertaining to
alleys. The second action on May 24 was necessary because the City Charter requires a 2/3 majority approval of
the entire Council to change the assessment code.
The 23 alleys in the proposed WUN Local Improvement District were separated into three bidding contracts and
bids were opened on April 5, 6, and 7, 2005. The low bidder(s) were 2G Construction for Job #4172, & Job
#4310 and Brown Contracting Job #4309. Property owners were notified of a public hearing regarding
formation of the proposed LID and the public hearing was held on April 20, 2005. The City formed the Local
Improvement District (LID) on May 9,2005. Construction of the project has been completed, final actual costs
have been tabulated, and final assessment costs have been calculated. The property owners were notified of the
proposed assessments and the pending assessment hearing ten (10) days prior to the hearing as required by
Eugene Code.
The intent of the final assessment hearing scheduled for January 30, 2006, is to review the final project cost,
consider comments on the proposed assessments, and to provide evidence to be included in the ordinance
levying the assessments by the City Council.
CORRESPONDENCE
Since the mailing of the Notice of Proposed Assessments, City staff has received 24 phone calls and four letters
from property owners (see Attachment B). Twelve property owners have indicated they will be attending the
hearing as of noon, January 30,2006.
1. Eugene Garden Club - tax lot 17-03-31-44 #8500 (alley #26)
2. Lloyd & Doris Helikson - tax lot 18-03-05-22 #2100 (alley #29)
3. Dennis Burri - tax lot 17-03-32-32 #16300 & #16400 (alley #5 & #18)
4. Millrace Manor Assoc. - tax lot 17-03-32-23 #9400 (alley #8 & #22)
5. Joy Limited Partnership- tax lot 17-03-32-33 #3200 (alley #19)
6. Wentwood Shasta Loop - tax lot 17-03-32-31 #7900 & #8100 (alley #6)
7. Bernice (Lee) Gray - tax lot 18-03-05-22 #1600 (alley #32)
8. Chris Vigeland - tax lot 17-03-32-33 #100 & #1700 (alley #16)
9. PeaceHealth - tax lot 17-03-32-23 #6900 (alley#I&2) 17-03-32-32 #400 & #800 (alley #10
10. Diamond Parking - tax lot 17-03-3223 #6800, #7200, #7600 (alley #2&2) 17-03-32-32 #19500 (alley
#25)
11. Frank Krebs - tax lot 17-03-32-23 #6400 (alley #1&2)
12. Foxcroft Apartments - tax lot 17-03-32-34 #1400 (alley #6)
PROJECT
There were 23 unimproved alleys in the WUN LID totaling about 6,300 linear feet, 160 tax lots front the alleys.
City design standards were used to guide the alley design which consisted of concrete paving and included catch
basins and piping from catch basins to the City stormwater system.
Attached is a map showing the limits of the project and the properties to be assessed (see Attachment C).
ASSESSMENTS
Costs were distributed per Eugene Code 7.175, and as outlined in the Council adopted Hearings Official
findings and recommendations, and the resolution forming the LID.
Per Eugene Code, the assessable cost for each alley is calculated and then one half of the assessable costs are
apportioned to the properties based on their front footage abutting the alleys, and one half of the assessable cost
are apportioned to the properties based on the area of the properties within 160 feet of the alley, as measured at
right angles from the front footage of the parcel. The assessments were calculated separately for each alley
based on the existing uses and zoning of the property within each alley. The assessable front foot costs were
calculated based on the existing use of the parcels and the assessable area costs were calculated based on the
permissible use of the parcels under the zoning of the City. Weighting factors were applied to the front footage
and area of each property per the use and zoning of the property as prescribed in Eugene Code and as listed
below:
Single family dwelling or duplex
Other residential
Commercial or General Office
Industrial
Other
1.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
1.0-10.0*
* According to the most intensive use of the parcel most comparable to the use listed above as determined by the
city engineer. Costs listed below are the estimated costs calculated at the time of the formation of the LID.
Total Assessable Cost
Total City Cost
$1,670,779
$ 3,670
Total Project Cost
$1,674,449
Below are the final costs based on actual project costs:
Total Assessable Cost
Non-assessable City Cost
$1,788,602
$ 63,720
Total Project Cost
$1,852,322
The total assessable cost for each alley and the weighted front foot and weighted area cost for each alley are
shown in Attachment D.
The non-assessable City share for this project is funded from Transportation Utility Fund, Stormwater Utility
Fund and Wastewater Utility Fund in the amount of$63,720. The Transportation Utility Fund portion is
$24,961 and included repair of several existing alley driveways and street pavement preservation work. The
Stormwater Utility Fund amount is $18,453 and included repair of existing stormwater systems. The work
funded by the Wastewater Utility Fund cost $20,306 and included repair to existing wastewater systems.
The final project costs were higher than estimated. This was due to higher staff costs than expected for
engineering and public involvement. Also, there were additional construction costs for overexcavation to
stabilize the base prior to paving, extra tree preservation work, unexpected underground utility conflicts and
additional repair work to existing pavements, the storm drain system and the wastewater system.
Following mailing of assessment notices, staff received new information from property owners that indicate the
assessments for four properties should be adjusted. The new information, the original final assessment amount,
the recommended adjustments and adjusted final assessment amounts are as follows:
· Tax lot 17-03-32-23 #6600 (Alley #1 & 2) - The assessable parcel area was corrected, reducing the area
from 17,688 square feet to 13,987. The original final assessment amount is $36,972.35. Staff
recommends correcting the parcel area which would reduce the final assessment amount to $33,270.85.
· Tax lot 17-03-32-34 #1500 (Alley #6) - The property owner provided new information showing that
their parcel was subdivided and the area was reduced from 10,688 square feet to 4,676. The original
final assessment amount is $14,350.80. Staff recommends correcting the parcel area which would
reduce the final assessment amount to $11,185.63.
· Tax lot 17-03-32-23 #10000 (Alley #8 & 22) - The property owner informed staffthat 33% of their
dwelling is used as an office and the remaining portion is used as a single family dwelling. The original
final assessment amount is $29,338.32. Since majority of the existing use is single family dwelling,
staff recommends reducing the weighting factor for existing use from general office (10) to single
family dwelling (1). This results in reducing their assessment amount to $12,468.79.
. Tax lot 17-03-31-44 #10400 (Alley #24) - The property owner provided new information showing that
their parcel was subdivided and the area was reduced from 10,454 square feet to 4,008. The original
final assessment amount is $9,465.10. Correcting the parcel area would reduce the final assessment
amount to $6,246.44.
The total cost difference between the original final assessments and the reduced final assessment amounts for
these four parcels is $26,954.86.
There are two alternative methods to cover the costs for those adjustments. The first is to redistribute the
assessment costs for each of the four affected alleys. Per Eugene Code, this would require a new public hearing,
since the adjustments and cost redistribution would increase assessment costs for the other property owners in
the four alleys. Also, holding this new public hearing would cause a delay in final assessment, increase the
financing costs for the project and increase assessments incrementally to all the property owners in the LID and
to the City. If this method is chosen, the estimated increase in assessment costs from the delay is about $8,500
per month. The second method to cover the cost of the adjustments would be for the City to pay the costs.
