HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20474C�Z�I�P [�3l_5�7.�]l.l_1,L�1�.D1'W_ -3� �A
COUNCIL BILL NUMBER 5045
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PAVING
AND CONSTRUCTING CURBS, SIDEWALKS, MEDIANS
STREET LIGHTS, STORM WATER DRAINAGE, AND
WATER QUALITY FACILITIES ON CREST DRIVE FROM
BLANTON ROAD TO LINCOLN STREET, STOREY
BOULEVARD FROM CREST DRIVE TO LORANE
HIGHWAY, AND FRIENDLY STREET FROM LORANE
HIGHWAY TO 28TH AVENUE; AND PROVIDING AN
IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
(CONTRACT 20096 -30) (JOB #4546)
ADOPTED: May 25,2011
SIGNED: May 25,2011
PASSED: 6/2
OPPOSED: Mike Clark, Pat Farr
EFFECTIVE: May 25, 2011
ORDINANCE NO, 20474
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PAVING AND
CONSTRUCTING CURBS, SIDEWALKS, MEDIANS STREET LIGHTS,
STORMWATER DRAINAGE, AND WATER QUALITY FACILITIES ON
CREST DRIVE FROM BLANTON ROAD TO LINCOLN STREET,
STOREY BOULEVARD FROM CREST DRIVE TO LORANE
HIGHWAY, AND FRIENDLY STREET FROM LORANE HIGHWAY TO
28TH AVENUE; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
(CONTRACT 2009 -30) (JOB #4546)
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. This project was initiated by Council action on September 8, 2008, pursuant to
Section 7.160(5) of the Eugene Code, 1971 (EC). The preparation of plans and specifications
and call of bids for construction of the local improvements were based on Council action taken
on June 22, 2009, pursuant to EC 7.160(5). The local improvements consist of paving and
constructing curbs, sidewalks, medians, street lights, stormwater drainage and water quality
facilities on Crest Drive from Blanton Road to Lincoln Street, Storey Boulevard from Crest
Drive to Lorane Highway, and Friendly Street from Lorane Highway to 28 Avenue.
B. After due notice and a public hearing before the hearings official on May 28,
2009, and continuing the public hearing before the City Council on June 15, 2009, the City
Council formed the Local Improvement District and, on June 22, 2009, authorized construction
of the local improvement.
C. The actual cost of the local improvement is ascertained to be $4,357,806.88, and
the amounts to be assessed to, and borne by, the specially benefited property, and the amounts to
be borne by the City or others, have been determined in accordance with applicable provisions of
the Eugene Code, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by
reference.
D. The City Council has established the method of calculating local improvement
assessments in EC 7.170 and 7.175.
E. On February 15, 2011, a public hearing on the Ordinance, as required by Section
28(2) of the Eugene Charter of 2002, was held before the hearings official as authorized by EC
2.007(4) and 7.187. More than ten days prior to the scheduled public hearing before the hearings
official a, notice containing the information required by EC 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. The hearings official considered the assessment report of the City
Engineer and Finance Officer and the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing.
Ordinance - Page 1 of 3
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 ) of the Eugene
Charter of 2002.
G. The Council has reviewed and considered the assessment report of the 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 made a part of the Council's record in
these proceedings, and the hearings official's findings, including those regarding compliance
with EC 7.160 to 7.190, attached as Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference, are
adopted.
Section 2 . The actual assessable cost of the local improvement comprised of paving, and
constructing curbs, sidewalks, medians, street lights, stormwater drainage and water quality
facilities, on Crest Drive from Blanton Road to Lincoln Street, Storey Boulevard from Crest
Drive to Lorane Highway, and Friendly Street from Lorane Highway to 28 Avenue is
$1,320,175.92, which is assessed against the parcels of property hereinafter described on Exhibit
C in the amounts set opposite, respectively.
Section 3 . The City Council hereby determines and assesses each lot and part of lot
within the described local improvement district as set forth on the assessment roll attached as
Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4 . The City Council hereby determines that each parcel of land or lot described
above is specially benefited to the extent of the assessment set forth. The Finance Officer shall
give notice of the assessments to the owners of the assessed parcels and inform them that the
assessment may be paid in full, without interest, within ten days of the effective date of this
Ordinance. Assessments that remain unpaid after the ten day period are declared to be liens
upon the respective lots, parts of lots or parcels of land against which said several amounts are
assessed, and may be paid, with interest on the unpaid principal amount commencing ten days
after the effective date of this Ordinance:
4.1 In up to thirty semi - annual installments, including principal and interest at the
rate set by the City Manager as provided in EC 2.022 through 2.024.
4.2 If the property owner so elects, up to 180 monthly installments, including
principal and interest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in EC 2.022 through
2.024 plus a service charge determined by the City Manager as provided in EC 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:
Ordinance - Page 2 of 3
5.1 A description of each lot, part of lot or acreage specially benefited by the local
improvement;
5.2 The name of the owner or reputed owner thereof, or that the name of the
owner is unkn own; and
5.3 The sum assessed upon said property, the amount and date from which
interest accrues, and the date of entering the same in the docket of City Liens.
Section 6 . Upon enactment of this Ordinance, the City Finance Officer shall send notice
of the assessments by first class mail to the owners of the assessed parcels containing the
information required by EC 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 this improvement.
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 pursuant to Section 32(2) of
the Eugene Charter of 2002.
Passed by the City Council this
25 day of May, 2011
Approved by the Mayor this
62 S day of May, 2011
Mayor
Ordinance - Page 3 of 3
- • ' : - Exhibit
. CITY OF EUGENE (PROD)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM - -
93004546 w CREST AREA ST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PATTINGo CURBS, SIDEWALKS, MEDIANS, STREET LIGHTS, STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND WATER
PROJECT LEGAL: QUALITY FACILITIES ON CREST DR FROM BLANTON RD TO LINCOLN ST STOREY BOULEVARD
FROM CREST DR TO LORANE HIGHWAY, AND FRIENDLY ST FROM LORANE HIGHWAY TO 28TH AVE.
CONTRACT NU MBER: ' 2009 - -00030
JOB NUMBER: 93004546
ASSESSABLE:_ `
128 PENDING $1, 320,176.92
24 HOLD $303,733.48
0 LIEN DEFERRED $0.Q0
ASSESSABLE' TOTALS: : 152
. $1,623.918,40
CITY SHARE: -
CITY PAVING $1,482,512.43
CITY STORM $1,043 ■ 856.49'
LOW'INCOME SUBSIDY $207,527.56
CITY SH TOTALS
0 1 733 1 896.48
TOTAL COST OF PROJECT:
$4 e 357,806.88_ .
B
• ' FiNw .Gs ADD �C 3M�� . r '
I ,
■SUIMECT. PROPOSED SAL ASSESSMENT FOR Il1IPRO EMEN TS F •
. o R
.. 'AVM ,. CONSTi TO `INO -C�S3 .S.1DEWALRS MED
L$I. �A S3 X71 �.l:iT
. ION� � . : •A;TE� OE � wA1�R UA�I.T`Y
FACIU TIES. ON CREST D*vE ROM BL N ROAD = .0 'N:� 0.LN` . _
STREET,. $TO.REY BOULEV'A� E M C E T D T L 'N
r _ • ■ o .
16GHWAY, AND FRIENDLY STf EIZT kR LQRA-NE
6M
HIGHWAY T.0. .
.28 AVENUE. 'JOB #4546 ) (CONTRACT - 200- -
• .Ar►.OK R� . QUND
r
The background of this ro'ect is discussed extensive) in. the )Memorandum m C ft -
p 3 y frc the y
Eng L.W. The Hearings Officer finds that adequate and inco • orates that discussion by.
• reference. .
E RLQ M - CT
The stmt improvements consist of 18 -foot vide paving two 9 -fv •t vide travel sare is with
-
�
curbs, concrete walk, street lights at pedestrian crossings, traffic .calming (speed tables, phicanes,
chokers, medians, and trafc circles), street trees, and storniwater drainage system with
stormwater.. qualfty facilities ;
ASSESSMENT
Costs were distributed as - required by the Eu ehe section 7..175. This distribution was the
distribution process recommended at the time of the formation of the District by the H
. Official,. and approved by the Council.