Assessment financing, a 10-year payment plan through the City, is available to all property owners within the
improvement district as identified by Eugene Code, Chapter 7. Of the 160 properties in the LID, 2 property
owners qualify for a 5/6 subsidy under the low-to-moderate income subsidy program. This City funded program
only applies to owner-occupied residential properties in the LID. The total cost for the low income subsidies is
$8,819.96, and is funded from the Street Subsidy Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The final total assessable costs are higher than those quoted at the time of the formation of the LID. Assessment
costs are in accordance with Eugene Code. Staff recommends approval of the final assessments as calculated,
except that the assessments for the four properties described above be adjusted as noted and the costs for those
adjustments be paid by the City, and that the Council levy the final assessments.
Job No. 4172
Job No. 4309
Job No. 4310
ATTACHMENT A
Allev No.
Description
#1 between Broadway and Mill Race from half alley to Patterson
#2 between Hilyard and Patterson from half alley to Mill Race
#6 between 14th and 15th from Alder to Hilyard
#8 between Ferry and Mill from half alley to 11 th
#10 between 11 th and 12th from Hilyard to Patterson
#16 between 14th and 15th from Hilyard to Patterson
#17 between 14th and 15th from Kincaid to Alder
#22 between Ferry and Mill from 10th alley to half alley
#25 between Mill and High from 13th to half alley
#31 between 11th and 12th from half alley to High
#4 between 13th and 14th from Oak to half alley
#9 between High and Pearl from 15th to half alley
#14 between Pearl and Oak from 16th to Canal
#24 between High and Pearl from 16th to 17th
#26 between Mill and High from 16th to 17th
#27 between Mill and High from 17th to 18th
#30 between Pearl and Oak from 15th to 16th
#5 between 14th and 15th from half alley to Mill
#18 between 14th and 15th from Ferry to half alley
#13 between Patterson and Ferry from 16th to 17th
#19 between 15th and 16th from Hilyard to Patterson
#20 between 15th and 16th from Patterson to Ferry
#21 between 17th and 18th from half alley to Patterson
#23 between Ferry and Mill from 15th to 16th
#29 between Patterson and Ferry from 18th to half alley
#32 between 18th and 19th from half alley to Mill
Resolution - 3
Q:\PROJECTS\PROJ-2\4172\Corresp\OTHER\4172 WUN Alleys UD Resolution .DOC
January 24, 2006
JAN 2 5 2006
City Engineer
DepanxnentofPublicVVorks
244 East Broadway
Eugene, OR 97401
I am unable to appear in person on January 30 regarding the alley
project that was completed adjacent to my rental at 1560 Hilyard St.
Sometime in late October I phoned your department and spoke to
Steve Gallup. I asked him when I would receive a bill for the alley
work. He told me it would be in J a~uary. I also asked him if he knew
how much the assessment would be. He said he had the figure and it
would be around $3,800. However, when I received the assessment it was
for a total of $4,329.47.
I am requesting that you assess me the original amount as I had no warning
there would be an increase and, as I am retired, the difference is significant
enough to make it difficult for me.
Thank you for your consideration,
--jJ~.
oy Poust, General Partner
Joy Limited Partnership
2042 Harris Street
Eugene, OR 97405
(hand delivered)
ATTACHMENT B
January 26, 2006
City Engineer
City of Eugene Public Works
Engineering
244 E. Broadway
Eugene, OR 97401
RE: West University Alley Improvement Project Proposed Assessment
Dear City Engineer,
We are writing this letter regarding the Proposed Assessment for the West University
Alley Improvement Project. We received formal notification, via mail, that our property,
the Eugene Manor Apartments will be assessed $11,276.92 for the alley improvement
that occurred this past summer.
The Eugene Manor Apartments is adjacent to the alley that just received an improvement.
Weare being assessed for improvements to an alley that we do not have access to, nor is
used for any services related to the operations of the building. At this time there is a
fence that blocks all access to use of the alleyway by any personnel and/or clients that we
provide housing too. Outside services, such as refuge collection, water, electricity, gas,
etc. are all accessed through the main entrance to our property from Ferry Street, and not
the alleyway.
Furthermore, we do not anticipate or plan to use the alleyway for future access to the
property as it would require removal of parking spaces which are an essential service
provided to our customers at the Eugene Manor Apartments.
We are asking you, and the City of Eugene, to re-consider the $11,276.92 proposed
assessment, taking into account that the improved alleyway does not provide the Eugene
Manor with any new services, nor has it since at least 1979 when we became involved.
Your consideration in this matter is appreciated. We will be attending the Public Hearing
you will be presiding over on January 30, 2006. If you have any questions or are in need
of additional information do not hesitate to contact us at (541 )485-6991.
2Z2~~ttL/I-
Owner
980 WILLAMETTE STREET SUITE 200
EUGENE
OREGON 97401
VOICE 5414856991
fAX 541.485.7000
~~~;;,,:,
[H ACCREDITED [',f ~.'.,
MANAGEMENT ,!\ ~!,
..",~" ORGAN(ZATION~ '~.t'J~
~ G:ty of ~
J f-J IU J ~ ~ ou~"-
, ~
c ~ ~ -flu ad;-. wrvL-
fl1; ~ 'p/)y / p/ ~ 5~~ ~
~ 3/tJo~- ~
/V~ t/7./t!Jf/5.
= / ---
j4
.
~ tl-
M~ l~ ~
tM-J 14 ~ 7v h/~ ~7 .1. /
7~ 13$ )v~ ~k 12<- ~/
~ I jL ~ //_AL~c' /
I ~V~~
--
~ ~~tJoc~ M4 A.- ~ ~ h
eM.- ~ f'~ ~ ~
.1~/~
--:f~ J:Uel ~ k ~ L if 5'
q 3F /~
4=1 Llrt33
S' Lj /- 1'S 3 ~ 9"~;2 'f
c
Central Services
Financial Services
City of Eu~ene
100 W. 10 Ave., Suite 400
P.O. Box 1967
Eugene, Oregon 97440
(541) 682-5037
Notice of Proposed Assessment
(This is not a bill)
January 13, 2006
Account Number: 200501001-0520
KREBS, FRANK L JR REV L VG TR
1410 W 25TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97405
THIS NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT IS FOR YOUR INFORMATION ONLY
County records indicate that you may have or claim an interest in the property. You may be an
owner, lienholder, or the holder or Claimant of some other interest in the property.
Assessors Map & Tax Lot No. 17-03-32-23-06400-000
Tax Account No. 0282614
Property Address: 935 PATTERSON STAPTl
Property Affected by the Improvement: 96-33798
Improvement Resolution Number: 4833
Description of Improvement:
ASSESSMENTS
ALLEY PAY, FRONTAGE
ALLEY P A V, BY AREA
TOTAL
/
w~
~
Please call the Public Works Department, (541) 682-5560, if you have any questions regarding this improvement
project or your assessment. If the Public Works staff cannot resolve your questions or problem to your satisfaction,
you may submit your objections to the assessment hearing officer.
The described project qualified for funding under the subsidy program. Eligible property owners have been
confirmed. Property owners who did not comply timely with the program requirements when the project was
initiated and/or formation of the Local Improvement District are no longer eligible for the program.
01130/2006 ,13: 21 FAX 541 346 6189 UO Ee CARES I4l 001
i
I
~ Ie CARES Univen;il:y of Oregon . 299 East 18th Ave' Eogene, OR 97401
E (541) 346-2578 · (800) 925-8694 · fax (541) 346-6189
!t I
IEarly Childhood Coordination Agency for Referrals, Evaluations, and Services in Lane County
I
'I
Fak <dR^-f't- ~ ~
i
To. !G~ r:- (\ ~ ; N--U From. is Q.~q: \ s,)f-- f~'^'~
Attn:, .
Fax: 1l95? ~-<6 L.\ '1:) Pages: 3 (including cover)
I {_ ' I I "'l...... ( 6
Phone: \0<6/--5500 Date: ~I ~
Re: dl~j pa\l~ ~1lI'l~ CC:
o Urgent ~ For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply D Please Recycle
I
,
. Comments
~ r~C ~~ '6^\~kt
I
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The document(s) accompanying this facsimile
tTar).smission contain(s) confidential information belonging to the sender, which is
legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or.
ent~ty stated on this form: If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
tha~ any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the
con~ents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission
in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (collect, if necessary) to arrange for
disposition of the original documents,
I
I
01/30/2008 MON 13: 20 [TX/RX NO 8808] ~ 001
01/30/2006 13:21 FAX 541 346 6189
ua EC CARES
14I 002
7Jie Spiriruat ..flJ'Se1nfj/V (J/~tlie :Balici'tS ot~ut?ene'
:P.(). $lox 10743. :Euflt?nt?, O:R!)/"""440
('41) ]44-3173
I
I
I
C.l E .
It)' ngmeer
PulDlic Works Department
244 E. Broadway
I
Eugene. OR 97401
I
l1uary 30. 2006
Dear City Engineer:
!
~ lener is 10 stare our objection to the paving assessment for the tax lot number 17-03-32-34-
009,00-801. The physical property address is 1458 Alder Street. Our mailing address is noted on
the letterhead above.
I
We! are likely unable 10 appear before the hearing officer this evening. The Spiritual Assembly of
the !Baha' is of Eugene requests more information about how the assessment was levied. and
req\.1ests special consideration based on the reasons outlined below. Please be assured that the
Spintual Assembly will arrange payment for the final assessmem amount when a bill is received.
I
ThJ property at 1458 Alder Street is a Baha'i meeting place. owned by the Spiritual Assembly of
the IBaha'is of Eugene. a small non-profit organization. It includes a small parking lot behind the
house. This meeting place is used only a limited amount so the traffic generated by its use only
miilimally impacts alley usage. Here is an outline of our alley usage.
unlike other religious organizations. the BaM'is do not have a weekly worship service. The
cOJ*munity worship service is held only once every 19 days. and is typically attended by 9-12
vehicles. Instead. many Baha'i community activities are held in individual homes throughout the
ci~. There are up to 5 cars that park at the Baha'i Center parking lot once a day. There are
evening meetings twice per week attended by an average of 5 cars on Mondays and 3 cars on
Tu~sdays. There are weekly children's classes on Sundays, attracting an average of 8-10 cars.
This level of alley usage is much lower than the surrounding buildings, inCluding student
housing. apartment buildings and a restaurant. Thus. we respectfully request that the lower alley
usage is reflected on our assessment of the paving costs.
I
The! Spiritual Assembly is also concemed that the alley re-paving has created additional
problems. We have had to spend money on safety measures to help cars avoid gening stuck in
the ~ud at the side of the alley. This ~ud has been created by a shift in drainage patterns as a
result of the alley re-paving. The previous alley pa.ving system had not created problems with
mud. The safety measures taken by the Baha'is thus far have not yet alleviated the problem. We
will need to spend additional resources fol' a solution. likely digging up the mud and laying in
aggregate a food deep from the edge of the alley paving to the side of our building. We wish to
enq~ire whether the City will pay for this necessary repair, or whether the repair costs can be
subtracted from our alley paving assessment total. since this problem was created by the alley
01/30/2008 MON 13 20 [TX/RX NO 8808] ~ 002
01/30/2006 13:21 FAX 541 346 6189
VO EC CARES
141 003
,
pavmg process.
T~k you in advance for your consideration of the above requests.
Sincerely.
I
~~
Jeanine Taylor
Secx;etary
01/30/2008 MON 13: 20 [TX/RX NO 8808] ~ 003
Jan.28, 2006
To: Hearings Officer
Re: W. University Alley Improvement Project
Tax Map 17-03-32-33
TL 14600
JAN :3 0 2006
From: Lila M Padgett
6177 Parkinson Ln.
Columbus, OH 43232
Dear Sir,
I strongly object to the recent assessment on my property. I did not ask for or wish to
have the alley paved which is at the side of my property and seldom used. It has added
no value to my property in any way. After receiving notice that this project would go
forward, there was no indication of the cost involved. This in itself was deceptive.
Being assessed $4,739.55 , which I consider excessive, for 53 ft. frontage is one thing.
However, being assessed an additional $4,656.07 for my "Area" is double taxation on my
property and should not be legal. As I have stated before, this did not 'improve' my
property in any way. I've been told many times that this is the way projects have been
funded for 'many years'. If this is so there must be some reconsideration of this policy as
it in no way is fair or just. It appears that I'm stuck with a whopping bill of$9,395.62
which I cannot afford to pay. In this scenario if the city wished to assess me $100,000 or
$200,000 the burden would be on me to pay it. This is usurping my right to own property
without it being abused by government.
From my phone calls with David Kelly I was informed that the only right to have an
appeal is if there was an error in math by the city. Since the formula for assessment was
never included in any of the correspondence, it would be impossible to determine if there
had been an error in the math. Could it be that this is an intentional oversight on the part
of the city?
Since no other appeal is available to me it appears the city of Eugene has put me in debt
for years and there is nothing that I can do about it, I must bend to whatever the city
wishes. The taxpayers are tired of having the government take our money and do with it
as they please. Of course I shall not be at the hearings as I now live in Ohio but if things
go as they usually do at these hearings the taxpayers will be ignored.
This is a sad day for people who are oppressively taxed at the whim of big government. I
call for some reform in these policies.