Below are' the final assessable unit costs:
• Paving 9 -foot (per front foot) $ 121.95'
Sidewalk and drive aprons (per square fo ot) $ 2.58
Total Assessable Cost $ 1
Total City'Cost: who Lew income Subsidy: $ 2,5 -20 ;33'9:1
Low Income Subsidy -- 24 $ 1
Delayed Assessments •- 24 $ 303,594.34
Total Project Cost $ 4
Property owners of vacant or fully developed lots zoned single family residential under a half
acre pay for actual frontages- up to a maximum assessable frontage of 100 feet and not less than a
frontage of 50 feet. This means that, if a property of this type has less than 50 feet of frontage '
PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CREST DRIVE AND PORTIONS OF FRIENDLY STREET -AND
STOREY BOULEVARD
P age I
f
i.e. - a flag lot) the property isas`ses dR f6r 50 feet &`frorita Iii the same way a -large parcel
with more than 100 feet of frontage is assessed for only the fast 100 feet of frontage.
for a part"ally dt�e oped resideritia�. Tot -ovor a: half acre, vv th front faota a greater than 100 feet,
the property ow4 finer. is - assessed for 100 front feet-of. & ntEige . at- the time -- of finial, assessment. If
• the 1'ot fu�rt er &velop s , then "delayeal a sessruetit' will' be� duo for the portion of the frontage
over 100 feet. v`aoant - residenfial dt� .over haif� .. acre p ay no a9sessin at the time of final
assessnierit, but an-equ,valent assessneent for the �fuli Frontage is due at the .ttmp. of development.
Also as provided in City Code, although much of the project has sidewalk built on just one side. .
of the street, properties on both sides of the street will be assessed for the sidewalk. A.ssessrrient
information about the sidewalks was made available for each property at the LID formation
hearing held on May 28, 2009.
The - City also accepted donations from the public to be used to reduce the assessments on this '
project. As of January. 1 2011, $5,575 - in donations had been received by the City and the
proposed assessments notices mailed to the property owners reflect this amount. Donations
continue to be accepted until the end of business on February, 15, 2011. Final assessment bills
may he oWe. r than in the Notice of Proposed - Assessments to. account - for donations rece`ved after
January J S.
At the time of the formation of the LID, based on the bids received, an estimated assessment cast
was presented to the Council. The estimated assessments were highe"r than the final proposed
assessment.
Paving 9 -foot (per front foot) $ 133.63
Sidewalk and drive aprons (per square foot) $ 5.34
Total Estimated Assessable Cost $ 2,025,907.11
Total Estimated .City Cost: $1,765,469.23
'fatal Estimated Project Cast $ 3,791,376.34
CITY SHARE OF COSTS
Pursuant to City Code, the City is paying. the largest share of 'the proj ect costs. Th6 City's share
of the project cost is� higher than. the original estimates: This. is due in. part to the Council's
decision to use the differential- between the projected cost of the project and the bid- costs of the
. project to reduce the assessments, rather than to reduce the city's costs. Increased costs were
also due to the additional road base needed in some areas of the construction, in in asphalt
prices, and additional engineering ' costs caused -by the extended period of construction. .
LOW INCOME SUBSIDY
PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CREST DRIVE AND PORTIONS OF FRIENDLY STREET AND
STOREY BOOLEVARD
Page 2
Of the. 1 28 properties. .in -the LID, owners of 24, properties qualify for a subsidy under the low -to--
moderate income subsidy program. This City funded subsidy program is 'available to property
owners who occupy a single family dwelling or duplex and meet other program criteria. The
income levels for the subsidy - program are based on the current Lane County Median Family
Income. The total cost for the low income subsidies is $172,
110. 84
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The City, is also responsible at this time for the cost of the delayed assessment of large lots. Lots
that have more than 100 feet of front footage are only assessed for the first 100 feet of frontage.
Based on the assumption that these lots may develop more .in the future, the - assessment of the
additional frontage is not done at this tine, but is delayed until -the time when the property
divides or further develops. This helps reduce the pressure for the division of these large lots
that would otherwise be increased by..the large assessment.
PUBLIC COMMENT
This project has maintained a high level of public involvement: since its inception. During
construction, the city engineers continued to meet with residents within the LID to discuss issues
and questions. After completion of the project, the Cit sent the required notice of a hearing to
all property owners. A hearing was held on February 15, 2011. The minutes of that hearing are
attached as Exhibit A.
As intended, the hearing, and correspondence received before and after the hearing, brought forth -
mostly persons who had questions or concerns about the proposed assessments.
Assessment policy is governed by law, lavers that must be in place prior to the time the Local
Improvement District is created. The Council sets the policies. Local Iamprovement District
assessments, like every other method local governments use to cover the cost of providing
services to local residents are not popular with some people.
The legal justification. for assessing ,properties within a local improvement district is that these
properties are specially benef tied for the improvements. This means that there is an *identifiable
benefit to the property that is measurably different than the benefit to properties outside the
district. In the case of the Crest Neighborhood improvements, the Council identified the benefit
as being adjacency to .the streets being improved. This is a common measure: no matter how
many others occasionally or regularly use the improved streets, those adjacent to the street
benefit the most from the improvements. This is not just measured in terms of access and
frequency of use; new streets are quieter and safer, and for streets such as those in this project,
the traffic calming devices make it a friendlier neighborhood as well.
As benefitted properties, the properties within the district are expected to bear a share of the cost
of the improvement. The allocation of the project costs between property assessments and other
financing sources is a policy decision for the Council. The Council has made a set of general
decisions on how the costs of a project should be distributed. These are the local improvement
PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CREST DRIVE AND PORTIONS OF FRIENDLY STREET AND
STOREY BOULEVARD
Page 3
district 'provisians in Section '7 of tho Eugene Code. These include decisions on how. the benefit
of a local street improvement, differs from the benefit of a collector street improvement, and
decisions such as the one that flag lots derive a. benefit that is greater than the simple front
footage of the property. In addition to these general provisions the Council took several. policy
steps to reduce the assessment burden on local property. owners for this project. -
All of this is relevant as a background for evaluating most of the comments and correspondence
that was submitted at the public hearing.
Several of the property owners who raised objections were essentially objecting to* the
assessment policies in place. The correspondence from Mr. Branch, Ms. Rowland, the
Mayberrys and. Mr. Hope can be placed in this category. These policy objections cannot be dealt
with at. this time. It is certainly outside the scope of the Hearings Official's responsibilities to
change the Eugene Code, -or to decide that these assessments, which are consistent with the - .
Code, should be altered or nullified at this stage of the process.
Mr.. Branch and Mr. Hope own undeveloped lots that are too small to qualify for the deferred
assessment offered larger lots: Their situation is exacerbated, in their minds, by the fact that they
are being- assessed for flag Tots, with the required. minimum So foot frontage requirement.
The Mayberrys and Ms. Rowland simply object to the policies that were in place at the time the
District was formed. These policies were set before the District was created, were in effect at the
time the District was created and cannot be changed once the process is started. To change
would require reformation of the district, which cannot now be done. This categorization of
these remarks is not intended as a diminution of the comments; the validity of some of then- is
illustrated by the fact that the council has since reexamined some of these same questions and
has changed the assessment policies. The fact is, however, that the final assessments must be
calculated based on the policy - directions made before the district is established.
Several comments were submitted asking that the City recognize the difficult financial situation
that some residents within the Crest Neighborhood are facing. while the - people raising the
question ' may have changed, this issue vas- raised when the Council established the district and.
authorized construction to begin. The City has policies concerning love income assistance. It is
possible that some of the concerns were met by the information that the pity was keeping the
low income deferral program open for persons who might be qualified because of last year's
income. The City is also offering to finance the assessment through the Bancrofting process.
While this does not excuse persons from paying, it does offer some options for moderate. income
persons that may help to deal with the financial burden of the assessment.
Finally, there is the category of concerned residents who live along the uphill side of Friendly
and are facing runoff problems. Several qualifying statements need to be acknowledged before
an analysis of their objections can be made. The runoff in . question is drainage from the private
properties adjacent to Friendly (and perhaps from other properties .uphill.) The City does have a
stormwater program and this project included public stormwater improvements.
PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CREST DRIVE AND PORTIONS OF FRIENDLY STREET AND
STOREY BOULEVARD
Page 4
The City reconnected private stormwater systems to the public stormwater system that already.
existed and made use of the public stormwater system. The City did not eliminate existing
private stornnwater systems during this project. Some of the concerned property owners argued
that prior to the improvements the runoff from .their properties ran onto Friendly Street. but it is
now blocked by the raised level of the street and the curb that -was installed. It is not clear that.
this is the case, because if the -water had been flowing across the right of way before the
Improvements were made, then the system would have been designed to accommodate this flow.
Whether or not the runoff from these .private properties was getting onto the street, it is.. clear that
the issue here involves dealing with private runoff that is now confined to private property.
Some of the.property owners suggested that they assumed that, because the City project included
stormwater work, their private needs would be accommodated. The City's. actions during the
design phase may have created the impression that this was possible, because the City did plan
on taking on responsibility for dealing with existing private stormwater drain systems. But
nothing in the final design included any elements to deaf. With the problem.. Before the project
was completed the issue was raised and City staff discussed - the options of the property owners
along Friendly who are now objecting. As late in the project as the nearly final construction
work of installing traffic control devices; City staff contacted the property owners along Friendly
and offered to assist with the develoment of a: private stormwater . system that would cross
Friendly and drain into the City stormwater system on the downhill side of Friendly. All of these
offers from the City were made consistent with current City policy, that the private stormwater
system would be installed at the property owners expense.