Sincerely, ( ~) IV ~
~~! -c 7J} C:L7; ~~
O~
oz
OW
I~
~rr:w
(/)0>
w 0
s~rr:~
0(90...0
ww~rr:
(/)Z.-J~
0>-<(-
o...~oo
0-0
rr:(/).-J
o...rr:>-
Ww
>.-J
Z.-J
:J<(
~
c
CI)
"0 ro
_"w :::::-'0
~ &. .~ Cii
f6 ~ _ w ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 8
Q) Q.l ~ 0
E u';,~ ~Ug
&:: :c ~ .~ .Ql E .~ ~
o c ~ c I 0 c 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ g ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~
c"9 ~ !- !- d- ~ S ~
- - I ~ M ~ ~ ~
~ ~i~.DD~Di
c
Q)
Q)
.-J
~
un
z ~ Ii
o ~ 0
5] >-
;~ ~ II
_2
"0 ~
CI) CIl
e ro ~
c. CI) 0
~ ro al
Q) C C
D CI) CI)
.9 ~ ~
<Jl <Jl <Jl
>- CI) CI)
~ ~ ~
~
CIl
"0
c:
"
o
~m
.~ 8
>.c:
~,g
~.c:
<Jl Cl
/, .~P/7~;~OIJ""!"'^!"' ~ \ ~~
'f\'! ~. ~jjw:: ----., ""
\ ~7YW -
I ITl WY4J/~_
Ii, ~ ~ I I ~BF9~H Il
~ II .c- h1= " I II ,_, Q~ ~B~L:J~
b&" ~~ "~.~.. "El~. r
-1[' w~~ !t1 lEd! I 1r::1r-~ -, 'i:mIIJili"'Id
~--;' Jj, "H ff'1=rl fB't:F,r,:'5Lr !",," "gjrnrr~
bf t= ErI8 :e:I" 1'" grill lIIlIa WI-:'
T -fF f:;f )~ IT IT' ,!,,,,,,,,,..'w EITld d n&
lS lllW
I. ~ ~ itm m ,,,!,,}),}},} ~!
II . ~'H! >>l . '.....: I !
~ ... ..: I
k-(tB~~~ I~ I
I fI lSllVO .
~I~ Wffi : ~ ~l i
)
I ~ ' I
8 lmIWH8VllV
WI-
...JI/) ;;; '" co ". 0> '" 0> 0> ". co ...
~~8 "- Oi co 0 '" "- ;2; '" '" co fil ;2; '" "- ...
,..; co 0> ~ ~ co N C! 0 '" CO 0 N 0> ". 0 CO 0> Ol ,.;
N 0 .,; M N ;:;; a::i 0 ~ .,; cO N .,; " a::i .0 ~ ~ " ;:: .0 0 a::i ..
1-1/)>- CO 0> "- '" Oi "- ". 0> ;J; ~ ~ "- 0 0 ". iil. 0 ~ a; CO
Ol/)w :t 0 ri "- 0 0 '" ". 0 0 CO .,;
1 N .0 a::i N bf .0 N ri bf bf 1 N N ,.: bf ci N 1 ri CO
I-W...J 0> N "- '" 0> '" 0> Ol Ol 0> '" Oi :;l Ol ~ "-.
I/)~ ;;; .,. ;;; .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,.
~ ~
<It
~o:: C)-
-0 0
~C)X;?;~ '" ~ "- CO CO ~ 0 0> N CO ;2; CO
u..;?;~~0:: '" CO "- M CO 0 a; '" "- 0 0 ;::
W...JQ.C)~ N a::i N .0 a::i ~ ~ .,; .,; a::i .,; <Xi ~ 0; .0
;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; N N '" N ~ ;;; ;;; CO ~
~~g~~ .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,.
U;C u..
~C)o
O::I-;?;'-; CO "-co ~~ "- ~;2; Ol "- '" N '"
WZI-o:: '" ~ ~ ~~ ~;2; ~~ "-0 N CO ~:g ~~ !O~ ~~ 0>0> N ~ 0
:x:W:X:o '" ". ".", ". (f)~ ,..; ~ M M~ ~ N CO
.,; 6 ~g CO . ~g CO . ~g ~ ~g Ol . ~o Ol. .,; C;;e Ul;6 " ,..; 6
1-!3!:21- N M 0 NO N ",0 ~~ ~o ,,-0 '" 00 ;;; "-
.,. .,. .,.'" .,.'" .,. .,.'" ~ .,. .,.'" .,.'" .,. .,.'" .,.'" ~.,. ~ .,. .,.
Ol/)WU .,. .,. .,.
l::!~~
o::w
O~C)C!
~u..ZO CO "- ;;1;,,- ~ CO '" CO CO
-O~"" N N N ;;I; '" ;:: "-", "'CO "'CO COM "'CO 0 CO"- Cl; '"
U~:x:O:: '" ~ .0 a::i ,...:~ "-Ol ~CO N". ~ ....:~ tri~ 6 "- '" .'"
<Xi a; ;;;
0:: C)O Ol ;;; N ;;; N "'0 !g &;6 ~g 010 o~ CO ~g 186
W _I- .,. ;;; ;;; ;;; ~ .,. .,.'" N ;;; ~.,. ~.,. ;;; .,.'"
::!;WWU .,. .,. .,. .,.
::!;Z~~
OW-u..
uc)
~f >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
0::0
~~
W
I-C)
Z~-
01-1- >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
O::O!!:.
u..0
u..
W
...JI/)
u..~!z ..
01/)::> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..
. I/) 0 N 0> '" N '" ". ;: "- '" Ol '" CO Ol N CO '" ". .,;
OWU ~
ZI/)U
~~
C):x: 0 0 0> 0 0 '" Ol 0 0 CO CO CO 0 "- 0 0 0 0 0 ..
;?;l;j::' ~ ~ ~ ;: CO
0 CO C! N N N 0 '" ". CO '" '" ". '" 0 '" 0 0 0 ...
~~!!:. <Xi ;;; a::i ;:;; ,..; ~ a::i cO N ,..; 6 ,..; cO N cO cO .0 cO ~ ~ cO ;;; 0 ..
0 M "- '" '" 0 '" ;J; '" '" ~ '" ~ ~ '" '" ~ ...
M M ". N '" M N M '" '" '" M '" '" ..
Q....J
W r it I -' ~
0
~z W 0 0:: C> -'
-' 0:: 0 -' W -' ~ I :1 ....
-' ~ I- -'
-'0 <( -' lL lL <( 0 0 0 I I <( 0 0 0
:!</) -' -' I Z -' l- I- I I ....