The property owners declined. Now the property owners are seeking to have the City take on the
expense of constructing a system, or reducing the assessment by the estimated cost of the
stormwater system that would need to be constructed.
This request by the property owners mixes assessment policy apples with what might be termed
private equity oranges. The street assessments are for public improvements. what, these
property owners are asking for is that public dollars be converted to pay for a private system.
The policies have some. flexibility built in; to allow,.. for example, for private work to be done
during the project and for a private assessment to be added- to the public assessment. But there is
no set of existing policies in Chapter 7 that can be stretched to accommodate what these property
owners are asking:
None of the issues raised by residents within the Local Improvement District concern. issues that
the hearing is designed to deal with. while some of the issues raised did concern that amount of
property being assessed, none showed an error in implementing current policy direction on
assessments. All the requests were for the application of a different, non - existent, policy.
p p
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Notice of the public hearing was provided and all the property owners were given an opportunity
to participate in the hearings.
PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CREST DRIVE AND PORTIONS OF FRIENDLY STREET AND
STOREY BOULEVARD
Page 5
Appropriate notice was given of the public hearing and pending Council action, as required by
the Eugene Charter and Code. 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 Hearings Officer finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local
improvements. as set forth in ORS 3 10.4 1 0 because
1. The assessments do not exceed actual costs;
2. The assessments are imposed fora.. capital construction project that provides a
specific benefit for a specific property or rectifies a problem caused by a. specific
prop.rty
30 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 lust ten (10) years.
In this instance the City is offering fifteen year financing which exceeds the minimum, statutory
requirement o f ten years.
The Hearings Official also finds that it was infeasible to build sidewalks on both *sides of the
street in the LID and accomplish the desired neighborhood outcomes for the project and to
protect natural features that would have been disturbed by changes to the existing topography.
Therefore, pursuant to the Eugene Code; it is appropriate that ro p erties on both sides of the
p p
street improvements be assessed for a portion of the sidewalk improvements.
The Bearings 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 - Council, levying the assessment a . set forth by the City Engineer.
Respectfully submitte
,0� 00�
Milo Mecham
Hearings Official
March 23, 2011
PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CREST DFIVE AND PORTIONS OF FRIENDLY STREET AND
STOREY BOULEVARD
Page 6
Exhibit A
MINUTES
Proposed Final Assessment for Improvements for Paving and other Street Improve ments
on Crest Drive from Blanton road to Lincoln Street, Storey Boulevard from Crest D rive
to Lorane Highway and Friendly Street from Lorane Highway to 28 Avenue Job 4546
February 15, 2011 Public Hearing
The hearing began at 6:04 pm in the Eugene City Council 'Chamber. There were
seven 'members of the public present. City Engineer Mark Schoening was present, as was
Project Engineer Jenifer Willer.,
The Hearings Officer began the - hearing with a description of the . project history
and .the possible future actions. Construction of the project having been completed, the
purpose of the current hearing. was to consider recommendations to the Council for the
levying of .assessments for the costs of the proj ect..The Hearings Official explained that
the purpose of this hearing was to gather continents and deal with questions prior to
submitting material to the Council for a final decision on the assessments.
The Hearings Officer then invited City Mark Schoening to describe the:
project and the proposed assessments. The City Engineer began by providing -the
background of the project, starting from the Council's direction to the City Manager to
implement the Crest Drive Neighborhood Context Sensitive Solutions process in May
2006. City Engineer Mark Schoening briefly described the extent of the improvements
made and then turned to the questions related to the calculation of the final assessments.
City Engineer Mark Schoening reminded the audience that this project was
unique in that the Council had established a procedure for the City to take donations. to
defray the cost of the assessments. Because the date to end acceptance of donations was
after .the date. when the notices of proposed assessments were sent, there was still - the
possibility that the assessments would be reduced, but this would probably not change the
assessments significantly. The City Engineer also explained the special subsidy that the
Council had added to the project, reflecting the City's savings because the project came
in under the engineer's projected cost. This subsidy mounted to the City contributing
Y �' g
$273,595 to the portion that would have otherwise been assessed to the property owners
within the local improvement district.
The City Engineer also explained that the final costs of the project, and therefore
the final assessments were lower than projected when the district was formed.
• The City Engineer also described public input received prior to the hearing. The
Engineering Office had received sixteen communications, consisting of letters, emails
and phone calls. Most of these had been resolved by a follow up from the Engineering
Office.
Crest Drive, Storey Blvd, Friendly St. LID assessments Page I
One area of concern raised in the letters received had to do with the question of
assessing for both sides of the street for sidewalks conscted on only one side of the
street along portions of the improvement, The ,City's response to the inquiry had been to
point out that the City's intent to construct sidewalks on only one side had been made
clear at the start of the project.
After the City Engineer's remarks, the Hearings Official invited the public to
make their remarks or ask questions. The first member of the public to testify was
Leonard Bailey. Mr. Bailey lives on Friendly . Street, and indicated that *he was speaking
for several of his neighbors as well.
Mr. Bailey indicated that he wished to appeal the assessment. Mr. Bailey referred
to correspondence between the City Engineer staff and Steve Hecker, one of the
neighbors who shared the. concerns of Mr. Bailey. The issue concerns. storm water runoff
from several properties along Friendly street. Prior to the improvements some portion of
P p
the stormwater runoff from the Bailey's property and the Hecker property and some
others apparently ran onto the right of way.of Friendly Street from off the private
property. This was not through. any engineered drainage system but front the natural
course of runoff during weather events. The design of Friendly Street as it has been
unproved does not allow for much runoff to get to the street from uphill properties. In
the correspondence to which Mr. Bailey referred, the City had offered to provide some
assistance, in the farm of waiving the permit fees for a private stormwater system, and
had offered during construction to modify the project to accommodate a private storm
drain connection to the City's storm drainage system along Friendly, but only as a private
y Y p
assessment where the costs are borne by the private property owners. .
Mr. Bailey felt that he and his neighbors were being denied access to the
stormwater system. Mr. Bailey explained that the new street was higher than the
previous street had been, and that the City had. restricted drainage from his property onto
the street. Mr. Bailey stated that he thought that the new street was beautiful, -and that the
engineering staff had been good to work with. But he felt that the 'current situation was
unfair and punitive.
Mr. Bailey t pointed out that he and his *neighbors are paying - stornlwater fees, but
are being prohibited from using the storm drain system. Mr. Bailey would like the City
to put in a stormwater drainage system to deal with the problems that the construction has
caused, or to reduce the individual assessments to reflect the cost to fix the drains e
g
problems. Ar. Bailey indicated that, since the improvements he has had two and a half
feet of 'water standing in his front yard during storm events.
City Engineer Mark Schoening responded that he felt the discussion, and what the
City had offered in light of the circumstances was outlined in the correspondence that Mr.
Bailey had mentioned in his testimony.
Crest Drive, Storey Blvd, Friendly St. LID assessments Page 2
The. next person to address the hearing. was Michael Boutette; also a resident of
Friendly Street. Mr. Boutette began by saying that the felt that the street was working
well, and that the sidewalk - was attractive. Mr. Boutette did, however, raise some
concerns, similar to those raised by 1. r. Bailey. Mr. Boutette pointed out that during . the=
design. process the Friendly Street neighbors were told that stormwater issues would be
addressed during the project. Mr. Boutette explained that the new street was six inches
higher than it had been previously, so that the water from his property could not get to the
street. Mr-. Boutette also stated that the City did not want the water pumped onto the
street, which has resulted in increased standing water on his property.
Mr. Boutette indicated that having to pay the assessment and additional costs to
deal with the runoff problem was a hardship. Mr. Boutette indicated that he was
unemployed and was trying to finish a degree program. Mr. Boutette asked the City to
lower the assessment to accommodate the runoff problems that we - re caused by the new
street design.
The- next person to address the hearing was Cathryn Treadway. Ms- .Treadway
began by indicating that she was on the street design team for the project. She indicated
that the project had .included design elements that -had fixed the stormwater drainage
problems on her property, Ms. Treadway indicated that recently the neighborhood
association had been contacted by property owners whose financial condition had
worsened during the project. The concern was that they had lost an opportunity to seek
the Jow income assistance that had been offered at the beginning of the project. Ms.
Treadway requested that there be a case --by -case review 'of eligibility because the project
had taken longer than the two years originally projected.
City Engineer Mark Schoening indicated that the City had sent letters in
November 20 10 informing property owners that the City would consider 201 o income
levels in making the decision concerning eligibility for low income assistance.
The next speaker was Kathy Saranpa. Ms. Saranpa introduced herself as the co-
chair of the neighborhood association. Ms. Saranpa began by calling attention to the fact
that during the course of the project, property values had decreased by . more than twenty
percent. She was that the projected closure of Crest Drive elementary would
further reduce property values. Ms Saranpa expressed her concern that these factors,
combined with the improvement assessments would cause a further decline in the
neighborhood. Ms. Saranpa concluded by saying that she would like Council to direct
staff to do a case -by -case review of each property owner's situation.
No other persons asked to speak. Because City Engineer Mark Schoening had
made reference to concerns about assessing properties on both sides of the street for the
sidewalks on only one side of the street, the Hearings Official asked Mr. Schoening to
explain why the sidewalks had been designed that way, and why the Engineer felt that it
was appropriate to assess both sides of the street for the sidewalks. City Engineer Mark
Schoening explained that the sidewalk design had been a part of the process to preserve
the themes and values of the neighborhood during the design Orocess. The
Crest Drive, Storey Blvd, Friendly St. LID assessments . Page 3
neighborhoods had wanted to- preserve the walkable character of the neighborhood while
also maintaining the. character of the current streets 'in the improvement area. There had
been a strong desire to avoid putting in large retaining walls, or making deep cuts in
uphill banks. Since this would have been necessary if the normal standards of sidewalks
on both sides were to- have been met, it was decided that a single sidewalk was preferred.
There being no further questions or comments, the. hearing was adj oumed at 6:404
In response to remarks -that additional property owners had wanted to testify, but had not
been able to do so, the Hearing record was left open until January 22 for the submission
of additional wr"tten statements.
Four additional communications were received after the hearing, all raising
objections to the assessments. -
An email was received from James Branch. Mr. Branch objected to the proposed
assessment because. of the particular character of his property. The property is connected
to Storey Boulevard by a long narrow strip of land, which is not used to actually access.
the - parcel. The parcel has frontage on Madison Street and a private easement to Lorane
Highway. Mr. Branch also claims an error in that the property is being assessed - a
driveway apron., when in fact no driveway apron was constructed. Finally, Mr. Branch
claims that there is no benefit to his- property from the storm water improvements made in
the project because he expects that the City will require on --site improverents to prevent
runoff from getting to the street when the property is developed. .
Project Engineer Jenifer wirier has discussed these matters with Mr. Branch. The
property is not being assessed for stormwater improvements. The stormwater
improvements are being paid for by the City. Because Mr. Branch's property is
undeveloped, it does not qualify for the- provision that applies to developed residential
parcels and provides that a developed residential parcel will only be assessed for the
primary access where there is more than one access to the property. Mr. Branch's
property is being assessed- because it abuts Story Boulevard and is a part -of the local
improvement district.. The category of assessments for sidewalks and drive way aprons,
does not mean that every property got a.driveway. apron.. It simply reflects the category
of improvements for which all properties are being assessed.
An, email was received from Bethani and Steve Mayberry. Bethani Mayberry was
present at the hearing but chose not to say anything at that time. In the email the
Mayberrys' express continuing disagreement with the assessment process and with their
assessment. Their objections are based on their perception that during the assessment
process they were told that the process could not be changed so that other persons who
use the improved street, such as those who live in cul -de -sacs would be subject to
assessment. But that soon after the Crest Drive improvements were initiated, the
assessment process was changed to include those who were previously excluded. The
Mayberrys also identified the financial hardship that the assessments will create for. their
family.
Crest Drive, Storey Blvd, Friendly St. LID assessments Page 4
Project Engineer Jenifer Willer has been in contact with the Mayberrys. Their
complaint focuses - on the policy decisions made by the Council .in setting up the
assessment process. Staff is not able to alter these policy directions.
A letter was received from Mary Rowland. Ms. Rowland objects because she -.
feels that the assessment rules are not being applied evenly. Ms Rowland points to what
she sees as disparate treatment among her neighbors. She describes one neighbor who is
not assessed, apparently because they have recently sold the panhandle that provided
access, and are now reliant on a private easement for access. Ms Rowland also compares
her situation with her neighbor, who is, she claims, paying half the amount of her
assessment. Finally, Ms. Rowland argues that she should not be charged for her street
frontage because she uses another easement for actual access to the street. Ms. Rowland
argues that she should not be assessed because her primary access is through her
easement across the neighbor's property.
Project Engineer Jenifer Willer has been in contact with Ms. Rowland. Ms.
Rowland's property abuts Friendly Street, and does not abut any other street. Under the
definitions of the Eugene Code concerning primary access, Ms. Rowland does not qualify
for an exemption to the assessments for her property. The neighbor to whom Ms.
Rowland .refers was assessed a different amount because the neighbor's front footage is
less than Ms. Rowland's.
A letter was received from Ari hope concerning properties on Storey Boulevard..
Mr. Hope wishes to appeal the assessment charges on three properties, which he indicates
are not developed and are serving as what he characterizes as a wildlife corridor. Mr.
Tope indicates that he has no intention of developing the land he derives no benefit from
the improvements to Storey Boulevard and suggests that the assessment should be
deferred until a future owner wishes to develop the properties. Mr. Hope also objects to
the City policy of a minimum 50 foot assessment on the one parcel that is a flag lot.
Project Engineer Jenifer Willer has been in contact with Mr. Hope and explained
the City's assessment policies to him. Despite the suggestion in the letter to the contrary,
none of the parcels are large enough to meet the one half acre minimum for a deferred
assessment provided by the Eugene Code. .
Crest Drive, Storey Blvd, Friendly St. LID assessments Page 5
� '
oil)
1. 4
POD
O
vwl
d
cq
z n u�
x��
a
.xA
�o
. o
o
Cl)
V
oil)
1. 4
i
{
O
H�
a
two
AWN �
a
. w�w
0
�o
a
as
. w� b
z� 44
z
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 15, 2011
TO: . Milo Mecham, LCOC Nearing Official
FROM: Mark Schoening, City Engineer
SUBJECT: PROPOSED FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING,
CONSTRUCTING CURBS, SIDEWALKS, MEDIANS, STREET LIGHTS,
STORMWATER DRAINAGE, "WATER QUALITY FACILITIES ON CREST
DRIVE FROM BLANTON ROAD TO LINCOLN STREET STOREY
BOULEVARD FROM CREST DRIVE TO LORANE HIGHWAY, AND
FRIENDLY STREET FROM LORANE HIGHWAY TO 28TH AVENUE.
(JOB #4546) (CONTRACT 2009 -30)
BACKGROUND
The City Council formed the Local Improvement District (LID) for this project on June 22, 2009.
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,in a Notice of Proposed Assessment letter mailed on
February 1, 2011 meeting the requirement in Eugene Code Section 7.185 for ten (10) days notice prior
to the hearing. .
The hearing to consider comments on the proposed assessments is scheduled for February 15, 2011.
The intent of the hearing is to review the final ro'ect cost, consider comments on the proposed
p .l p p
assessments, and to provide evidence to be included in the ordinance levying the assessments by the
City Council.
On April 14, 2408, the City Council approved the conceptual design of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard
and Friendly Street as recommended by the the Crest Drive Community Team. This conceptual design
included streets with 9 -foot travel lanes and 4 -foot Wide sidewalks predominately on one side of the
street based on exceptions to design standards to meet a variety of desired outcomes on this project.
The project was initiated by Council action on September 8, 2008 pursuant to Section 7.100(5) of the
Eugene Code, 1971, and staff Was directed to prepare plans and specifications and call for bids for
construction of the local improvements.
.Bids Were opened on May 21, 2009, With Babb Construction Co. dba Delta Const. Co. dba Delta
..Concrete Inc. -as the low bidder. The property owners Were notified of the public hearing regarding
formation of the proposed LID and a hearing Was held on May 28, 2009 and continued to a public
hearing before City Council on June 15, 2009. Minutes, Findings and Recommendations from the
Hearing Official Were forwarded to the City Council in advance of the June 15, 2009 continuation of
the public hearing. City Council approved the minutes of both hearings and adopted a resolution
forming the LID at a meeting held June 22, 2009.
Additionally, on June 22, 2009, .the Eugene City Council approved a plan to reduce the assessable
costs for three local improvement districts that were formed in 2009, Crest Neighborhood Street
Improvements, Chad Dnive Extension Improvements and Elmira Road/Maple Street Improvements,
using funds remaining after lower than expected bid prices for the Crest Neighborhood project. The
Crest Neighborhood property assessable costs were reduced by approximately $273,895 and the
proposed assessments notices mailed to the property owners reflect this amount. At that same meeting
the City Council directed staff to Modify the interim financing rate to be based on market rates. This
modification was made by Administrative Order No. 44- 09 -09 -F. City Council also moved to include
15 year financing in the assessment ordinance.