lL -' -' <( I- <( l- I- lL I I l- I- I-
::;:0:: -' :1 I <( I 0 ~ <( 0 0 z it ~ ~ -' l- I- I- ~ it it
::;:w <( I I- 0 I- 0 I- 0 <( ~ ~ ~
~~ I 0 0 0 0 ::;: 0 I- 0 </) -' 0 ~ I ::;: 0 -' -'
~ I- .... l- I- 0 0 I- 0 0 0:: -' I- 0 0 0 I- -' -'
lLlL & 0:: I I 0:: 0:: <( 0:: W <( I I l- I- I- 0 <( <(
W I- ~ 0:: I ~ ~ ~ lL 1;; 0:: I lL lL
zO " 0:: 0 t:: :'? lL .... 0 -' l- I I I lL I- -' -'
01- <( r ~ -' z -' <( :'? l- I- I- :'? <( <(
W 0 W -' I 0:: I 52 I lL I ~ ~ ~ & I I
~ fQit lL <( ::;: ::;: ::;: ::;: ::;: ::;:
::;: ::;: ::;: 0 0 ::;: 0:: 0 ::;: ::;: ::;: ::;: ::;: 0 0 ::;: ::;: ::;: 0:: 0 ::;: ::;:
W-' 0 0 0 0:: 0:: 0 W 0:: 0 0 0 ~ 0 0:: 0:: 0 0 0 W 0:: 0 0
~;t lL lL lL lL
Z 0:: 0:: 0:: lL 0:: lL 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: lL 0:: 0:: 0:: lL 0:: 0::
>- <(lL lL lL lL -' -' lL 0 " lL lL lL lL lL -' -' lL lL lL 0 " lL lL
lL-' I -' 0:: I Z I I I I I -' 0:: Z I I
W I I <( iIi I I I (1j
...J 0<( l- I- I- :1 iIi I- <( 0 l- I- l- I- ~ :1 C> C> C> <( l- I-
~ ZI ~ :'? :'? 0 lL ~ Z 0 :'? :'? ~ ~ 0 lL I I I z 0 ~ ~
<(oIl 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 ~ z 0 0
</) 0
~~ z z z <( z Z 0:: <( Z Z Z Z Z <( Z Z Z Z 0:: <( Z Z
<( <( <( & <( <( W -' <( <( <( <( <( r <( <( <( <( W -' <( <(
~-' I I I I I ~ 0:: I I I I I 0:: I -' -' -' ~ 0:: I I
-'<( [;; l- I- 0:: C> I- iIi l- I- l- t;; Sz 0:: C> -' -' -' iIi t:: I-
I~ ~ ~ W I ;:z ~z ~ :'?z W I :1 :1 :1 <( ~
lL lL lL lL lLit lL
z<( z Z z z z zO z z zO z zO z zO z z z z z z-' z z Z
WI W W W W W W</) W W W</) W WfQ W W</) W W W W W W-' W W W
Wo w W W Wit Wit wO:: W W wO:: w Ww Wr wO:: W w W W W W<( W W W
~I- ~ ~ ~ ~W ~I ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ffi ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~::J ~::J ~ wI::: W W W<( W
m m m m m<( m<( mlL m~ m mn. m mn. mlL mn. m m m m m mI m m m
d ~ CO ~ ~ ~ 0 '" ". '" CO "- 0> g N
Z ". ;;; CO 0> ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N ;;; '"
>- '"
W
...J
~
C
t-
Z
w
:E
::I:
~
~
en
I-
Z
W
::e
en
en
w
en
en
<(
>-
W
...J
~
C
o
o
:I:
a::
o
In
:I:
C)
jjj
Z
~
Cii
a::
w
>
Z
:J
I-
en
w
3:
c
w
en
o
Q.
o
a::
Q.
<ri
."
o
o
2'
G
l;;
Q
~
o
U
.j1l
OJ
.s
L:
OJ
.~
Q)
S
u
Jl!
l'!
9
1;;
8
u
~
OJ
.~
'"
ro
~
o
.c
'"
l'!
ro
1;;
8
@
ro
u
c
ro
Q)
OJ
19
~
c:
e
lL
Iii
I-
o
Z
REPORT 10: RPT236SP
MASTER PROJECT #: 2005-01001
PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
'!:.!It.J:.Q'l.'
17033141-00100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033141-00200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033141-00400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033141-00500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033141-00700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033141-01600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033141-02000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033141-13100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033141-13200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-04700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-04800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-04900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-05000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-05100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-05200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-05300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
EXHIBIT C
CONTRACT #: 2005 00030 JOB #: 93004172
ALLEY PAVING LOCATED IN THE WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD GENERALLY BOUNDED
BY WILLAMETTE STREET, 19TH AVENUE, KINCAID STREET, AND FRANKLIN BOULEVARD
T9_TAL _ IMPROV~M~~'l'~()~'l'
$8,182.02
2004 15778
$6,127.81
2004 -11814
$7,152.53
93-271280
$7,307.71
1980 RI078/2954
$15,350.89
1973 R605/21251
$7,858.57
95-65779 & 95-65780
$3,084.06
2002-70209
$31,798.84
91-08660
$12,291.99
95-65790
$34,607.11
86-12627
$5,761. 60
98-684930
$9,153.06
95 -18 96 00
$4,305.12
95-321890
$11,535.71
2005-12523
$11,535.71
95-209840
$8,548.17
2005-66852
()~,EILINFORMATION
2SCH LLC
375 W 4TH AVE STE201
EUGENE OR 97401
OCONNELL MICHAEL R SR
859 WILLAMETTE ST STE320
EUGENE OR 97401
MCCREA ROBERT J & KATHLEEN S
1147 HIGH ST
EUGENE OR 97401
KNOX DAVID F
2131 MCMILLAN ST
EUGENE OR 97405
BARTLE MILDRED C
341 E 12TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
TURNER PROPERTIES PTRSHP
19223 DEHAVILLAND DR
SARATOGA CA 95070
KERSEY DAVID & PATRICIA LYNN
PO BOX 70314
EUGENE OR 97401
BECKLEY-ANDERSON LLC
PO BOX 848
EUGENE OR 97440
TURNER PROPERTIES PTRSHP
19223 DEHAVILLAND DR
SARATOGA CA 95070
SARAH LAND COMPANY
280 E 11TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
KHA INVESTMENTS
1515 OAK ST
EUGENE OR 97401
SARAH LAND CO
1515 OAK ST
EUGENE OR 97401
SQUARE ONE INVESTMENTS
159 E 15TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
VALDEZ CORP
159 E 15TH AVE STEl
EUGENE OR -97401
LOCHNER NANCY
1600 OAK ST
EUGENE OR 97401
OLRICH FAMILY REV TRUST
4849 LOWRY RD
OAKLAND CA 94605
REPORTID:RPT236SP
T1\.XLOT
17033144~05400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~06300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~06400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~07800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~07900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~08000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~08100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~08400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~08500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~08600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~08900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~09200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~09300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~09400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144~09500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144 09800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
AOTAL IM~RQY~MENT AM01[~T
$6,569.18
2004~067839
$17,794.92
96~52379
$18,956.56
95~66645 & 95~65775
$15,910.99
2000~16092
$11,201. 56
99~001119
$9,982.82
90~726200 & 90~726300
$5,457.25
96~184190
$17,889.78
96 ~608170
$15,803.70
1944 245/239
$9,501. 60
88~43700
$8,040.31
2004~37543
$2,692.21
2005~31838
$9,466.16
2000~014663 & 2000~014216
$14,934.90
90~538160
$14,879.02
90~538160
$4,645.07
93~704200 & 94~5336
PAGE: 2
RUN DATE: 2/7/2006
RUN TIME: 12:34:22 PM
OWNER~ INFORz.iATI@
KEATING STEPHEN G
934 LAUREL ST
JUNCTION CITY OR 97448
JACA INVESTMENT LLC
240 E 15TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
CORE PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 4682
PORTLAND OR 97208
BENNETT ROBERT C & JOYCE E
355 CHERRY DR
EUGENE OR 97401
M & A INVESTMENTS LLC
32 E 11TH AVENUE