The City also accepted donations from the public to be used to reduce the assessments on this project.
As of January 18, 2011,' $5,575 in donations had been received by the City and the proposed
assessments notices mailed to the property own'e'rs reflect this amount.. Donations continue to be
accepted until the end of business on February 15, 2011. Final assessment bills may be lover than in
the Notice of proposed Assessments to account for donations received after January 18.
CORRESPONDENCE
Since the mailing of the Notice of Proposed Assessments, City staff received 13 phone calls or a -mails
from property owners regarding the process to final assessment, cost calculations, financing of the
costs and details about construction.
As of noon, February 14, 2010, 4 of the property owners have indicated they will be attending the
hearing. Three letters were received and are attached to this memo,
PROJECT
The street improvements consist of 18 -foot wide paving (two 9 -foot wide travel lanes) with curbs,
concrete walk, street lights at pedestrian crossings, traffic calming (speed tables, chicanes, chokers,
medians, and traffic circles), street trees, and stormwater drainage system with stormwater quality
facilities.
ASSESSMENTS
Costs were distributed per Eugene Code 7.175,. and outlined in the Council adopted Hearings Official
findings and recommendations, and the resolution forming the. LID.
Below- are the final assessable unit costs:
Paving 9 -foot (per front foot) $ 121.95
Sidewalk and drive aprons (per square foot) $ 2.58
Total Assessable Cost $ L356A02.55
Total City Cost: w/o Low Income Subsidy: $ 2,520,3 3 8.10
Low Income Subsidy - 24 $ 172,110.84
Delayed Assessments - 24 $ 303,894.34
Total Project Cost $ 4,352
Property owners of vacant or fully developed lots zoned single family residential under a half acre pay
for actual frontages up to a maximum assessable frontage of 100 feet and not less than a frontage of 50
feet. For a partially developed residential lot over a half acre with front footage greater than 100 feet
the property owner is assessed for 100 front feet of frontage at the time of final assessment. If the lot
further develops, then a "delayed assessment" will* be due for the portion of the frontage over 100 feet.
Vacant residential lots over half an acre pay no assessment at the time of final assessment, but an
equivalent assessment for the full frontage is due at the time of development.
Also as provided in City Code, although much of the project-has sidewalk built on just tone side of the
street, properties on both sides of the street will be assessed for the sidewalk. Assessment information
about the sidewalks was made available for each property at the LID formation hearing held on May
28, 2009.
The final assessable costs are lower than estimated when the LID was formed.
The funding sources for the City's share and the non - assessable share of project costs for this project
are the Capital Toad Fund, Stormwater System Development Charges (SDC) Fund and Storrnwater
Utility Fund.
Assessment financing, a 15-year payment plan through the City, is available to all property owners
within the improvement district as identified by Eugene Code, Chapter 7. In addition, there are
extension or deferral programs for. qualifying property owners based on age and/or income.
Based on the low bid received, the costs listed below were the estimated assessment costs plus
contingency calculated at the time of the formation of the LID.
Paving 9 -foot (per front foot) $ 133.63
Sidewalk and drive aprons (per square foot) $ 5.34
Total Estimated Assessable Cost $ 2
Total Estimated City Cost: $1,765,469.23
Total Estimated Project Cost $ 3,791,376-34
LOW INCOME SUBSIDY
Of the 128 properties in the LID, 24 owners qualify for a subsidy under the low -to- moderate income
subsidy program. This City funded subsidy program is available to ro ert owners who occupy p p Y a
single family dwelling or duplex and meet other program criteria. Fact sheets which describe the
subsidy program were mailed to all property owners in the LID. The household size and income levels
for the subsidy program are based on the current Lane County //Median Family Income limits published
by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The total cost to the City for the low
income subsidies is $172,11 0.84 and is funded from the Street Subsidy find.
RECOMMENDATION
Assessment costs are calculated in accordance with Eugene Code. Based on City Code 7.175 (7), staff
recommends that the Hearing Official includes a finding for Council adoption that it was unfeasible to
build sidewalks on' both sides of the street in the LID and accomplish the desired neighborhood
ghborhood
outcomes for the project and to protect natural features that would have been disturbed by changes to
g
the existin topography.
g
. Staff recommends approval of the final assessments as calculated, and that the Council leery the - final
assessment.
Attention: Jenifer Willer
Re: Appeal Assessment
February 19, 2011
City Engineer
Public Works Department
99 E. Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, Oregon 9740
The purpose of this letter is to appeal assessment charges on:
Tax lots 18- 03- 07 -23- 00103 -000 and 18- 03- 07 -23- 00104 -000.
and 18- 03- 07 -23- 00100 -000
Accounts # 200900030 -0530 and 200900030 -052U.
(own a piece of land between Morse Ranch and Storey Rd. since August 2000.
The total land area is about 1.5 Acre.
The land is forested and not developed.
The only use of this land is as a wildlife corridor between Morse Ranch and the
riparian belt along Storey Rd. In 2002, I was asked to, and granted the town an
easement to the entire riparian area, in order to protect this corridor.
The land consists of 3 "legal" lots 00100, 00103 and 00104. Lot 103 is .3 acre
and lot 104 is 1.7 acre. Lot 100 is about an acre.
So far, I had no intention of developing this land. As raw land, t have no financial
benefits from this property, on which I already pay a high'taxes (over $2000 per
year).
It seems unfair that I should pay assessment fees for development I do no
benefit from, and on .land I do not use. And since my property consists of 3 'lots ",
this assessment seems triply (x3) unfair and punitive.'
In addition, since one of these 'lots' is a 'flag lot', I am required to pay for 40
street front feet I do not even own.
believe it is unfair to assess development fees on these lots. until they are
developed'.
After all, this 'logic' is already addressed by this department's own decision. that
for'lots larger than half acre, assessment fees are deferred until the lots are to'
be developed.,
I believe the town should treat my property as a single piece of land, and should
the lots'the land conists of be developed'in the future, fees should be assessed
only when these (involuntary) street developments become useful for a future
developer of these lots.
In addition, proceeding with requiring these assessments, t will be forced to sell
this land.
I think and the only possible buyer would-be someone with the intent of
developing this land as separate lots. This, I believe, will be sad for the south
hills.
Respectfully,
February 19, 2011. San Francisco, California.
Ari H. Hope
Architect
328 Rutledge Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
WILLER Je' nifer M
From:
Bethani [bmarmberry a@gmail.com]
Sent:
Monday, February 21, 2011 5 PM
To:
WI LLER Jenifer M
Subject:
Crest Drive Street Assessment
Dear Hearings Officer,
We would like to take this chance to express our deep disappointment in the way that Crest Drive residents have
been assessed. when we were told that a new road needed to be put in, we voiced our opposition. we liked the
rural feel and we actually liked the way that the potholes served as street calming, devices. we attended all of
the related city council meetings and the open houses. we were completely baffled when we were told that we
would have to pay for a public road. we researched the city code and spoke to our council member, Betty
Taylor and were told that there was nothing to be done, that the law had been this way for 50 years and there
was no way to change it. Our neighbor said that he.was saving $6000 to cover his bill for the streets. We
remember saying that there was no way that the city could charge us all $6000. we were incredibly naive.
When we asked the planners, they said that they didn't want to make any general quotes for fear of being far off.
When we got a general quote for the project, we were speechless and outraged. we again contacted Betty
Taylor and also Mayor Piercy. Ms. Taylor again said that there was no way to change the code and Mayor
Piercy said that it was really up to the city council and there was nothing that she could do. In June of 2009,
there was a city council meeting and Mike Clark proposed that the council should wait to vote in order to
reconsider the city code regarding city street assessments. Our neighbors on cul -de -sacs, dead ends, as well as
many people who do not live in the neighborhood but liked the idea of smoother roads for their comfort, -
showed up and spoke out to convince the council to proceed. Unfortunately, the council did not listen to the
majority of the people who fronted the streets and were going to have to pay for the project. we asked that the
council wait. All but Mike Clark voted to proceed with the project, even nay own council member, Betty Taylor
voted to proceed. Remarkably, the code that was formerly etched in stone was able to be changed, right after the
Crest Drive Project was completed. The council recognized that it was unfair and flawed. Even though we tried
for years to get an answer as to how the code might be changed and were told that it was impossible, somehow
it was able to be changed less than a year after the completion of the Direst Project.