EUGENE OR 97401
ASHLEY DONALD H
1349 A ST
HAYWARD CA 94541
MCELROY DONALD RAY
120 W 30TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97405
SQUARE ONE INVESTMENTS
159 E 15TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
EUGENE GARDEN CLUB
1645 HIGH ST
EUGENE OR 97401
LEUALLEN HARRY N & JACKIE
PO BOX 50058
EUGENE OR 97405
FREY DARLENE K & HALWORTH RAYBURN
82993 N CLOVERDALE RD
CRESWELL OR 97426
PEPPERMINT PROPERTIES LLC
1345 OLIVE ST
EUGENE OR 97401
CORVALLIS MUSKETEERS LLC
PO BOX 5387
EUGENE OR 97405
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF LANE
COUNTY
360 E 10TH AVE STE104
EUGENE OR 97401
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF LANE
COUNTY
360 E 10TH AVE STE104
EUGENE OR 97401
BURKE SHIRLEY L
40016 VIA GRAZIANA
MURRIETA CA 92562
REPORTID:RPT236SP
'l'AXLOT
17033144-09900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-10000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-10100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-10200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-10400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-10600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-10700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-10800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-11700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-14600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-14800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-14900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-15000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-15100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-15200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033144-15300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
TOTALm_:rz.lI?ROVEMEET_~OUNT
$14,257.34
2002-087239
$8,073.71
2002-08239
$5,103.62
2002-087239
$8,498.53
92-284000
$6,246.45
91-348060
$7,198.25
2005-28220
$10,372.38
2005-28220
$6,713.82
99-032515
$31,116.64
1967 R264/1887 (1966)
$21,898.53
2004-91168
$11,843.63
94-154400
$9,948.72
2005-17561
$18,357.87
91-547570
$9,994.44
2005-13202
$3,478.51
2001-28721
$3,647.87
2001-23805
PAGE: 3
RUN DATE: 2/7/2006
RUN TIME: 12:34:22 PM
QWNER_ INFO:R~~ON
PEARL STREET PROPERTIES LLC
111 W 7TH AVE STE320
EUGENE OR 97401
PEARL STREET PROPERTIES LLC
111 W 7TH AVE STE320
EUGENE OR 97401
PEARL STREET PROPERTIES LLC
111 W 7TH AVE STE320
EUGENE OR 97401
PFUNDER RICHARD R & KAREN H
2052 S SHASTA LP
EUGENE OR 97405
CALCIANO FRANK
1780 POLK #A
EUGENE OR 97402
1577 PEARL STREET LLC
3354 KING EDWARDS CT
EUGENE OR 97401-8513
1577 PEARL STREET LLC
3354 KING EDWARDS CT
EUGENE OR 97401-8513
VERANO ALVARO J REV LIVING TRUST
88844 EVERS RD
ELMIRA OR 97437
OAK INVESTMENT INC
280 E 11TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
BMJ PROPERTIES LLC
13750 SW 27TH CT
BEAVERTON OR 97008
WRIGHT DAVID E & DEBRA J
1397 HAMMOCK ST
EUGENE OR 97401
BAKER GEORGE F
4350 N SHASTA LP
EUGENE OR 97405
BJO PROPERTIES INC
1390 GROSBEAK CT
REDMOND OR 97756
SYRIOS TRUST
1247 VILLARD
EUGENE OR 97403
ANDERSON BRENT H & CONSTANCE H
85520 APPLE TREE CT
EUGENE OR 97405
ANDERSON BRENT H & CONSTANCE H
85520 APPLETREE CT
EUGENE OR 97405
REPORTID:RPT236SP
'l'AXLOT
17033144~15400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~06400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~06600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~06800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~06900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~07000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~07100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~07200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~07300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~07400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~07500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~07600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~07700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~09300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~09400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223~09800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
TOTAL_J:~R~VEMENT~A.].!OUNT
$4,746.91
2005~56024
$10,064.93
96~33798
$33,270.85
97 ~81466
$12,511.05
87~15050
$25,938.69
85~17384
$518.47
2004~60238
$5,868.33
2004~60238
$7,824.90
87~15050
$4,328.92
93~53772
$10,006.17
2004~028884
$12,812.52
2004~028884
$11,976.62
84~24093
$5,804.36
1941 198/145
$14,577.48
89~192220
$11,276.92
87~146550
$11,414.44
2001~07298
PAGE: 4
RUN DATE: 2/7/2006
RUN TIME: 12:34:22 PM
Q~ER INFQB-MATION
HODGES CECIL M
1670 OAK ST
EUGENE OR 97401
KREBS FRANK LEWIS JR TE
1410 W 25TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97405
WILSON CARRIE LINK
235 W 10 AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
DIAMOND JOEL & JULIE
1297 HIGH ST
EUGENE OR 97401
PEACE HEALTH
POBOX 10905
EUGENE OR 97440
TROTTER BETTY
41496 MCKENZIE HWY
SPRINGFIELD OR 97478
TROTTER BETTY
41496 MCKENZIE HWY
SPRINGFIELD OR 97478
DIAMOND JOEL R & JULIE
3161 ELLIOTT AVE
SEATTLE WA 87121
HUNT LAWRENCE J & BONNIE JO
777 NE 2ND ST
CORVALLIS OR 97330
CARMICHAEL ARTHUR C JR & JEAN
1585 GRANT RD
LOS ALTO CA 94024
CARMICHAEL BETA HOUSE LLC
1585 GRANT RD
LOS ALTOS CA 94024
DIAMOND PARKING INC
3161 ELLIOTT AVE
SEATTLE WA 98121
CHI PSI ASSOC OF ALPHA ETA DELTA
12700 SW 72ND AVE
TIGARD OR 97223
WINGARD GAIL A
84320 N ENTERPRISE RD
PLEASANT HILL OR 97455
BENNETT ROBERT D & NORMA J
PO BOX 10342
EUGENE OR 97440
HULT & ASSOCIATES LLC
PO BOX 1340
EUGENE OR 97440
REPORTID:RPT236SP
TAXLOT
17033223-09900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033223-10000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033231-03200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033231-03300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033231-03400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033231-07800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033231-07900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033231-08100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033231-08500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033231-08501 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033231-08502 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-00300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-00400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-00800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-16300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-16400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
TJ>'!'.AL IMI?R.Q'Lp:MENT _AMOU!lT
$ 9 , 3 0.5 . 75
2003-107836
$12,468.78
2001-000514
$23,212.51
2005-24858
$23,212.51