My husband and I are both teachers and we have two young boys. we received a pay cut last year and are most
likely going to receive a pay cut this year. I am a part -tune teacher and my hours will be cut back as well. The
value of our house has declined in the last two years, even with the addition of the new roads, so it would be
difficult to sell our house. We will have to take out a third mortgage to pay our $12,700 bill. If you - do nothing,
we will be one of the Eugene families who have to tighten our belts even further. In essence, people like us will
no longer be able to patronize local restaurants and stores as much and Eugene will continue its downward
spiral. when we pay our property taxes, we'll remember that this money which we hand over to the government'
pays for other roads, but not ours. After we take out our loan to pay for our public street, once a month, when
we make our payment of $1504200, we will remember how we were lied to and how the majority of the city
council chose to wait to make right a code that they knew was flawed. we recognize that we have been told'that
there is nothing to be done in the past and I'm sure you would like to tell us the same again but now we know
that is just not true. Do the right thing. Propose something that makes this assessment reasonable.
Sincerely,
B ethani and Steve Mayberry
3439 Storey Blvd.
Eugene, OR 97405
WILLER Jenifer M
From: Jim Branch Jim a@branchehgineering.comj
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:15 AM
To: WILLER Jenifer M
Subject: Notice of Proposed Assessments for the Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Freindly: Street
Improvements .
Hearings official,
My wife and I are the owners of a vacant parcel of land proposed for assessment related to the subject project. Our
property is identified as Assessors Map 18- 03 -07 -22 Tax Lot 01801 -00. our lot has 12.5 feet of frontage on Storey
Boulevard. The 12.5' strip of land is several hundred feet long as it extends over steep terrain and connects to the
westerly edge of the body of the lot. The lot was created a few years ago through the partitioning process. At that time the
city determined that the panhandle width of 15 feet would be the minimum width required for access. This is also the
minimum panhandle width per the city development code. Since the strip of land is only 12.5' wide it could not be used for
access. Therefore, the access to the lot was required to be via frontage on Madison Street and through a private access
easement to Lorane Highway, NOT STOREY BOULEVARD.
` Therefore, we object to the assessment for street improvements which have no benefit to our property. We can not have
direct access to Storey Boulevard per city development code. Further, the assessment details that a driveway apron was
constructed for this 12.5' of frontage. This is incorrect, no apron exists nor should there be an apron because. access is
not allowed per code.
Finally, with respect to storm drainage for this parcel, during the partitioning process the city required that we construct an
extensive on -site storm water treatment and detention system that would not permit any increase in peak runoff. The
drainage and water quality improvements related to this project have no benefit to our parcel as we are required to make
substantial drainage improvements when the parcel is developed. .
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Branch, PE
1
February 21, 2011
Hearings dicer
Public Works Engineering �►
Regarding: Assessment of 2915 Friendly street.
I was an wive member of the CDCT and listened to Mark Schoening reiterate several Ames that
the residents who take primary access from the improved streets .will be assessed. The then is* that
everyone pays at some point for street improvements. I can look back and find these statements
written in the minutes of meetings I attended.'
My neighbor at 3021 Friendly tells me they didn't receive any assessment for the street
improvement because they have an easement from 3025 to use access their property. According to
what the Walker's te ll me, they recently sold a piece of their property to the owners of 3025 Friendly.
Their parcel is essentially land lockied and their primary access is the easement from the neighbor so
why are they not being assessed?
I live at 2975 Friendly and I have an easement to use the driveway belonging to 2937 Friendly and
yet according to. my neighbor, their driveway assessment is halt' my driveway assessment. This isn't
my driveway because I too have an easement alloying us to access our parcel from the neighbor's
driveway. I have enclosed a description of my property showing we have an easement and this is not
my driveway.
I don't agree that 1 should be charged a driveway assessment. I have enclosed the Assessment
Policy for our local street improvement for your reference. I draw your attention to page two
highlighted in yellow referring to primary Access. '
We have assessment rubes for a reason and I would like. an explanation as to why the rules for
assessments are not being applied the same throughout the project.
Mary Rowland
275 Friendly Street
Eugene, Oregon 97405
Cenfrat Services
NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT Financial services
City of Eugene
-
100 W.10 Ave., Suite 400
P.O. Box 1967 .
Eugene, Oregon 97440
February Ul, 2011 (eta) 682-M73
Account Number. 200900030 -0260
sTffiS IS NOT A BTLL�
ROWLAND, BRUCE &MARY M
2975 FREENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
Assem Map. & Tax Lot No. .-M-034742-01000-0M... ..... _ . ., ..... _.. _ ..... .... -- -
Tax Account No. 0637056
Property Address; 2975 FRIENDLY ST
Property Affected by the Improvement: 2010 049732
Improvement Resolution Number. 4984
Description of Improvement:
PAVING, CUM SMEWAM, MMMS, STREET i.IMM, STORMWATIM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY FACILE ON
ORF " r DR FROM BLANTON RD To LINC DLN ST, STOREY BOULE'V'ARD FROM CREST DR TD UDRANE HIGHWAY, AND
FREEMLY ST FROM LORANE HIGHWAY To 28TH AVE.
AS
CHARGES _
STDEWALKA:)RIVE APRON $1
STREET EMOVEMENTS $12,195.00
TOTAL $13,227.00
Please call the public works Departmen� (541) 682.5291, if you have any questions receding this
improvemteAt project or your assessment. I€ the Public works staff cannot resolve your questions or
problem to your satisfaction, you may submit your o bjecti ons to the assessment hearing officer.
The desert - bed project qualified for funding under the low tormodemte income subsidy program which.
was available to qualified owners of residentially -zoned owner- occupied property developed as a single
fly dwcllwg or duplex... Prgp ty owien who applied-and were app'it'ved for the subsidy pro&
have been confimied. Property owners who did not comply with the program requirements are no longer
eligible for the progra.n _
CONTLVUED ONBACIC
Public Works
Engineeri
City of Eugene
New Assessment Policy for I prov'e ents
to Streets
To achieve greater fairness and equity in how property
owners pay for the cost of upgrading unimproved local
streets, Eugene's local street assessment policies were
amended effective May 2002.
What's. an unimproved strut?
s generally gravel or asphalt mat surface
• has a substandard road base
0 no curbs or gutters, lighting, bicycle facilities, side-
. walks, etc.
What's an Improved street?
curbs, catchbasitns and gutters to manage stormwater
a engineered road base designed for long life
• high quality asphalt or concrete paving
e sidewalks
street trees
street lighting
Summary of Key Changes
The City of Eugene's assessment policies - are described in
Chapter 7 of the Eugene Code, In general, the policies
assume that the le portion of the cost of improving
streets will be distributed among properties adjacent to the
project on a per -foot basis.
The key changes to the assessment policies respond to many
of the concerns that have been raised by property owners.
The new policies generally represent changes in three main
areas; (1) a compromise that attempts to mitigate the
financial impacts associated with the prior policy - (large lot
assessments), and M how vacant and developed commer-
cial /#ndustrialiy zoned properties and residentially zoned
corner lots are to be assessed. .
M and maximum assessable
lenith for developed single famiily residential propertles;
and (3) equivalent assessments for partially developed or
vacant properties, which develop after the street has been
improved. For additional details on the new assessment
policy, see the table on the reverse side of this fact sheet.
Process to Review and Update Assessment
Policies
For several months, Eugene's local street assessment policies
were reviewed by a Council subcommittee {Councilors
David Kelly and Gary Pap Q, and Eugene Public Forks
department staf.
The Eugene City Counciil, began a final review of the pro-
posed local street assessment amendments with a work
session on October 31, 2001. At that session, staff updated
Council - on the review process and the specific recommends
tions from the subcomndttee and responded questions.
After a public hearing on November 13, 2001, the Eugene
City Council adopted the revised policies on November 26,
2001. The new policies went into effect May 26, 2002, six
months after Council action as stipulated in the Eugene City
Charter.
(continued on next page)
r
d,i Prior and New Local Street Assessment Policies
Element
Pribr Policy (prior to May 2002]
New Policy (effective May 2002)
�isessable
full street width, Including sidewalks,
full street width, including sidewalks, subject to assessmen if on- street
i.ost per Foot
subject to assessment
parking is provided: additional width will be included in assessment
calculation
Frontage
based on actual property length adjacent
based on a minimum of 50 feet and a maximum of 100 feet for res(dential
.
to street; minimum of Go feet
parcels; actual property length for all commercial/ industrial - zoned parcels
Partially Devel
based on full property length adjacent to
based on the first 1 00 feet assessed with local improvement district (LID)
oped Lots (over
street
and equivalent assessment for length exceeding 100 feet to be collected at
112 acre)
time of development
Vacant Lots
based on full property length adjacent to
equivalent assessment to be collected at time of development for full
(over 1 12 acre)
street
property.Iength adjacent to street
Equivalent
currently not available
estimated prevailing assessable cost for pavement width, curb, gutter,
Assessment
sidewalk, driveway and associated drainage to be collected at time of
development for dela ass
any
properties assessed for all abutting
assess properties with irrevocable petitions: for all other fully developed
streets using actual property length
parcels, assess only when uses street for primary access. New develop -
adj6cent to streets -- no consideration of
ment charged equivalent assessment for abutting streets regardless of
primary access
which street provides primary access.
Corner Lots
assess for both streets
assess only for primary access If existing home is a single- family
dwelling; assess for both streets ;f existing dwelling is a duplex or tot is
undeveloped and can support a duplex dwelling
i
Public works Ehgiineertng ■ 858 Pearl Street, Eugene, OR 97401 ■ (541) 682 -5500
pwen&eering @cl.eugene.orus
Revised October 2002
E
Public Works
ftkmwdng
My of Eugene
858 Pearl 8t.
Eugene, OR 97401
Assessment Policy for Improvements
to Aneria I/Colledor Streets
To achieve greater f dmess and - equity in homer much and
ghat portion property owners pay of the cost to upgrade
unimproved arterial /collector streets, Eugene's street
assessment policies were amended effec& April. 2001. This
fact sheet compares the near assessment policies with the
prior policies and provides an overview of the assessment
policy review process.
Summary of Key Chan
. The City of Euggme's assessment po lides are described in
Chapter 7 of the Eugene Code. In general, the policies
assume than the assessable portion of the cost of Improving
streets wM be distributed among properties adjacent to the
project on a per -foot basis.
The key changes to the assessment policies respond to many
of the concerns that have been raised by property owners.
The new policies generally represent changes in three main
areas: (1) a compromise that attempts to mitigate the
financial impacts associated with the prior policy Marge lot
assessments); (2) differentiation on how properties are
assessed based on the classification of the street (livability
facer); and (3) a requirement that properties that are
directly adjacent to arterlal or collector streets and that have
recorded irrevocable petitions for improvements associated
with them be included in the boundaries of a loci improve-
ment district and be assessed. This particular'ahange
recognizes the obligation of a development (typically
subdivisions and minor partitions) to participate in the
improvements to the adJacent arterial or collector street that
was allowed to be delayed through the irrevocable petition.
(continued on next page)
Additional Information about the revised ent
ordinance, City Code, street assessment policies, and
specific street projects can be found on the Internet at
www.ci.eugene.or.us/pw.
The revisions to the Eugene's assessment policy for improve -
ments to arterial /collector streets were adopted by the
Eugene City Council. in October 2000, following an exWnsive
review process. The process began in 1998 and included
several public hearings and reviews by local elected officials
and citimn representatives from Eugene and County.
A goal of the process was too develop co between
the City's sheet assessment policies and Lane County's
policies. As an outcome of the review process, the Lane
County Board of Comn - dssioners in August 2000 approved a
resolution supporting the reammendations that subse-
quently wee. adopted by the Eugene City Council The new
policies went into effect on April 23, 2001, six months after
the Councd's action, as stipulated in the Eugene City
Charter.
if you have questions or comments, please contact:
Public Works Engineering
858 Pearl Street, Eugene, OR 97401
(541) 682 -5560
pwengaineeringfci.eugene.orus
Assessment updae Process
I OWN 1110
Sam
400 --
Apb
MUMMIF-
v
r e
eee�
r '
i
�. y � '" %Y`f•y ;•{S �f� '` a a., a„i �'�i . c' C . . v�r.:
•)��.ti. ;.�? ,: •1 r te. 1� Y M�� ~4y�` � .P "
t
Reservfg to the grantor herein an ensc�t for
ingress and egress over the fallonia$ derihed,
property:
$egitnfug at a P0#t beln of record North 135,00 feet axe
• East 222,40 feet firoa the Smthvest cozmar of Lot 42,' ;bZ1q e
Crest Addition to £ugeac, as platted and retarded in Book 3,
Page 32, Lane County Oregon Flat Rids g said p l t being
South 208.50 feet and North S9' 32' 30" East 222.40 feet ftam
the Northwest corner of Lot 42 of said Cpnege Crest Additives
to Rugene; thence rmning South 77.87 feet to the true vol t
of beginning; theme rum g awth 89' 32' ' 3(" rant I3.00
feet; thence South 100.00 feet to a patfat an the RartheT4 .
sargin of said Lorane B3glway; thence r mning ale= said -
Northerly mdrgia along t he are of at 257 +32 foot Z' ftm curve
left Me lag Chard of which bears Vortb 52' 31' 27" Vest
28.74 feet) •28.78 feet; tbeaace 3eavug said nargin and ruenfag
Forth 89° - 32' 30" East 7.83L feet; thence *wth 82..33 feet to
the truce poiut of beginning. all -ft Eugene, Lme County,
Liregon.
• t f
low
sw
qPT
I b
iln
IL
�•r•S_ � r y . • rr� • � r�� .t r •: fir• w ••_ � -•• i
..� •r . • wow •. • . - ' ti . :r. • ��. ■•• �- - t .
i - X - �` ..r _ . •a• • - �• •� �, - +: :�, ••� r - .
F V4
ML W
Vp
hp
`� � r ... � r _ - �,. • • + = -: .�` -' �- .Sr. +• .. r +, . * •� SFr �'
• r J. �..
''� � ��4r �.Ya�, ✓r'`ywM�„�_ +�- ./��� +_ ,�"'{�,• �����,,��� �s'�'; +#' �;,+.� .�•T ±� � a � f � �'• ���► • �'" �' +�.� w� T' -�,s�
��►' r T `�• �.d' - � fir"
• r• . •t r
Exhibit C
REPORT ID: RPT236SP
CITY OF EUGtNE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM[
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (PITY COUNCIL)
..
'
93004546 - CREST AREA ST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
MASTER PROJECT #: 2009 -00030 CONTRACT #: 2009 00034
JOB #: 93004546
PAVING, CURBS, SIDEWALKS, MEDIANS, STREET LIGHTS, STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND
PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
WATER QUALITY FACILITIES PN CREST DR FROM BLANTON RD TO LINCOLN ST, STOREY
BOULEVARD FROM CREST DR TO LORANE HIGHWAY, AND FRIENDLY ST FROM LORANE
HIGHWAY TO 28TH AVE.
.
TA=OT
TOTAL naR2VEM=T AM UNT •
4'WNER Tff? TION
18030633-10302 000
$1,696.57
BOOK CHARITY
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2005 -- 092623
2885 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633-10303 000
$10,179.40
EGAN LARRY D & MARIAN M '
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 891-7769897
2875 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633-10306 000
$13,220.00
REDNER JULIE E
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2006- 050274
PO BOX 51602
-
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633-10401 000
$6 ■ 610.00
WESLEYAN CHURCH NW DIST
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 286 -44483 MINUS REEL 896 - 7816989
2809 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633-10402 000
$11,898.00
HAMBLET ROBERT E
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 2348-977168'0
2841 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
1BD30633 -10500 000
$9,650.60
WESLEYAN CHURCH NW DIST
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 538--52813
2$09 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633-10700 000
$8,947.30
WESLEYAN CHURCH NW DIST
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 530-45329
2809 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633--10800 000
$16,234.16
WESLEYAN CHURCH NW DIST
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 77D -80095
2809 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633-10900 000
$2,203.33
MOORE GLEN E & MARCELLA, J
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2007 -- 066136
2812 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633-11500 000
$2,203.33
TREADWAY CATHRYN
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2003 - 089781
2820 FRIENDLY ST -
EUGENE OR 97405
180313633- 11600 000
$8
KLUTH STANLEY D & 'MONIKA J
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2002-024470
2830 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
• 1803063j-11700 000
$1,211.83
WARREN CHERYL J
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2006 - 078238
2840 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633-11800 000
$7.271.00
SORENSON CHARLES PETER
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2006 - 057388
PO BOX 10836
EUGENE OR 97440
18030633-11900 000
$7,271,00•
HUESTIS HAROLD
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 1221 - 8235529
2856 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633 -12000 000
$7,271.00
SPANGLER NEAL F
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2007 - 064782
963 TIARA CT
EUGENE OR 97405
18030633-12100 000
$6,742.20
ROOT ELIZABETH
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2007-- 076273
2870 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
REPORT ID: RPT236SP
CITY OF EUGENE
PAGE: 2
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
-
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004546-CREST AREA ST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
.