1956-62382
$13,002.73
1941 152/588
$14,350.79
86-33464
$9,561.53
96-451620
$16,851.28
96 -451620
$5,482.49
94-819450
$295.00
94-819450
$10,519.63
2001-21476
$11,595.24
87-35018
$16,065.42
90-49714
$64,417.98
88-21428
$18,148.71
2003-004683
$18,148.71
2003-004683
PAGE: 5
RUN DATE: 2/7/2006
RUN TIME: 12:34:22 PM
QJi'NER I~ORMATION
KENNY LIAM
20 MCQUEEN ST
KATONAH NY 10536
STAFFORD MOLLY R
437 E 11TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
PRESBYTERY OF THE CASCADES
245 SW BANCROFT STED
PORTLAND OR 97239
MCKENZIE RIVER LODGE #195
850 E 14TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
OREGON BETA CHAPTER OF SIGMA ALPHA
EPSILON FRAT
1699 OAK ST
EUGENE OR 97401
ALDER ASSOCIATES OF EUGENE
2201 WILLAMETTE ST STEB
EUGENE OR 97405
WENT WOOD SH LP
PO BOX 11126
EUGENE OR 97440
WENTWOOD SH LP
PO BOX 11126
EUGENE OR 97440
HUGHES LELAND G & J S
PO BOX 5332
EUGENE OR 97405
HUGHES LELAND G & J S
PO BOX 5332
EUGENE OR 97405
UNIVERSITY MANOR LLC
111 W 7TH ST STE320
EUGENE OR 97401
OREGON STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION
PO BOX 488
CORVALLIS OR 97339
PEACEHEALTH MEDICAL
POBOX 10905
EUGENE OR 97440
PEACE HEALTH MEDICAL
POBOX 10905
EUGENE OR 97440
BURRI DENNIS A
PO BOX 826
PLEASANT HILL OR 97455
BURRI DENNIS A
PO BOX 826
PLEASANT HILL OR 97455
REPORT 10: RPT236SP
TAXLOT
17033232-16500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-16600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-16900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-17800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-17900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-18000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-18100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-18400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033232-19500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-00100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-00200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-00400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-00500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-00600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-00700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-01700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
~Q'I',A.L IMPROVEM~I'fT_ AMOUNT
$9,658.45
2005-56626
$7,232.66
2003-106742
$3,470.30
2002-034563
$7,257.66
95-6913700
$11,523.33
97-1854100
$13,464.63
1977 R861/53781
$20,264.26
1977 R861/53781
$6,188.23
95-6913700
$26,060.80
93 -657310
$3,290.55
2002-22516
$661.01
2000-23822
$6,733.03
98-101858
$8,391.16
98-101858
$11,523.33
1976 R757/36951
$3,101.86
2001-072677
$3,470.30
98-33156
PAGE: 6
RUN DATE: 2/7/2006
RUN TIME: 12:34:22 PM
QWNER INFORMAn.Clli
ZIMMER SHAWNITA E & JAMES R
PO BOX 829
CRESWELL OR 97426
NEURELIUS LLC
PO BOX 7608
EUGENE OR 97401
BERG DONALD A
40063 LITTLE FALL CREEK RD
FALL CREEK OR 97438
QUINNEY ROBERT S & LESLIE
1924 KIMBERLY DR
EUGENE OR 97405
LAVE ROY E TE
690 UNIVERSITY
LOS ALTOS CA 94022
EUGENE CITY OF CITY HALL II
858 PEARL ST
EUGENE OR 97401
EUGENE CITY OF CITY HALL II
858 PEARL ST
EUGENE OR 97401
QUINNEY ROBERT S & LESLIE
1924 KIMBERLY DR
EUGENE OR 97405
DIAMOND PARKING INC
3161 ELLIOTT AVE 0928
SEATTLE WA 98121
VIGELAND CHRIS
35608 CAMP CREEK RD
SPRINGFIELD OR 97478
FILLOY RICHARD A TE
3350 FILLMORE
EUGENE OR 97405
OBO ENTERPRISES LLC
1390 GROSBEAK CT
REDMOND OR 97756
OBO ENTERPRISES LLC
1390 GROSBEAK CT
REDMOND OR 97756
OLSON WILLIAM & JANA L
1390 GROSBEAK ST
REDMOND OR 97756
VIGELAND CHRIS
35608 CAMP CREEK RD
SPRINGFIELD OR 97478
BERG DONALD A
40063 LITTLE FALL CREEK RD
FALL CREEK OR 97438
REPORTID:RPT236SP
TAXLOT
17033233-01900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-02000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-02200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-02900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-03000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-03100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-03200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-03400 801
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-03500 801
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-03800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-03900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-04100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-04200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-04400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-04500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-04600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
TOTJ\.I._.J:!o{PROVEME~'L~OUNT
$9,658.45
2002-78799
$9,658.45
1979 RI008/42183
$12,733.90
2004-92251
$4,329.47
94-852630
$13,392.10
99-018479
$13,392.10
2005-8576
$4,329.47
95-45560
$13,392.10
94-57160 & 94-57161
$13,392.10
94-71400
$3,723.95
2003-007464
$4,329.47
91-130040
$13,392.10
97-781940
$8,769.96
97-781940
$6,222.61
2002-022417
$15,056.49
99-095420
$9,833.92
2005-44937
PAGE: 7
RUN DATE: 2/7/2006
RUN TIME: 12:34:22 PM
~WNER INFOR~'l'J:~N
WHITEHURST JOHN R
1913 STATE ST
SANTA BARBARA CA 93101
LOUIE JACK
PO BOX 2617
EUGENE OR 97402
PURVIS MATTOX L JR
880 W 38TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97405
KNUDSEN LUCILLE S TE
PO BOX 2374
FLORENCE OR 97439
DROUET LOUIS DOUGLAS JR TE
PO BOX 25712
EUGENE OR 97402
SYRIOS TRUST
1247 VILLARD
EUGENE OR 97403
JOY LIMITED PTRSHP
2042 HARRIS ST
EUGENE OR 97405
KLINGENSMITH PHILIP M
24600 LAWRENCE RD
JUNCTION CITY OR 97448
KLINGENSMITH PHILIP N 1-2
24600 LAWRENCE RD
JUNCTION CITY OR 97448
BERG BRENDA L
85408 S WILLAMETTE ST
EUGENE OR 97405
SERENITY LANE HEALTH SRVCES
616 E 16TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
NEURELIUS LLC
PO BOX 7608
EUGENE OR 97401
NEURELIUS LLC
PO BOX 7608
EUGENE OR 97401
BERG DALE A
367 W 13TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
BIRCH MANOR APTS
1001 RIVER LP 1
EUGENE OR 97404
NEURELIUS INC
32910 E PEARL ST
COBURG OR 97408
REPORT 10: RPT236SP
TAXLQT
17033233-04700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-04900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-05001 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-05002 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-05300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-05400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-05401 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-06000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-06100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-06200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-06300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-06500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-06600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-07000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-07001 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-07400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
TOT~~IMPRQY~MENT AM~~T
$15,056.49
2005-44937
$4,868.36
95 -583 960
$7,788.06
96-683720
$7,321. 80
97-683730
$15,056.49
2002-007693
$5,469.71
93-461530
$5,495.07
99-016805
$3,976.33
96 -716670
$15,133.11
2000-069547
$11,191.94
R1561-8909687
$13,153.73
2005-67302
$9,234.54
84-28978
$4,000.53
2002-083139
$6,477.41
2002-090724
$10,497.05
87-492400
$18,452.33
2005-8578
PAGE: 8
RUN DATE: 2/7/2006
RUN TIME: 12:34:22 PM
QWNER_ INFQRMATION
NEURELIUS INC
32910 E PEARL ST
COBURG OR 97408
WHITELEY GREGORY T
1430 WILLAMETTE ST 220
EUGENE OR 97401
BAKER GEORGE F
4350 N SHASTA LP
EUGENE OR 97405
BAKER GEORGE F
4350 N SHASTA LP
EUGENE OR 97405
SOMMER LOUIS J TE
555 E 40TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97405
BAKER GEORGE F
4350 N SHASTA LP
EUGENE OR 97405
HACK BETTE J TE
558 E 16TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
WHITELEY GREGORY T
1430 WILLAMETTE ST 220
EUGENE OR 97401
OBO ENTERPRISES LLC
1390 GROSBEAK CT
REDMOND OR 97756
OLSON WILLIAM & JANA L
1390 GROSBEAK ST
REDMOND OR 97756
NEURELIUS LLC
PO BOX 7608
EUGENE OR 97401
REYNOLDS JANET G
35 CHURCH ST
PITTSFORD NY 14534
TINDALL BRADLEY C
2701 E WILSHIRE DR
EUGENE OR 97405
STRINGFIELD MARK A
3887 MEADOW VIEW DR
EUGENE OR 97408
STEVENSON CYRIL A & WENDY
1388 WILLAMETTE ST
EUGENE OR 97401
GALLIC GORDAN
1247 VILLARD
EUGENE OR 97403
REPORTID:RPT236SP
T_~XLOT
17033233-10600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-10700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-10800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-10900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-11000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-11100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-11200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-11600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-11702 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-11800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-14600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-14900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-15000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-15100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-15200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033233-19400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
TOTA.I. _I~P)~OVEMENTAMOtlliT
$3,911.96
2004-41009
$12,166.06
85-64824 & 95-648130
$9,106.34
2003-65359 & 65360
$8,851. 36
2003-65359 & 65360
$6,374.43
2002-91499
$12,166.06
2002 - 91499
$14,867.80
2001-77860
$12,499.93
89-888700
$8,184.37
2004 -70116
$665.03
99-016805
$9,395.62
85-28441
$1,141.47
87-189400
$9,395.62
2002-066942
$9,395.62
2002-066942
$9,572.89
2004-064090
$7,688.36
2005-13205
PAGE: 9
RUN DATE: 21712006
RUN TIME: 12:34:22 PM
OWNEJLINFORz.1ATIO.ti
HAPPY HIPPO LLC
90832 SUNDERMAN RD
SPRINGFIELD OR 97478
MAINWARING SAM ARNOLD TE
970 N PARK AVE
EUGENE OR 97404
GRANADA WILLOWS LLC
453 COVEY LN
EUGENE OR 97401
GRANADA WILLOWS LLC
453 COVEY LN
EUGENE OR 97401
GRANADA WILLOWS LLC
453 COVEY LN
EUGENE OR 97401
DEGENEAULT & ANSLOW INC
1953 GARDEN AVE
EUGENE OR 97403
CARMACK ROY J JR & ROSALIND
7655 THURSTON RD
SPRINGFIELD OR 97478
OLSON WILLIAM & JANA L
1390 GROSBEAK ST
REDMOND OR 97756
ROEHL SITTNER & ROEHL HOLDINGS LLC
PO BOX 11810
EUGENE OR 97401
HACK BETTE J TE
558 E 16TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
PADGETT LILA M
6177 PARKINSON LN
COLUMBUS OH 43232
SCHNIDER JILL
1755 PATTERSON ST
EUGENE OR 97401
DEGENEAULT LEWIS ALLEN REVOCABLE LIV
TR
3875 MEADOW VIEW DR
EUGENE OR 97408
DEGENEAULT LEWIS ALLEN REVOCABLE LIV
TR
3875 MEADOW VIEW DR
EUGENE OR 97408
THOMPSON MARGARET PEGGY
212 LAUREL ST STE202
SANTA CRUZ CA 95060
SYRIOS TRUST
1247 VILLARD
EUGENE OR 97403
REPORTID:RPT236SP
'r1.XLOT
17033234-00100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033234-00200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033234-00300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033234-00400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033234-00900 801
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033234-01100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033234-01200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033234-01300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033234-01400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
17033234-01500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030522-01300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030522-01600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030522-01700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030522-02000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030522-02100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030522-03300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
TQTAL IMPB()VEM];:l!~AMO{1N~
$13,002.73
1941 134/352 & 133/353
$6,501.37
2005-58232
.$4,162.75
2005-58232
$10,251. 97
1941 149/146 & 150/100
$18,419.66
R1265/83-35349
$9,283.34
88 -672100
$7,567.94
2001-21476
$8,425.63
2001-21476
$8,425.63
2003 -119017
$11,185.63
97-845230
$10,661. 77
99-19395
$12,483.92
97-746180
$12,399.47
2003-022396
$8,271. 82
90-859700
$15,948.80
1953 79756
$14,723.08
2005-70705
PAGE: 10
RUN DATE: 217/2006
RUN TIME: 12:34:22 PM
~W~ER_~!9RMATION
DELTA SIGMA FRATERNITY
1699 OAK ST
EUGENE OR 97401
FRICHETTE/SCHAEFER LLC
PO BOX 50937
EUGENE OR 97405
FRICHETTE/SCHAEFER LLC
PO BOX 50937
EUGENE OR 97405
PSI ALPHA OF CHI OMEGA
76351 MOSBY CREEK RD
COTTAGE GROVE OR 97424
SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF BAHAIS
PO BOX 10743
EUGENE OR 97440
MAK RICK & MARGARET FAYE
1597 HACKAMORE WAY
EUGENE OR 97401
UNIVERSITY MANOR LLC
111 W 7TH ST STE320
EUGENE OR 97401
UNIVERSITY MANOR LLC
111 W 7TH ST STE320
EUGENE OR 97401
FOX MURIEL C TR
1669 COPPING ST
EUGENE OR 97404
CHRISTIE JUDITH ANN
771 W 52ND AVE
EUGENE OR 97405
HODGES CECIL M & HELEN
1670 OAK ST
EUGENE OR 97401
GRAY BALlE BERNICE
12115 NW 10TH AVE
VANCOUVER WA 98685
VANNETT MICHAEL
2526 34TH ST
SPRINGFIELD OR 97477
SCHAFLER N & M
2610 BAKER BLVD
EUGENE OR 97403
HELIKSON LLOYD W & DORIS
2550 LAWRENCE ST
EUGENE OR 97405
ALLEN SHERYL
1601 HARPER ST
SANTA CRUZ CA 95062
REPORTID:RPT236SP
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004172 - WEST UNIVERSITY NEIGH. ALLEYS
TAXLOT
,!,()TAL . IMP!l.OVEMENT _AMO~T
TOTAL ACCOUNTS = 160
TOTAL AMOUNT = $1,752,827.44
PAGE: 11
RUN DATE: 2/7/2006
RUN TIME: 12:34:22 PM
c:'-WNE!l. I.l"FOR~TI()N"
I Back I
Print Report