TAXLOT
TOTAL ndPROVEdENT AbgXM
OWNER INFORMATION
18030633-12200 000
$1,299.97
BERGER WENDY
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2004 - 017363
2878 FRIENDLY ST
•
EUGENE OR 97405
18030721 -05200 000
$174,071.70
CITY OF EUGENE PW PARKS & OPEN
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 810-45256, 45257
1820 ROOSEVELT BLVD
EUGENE OR 97402
18030722-00100 000
$7,271.00
TURNER PROPERTIES PTRSHP
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 2114 - 9565780
19223 DEHAVILLAND DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -1768
1$030722 -00204 000
$7,271.00
TURNER PROPERTIES PTRSHP
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2006 - 084076
19223 DEHAVILLAND DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -1768
18030722-00300 000
$7,271.00
FACAROS NICKOLAS
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2009- 033425, NORTH TAXLOT
488 E 13TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97404
18030722.00301 000
$5 ■ 288.00
FACAROS NICKOLAS
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2009 - 033425, SOUTH TAXLOT
488 E 13TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97404
18030722• -00500 000
$13,220.00
CAMPBELL EDWARD SCOTT
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 2001 -- 030051
2926112 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030722-00800 000
$9,915.00
WILLETT BETTYE
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2003 -- 102148
2929 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030722-00900 000
$2,073.78
SAGER JILL AMY
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 2110-9562728
2945 FRIENDLY ST
'
EUGENE OR 97405
18030722-01000 000
$13,220.00
ROWLAND BRUCE & MARY M
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2010- 049732
2975 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030722 - -01102 000
$6
WILLETT BETTYE
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2003 - 102148
2929 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
18030722 - 01801 000
$6,610.00
BRANCH JAMES A & VIRGINIA L
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2005 - -078358
2624 N 31ST ST
SPRINGFIELD OR 97477
18030722-01900 000
$9,187.90
FURTICK SYLVIA TRUST
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2000 - 062261
236 E 13TH #1 AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
18030722-01901 000
$10,418.68
ROGERS DESIREE
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2009- 000078
3131 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030722-01902 000
$6,798.60
SCHWANEKAMP JEANNE J & MAXIMILLAN V
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2009-006369
3151 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030722-02001 000
$13,220.00
FURTICK SYLVIA TRUST
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2000- 622261 EXHIBIT A
236 E 13TH #1 AVE
EUGENE OR 97401
REPORT ID: RPT236SP
TA=T
18030722-02400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722-02401 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722-02500 400
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722-02602 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722-02603 400
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722-02701 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722-02900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722 - -03000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722 —03001 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722-03201 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONT
18030722-03202 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722-03203 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
16030722 - -03204 004
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722-03500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030722.03503 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
PAGE:3
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004546— CREST AREA ST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TOTAL IMPROVEMEZ►TT AMOUNT
OWNER INFORMATION
$8,269.11
WEST STEPHEN L & SHIRLEY P
REEL 2590-99079459
3025 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$3,804.72
WEST STEPHEN L & SHIRLEY P
2002-064101
3025 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$7,355.60
SARANPA KATHY JO
2004-097954
3015 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$4,406.67
TEICHHAN WALTER A
2044--076432 PARCEL 1
3005 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$1,326.40
CLARK ANDREW SUPPL NDS TR
2006w-067879 PARCEL 2
30923 FOX HOLLOW RD
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
SCHI+MIDT' ROBERT C & PATRICIA
2007-060177
2991 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$6,610.00 -
WALKER CAROLYN L & STEPHEN L
REEL 2609 -- 99096305
3021 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
HECKER STEVEN F
REEL 1492-8755089
334 ERIE AVE
SEATTLE WA 98122
$1 ■ 593.23
BAILEY LEONARD J & LAURA B
REEL 1567-8915424
2932 FRIENDLY ST s
EUGENE OR 97405
$9,560.70
BOUTETTE MICHAEL A
REEL 1819-9302746 LOT 4
2970 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$2,203.33
ALFORD LOUISE
2010- 017892
2992 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$6,610.00
BECK JOSEPH B & YACHIYO N
2003 - 068322 PARCEL 1, 93 —PO423
2994 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$6,610.00
PULLIAM KRISTIN E
PCL 2, 93—PO423
2P96 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$8 ■ 695.23
CLEMENTS BRIAN & ROXANNE
REEL 1996-9468545 PARCEL 3, 93 —PO423
2998 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
PARROTT MATTHEW G
2005 - 095615
2635 ONYX ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$12,469-10
KJAER EUNICE
REEL 2470-9879122 PARCEL 2
814 LORANE HWY
EUGENE OR 97405
REPORT ID: RPT236SP
TjL% ,OT
18030722-03600 000
.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723= 00102 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723-00103 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723-00104 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723-00105 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723-00200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723-00201 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723-00300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723-00301 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723 -00302 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723-00303 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723-00304 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723 -00305 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723-00400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723 - 00401 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030723 -00500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
PAGE:4
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004546 - CREST AREA ST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT
OWNER INFORMATION
$1,101.67
WOLF HELEN IRREVOCABLE TRUST
2004 -- 034940
3010 FRIENDLY ST
EUGENE OR 97405
$2,094.71
FILLINGER JAN
2000- 002412
695 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$11 ■ 465.70
2008 HOPE ALDERDICE REVOCABLE TRUST
2009- 008698 (NORTH LOT)
328 RUTLEDGE ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94110
$6,610.00
2008 HOPE ALDERDICE REVOCABLE TRUST
2009- 008698 (SOUTH PANHANDLE LOT)
328 RUTLEDGE ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94110
$1,101.67
GAMBERONI TOBIA.S FELIX
2008 - 005870
691 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
SOUTH RUTH E
2010 - 012592
697 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
SOUTH RUTH E
REEL 1841- 9323549
597 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
CODINGTON BECKY L
REEL 2508-99007847
2945 W 19TH AVE
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
GIFFELS ROD A
REEL 2542 - 99037716
9602 47TH ST
UNIVERSITY PL WA 98466
$6,610.00
WEST PRISCILLA S
2009- 009381
PO BOX 50430
EUGENE OR 97405
$1.1
PUTVINSKI SERGEI
2005 - 073712
418 CHEMIN DE LA CLAPE
$13.220.40
AHLQUIST TIMOTHY & VIOLET
REEL 1463-8725550
PO BOX 5065
EUGENE OR 97405
$6 ►610.00
SIMONI JOHN G
REEL 1584 - 8931767
3331 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
HIRSH BILL
REEL 2338 - 9765327
3210 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
REED SHEDD HELEN REVOC TRUST
2008 - 014682 -
200 W ADAMS STE 2600
CHICAGO IL 60606
$6,610.00
HOLLAND -BAK MARTIN A & CHELSEA
2008 -- 058610
3270 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
i
REPORT ID: RPT236SP
CITY OF EUGENE
PAGE: 5
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004546 - CREST AREA ST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
SOT
TOTAL ndPRVYENENT AMUNT
OWNER INFOF29TIoN
18030723 -02100 000
$40,812.78
EWEB
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 557 -72567
PO BOX 10148
EUGENE OR 97440
18030723-02500 000
$13,220.00
FLANAGAN STEPHEN R & LINDA
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2006- 087703
3405 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-02600 000
$3,276.35
MORRISON ROBERT T
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 2082-9541332
3379 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-02601 000
$2,138.55
DUDELHEIM WENDY SUSAN
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2002 - 065900
3385 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-02602 000
$1,101.67
KOLBUSZOWSKI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2000- 064361
3393 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-02701 000
$13.220.00
DWYRE TAUSHA
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2004 - 005153
PO BOX 61908
VANCOUVER WA 98666
18030723-02702 000
$1
YAO CHI -YU
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2006- 039743
3054 HENDRICKS HILL DR
EUGENE OR 97403
18030723- -02703 000
$6,610,00
TABET NICOLAS N
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2005 - 018745
3371 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
1R030723-02801 000
$2,304.25
MILLER MICHAEL J
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2010- 011557 (SOUTH PANHANDLE LOT)
3349 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723--02882 000
$6,610.00
EMOND LISA MARIE & ROBERT
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2004--056147
3345 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-02803 000
$13,220.00
LONIGAN CHRISTINE M & LEONARD
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 1803-9263383
3347 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-02804 000
$3,638.58
MILLER MICHAEL J
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2010 -- 011557 (NORTH LOT)
3349 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-02900 000
$13,220.00
FORMAN ROBIN R
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 703-7434727
4250 SW PATRICK PL
PORTLAND OR 97239
18030723-03201 000
$13,220.00
HEDDINGER KIM T
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2005 - 103670
763 CREST DR
'
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-03301 000
$9,386.20.
TOWNSEND JOHN T & SALLY S
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 1649-9040210
777 CREST DR '
EUGENE OR 97405
18430723 - -03401 000
$13 ■ 220.00
KATZ GARY R & JILL G
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 1246- - 8317232 $317747
795 CREST DR
EUGENE.OR 97405
REPORT ID: RPT2368P
CITY OF EUGENE
PAGE: 6
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
-
93004546 - CREST AREA ST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TA=OT
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT
OWNER INFORMATION
18030723 —03600 000
$2,203.33
SCHMIEDING KATHRYN J
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2003 105031 SURVIVORSHIP
823 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723 - -03700 000
$6,610.00
LONG STANTON F & ROSEMARY
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 758-7538005
708 HORIZON RD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723 —03800 000
$13,220.00
LONG FRED G & DONNA R
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 1258 — 8328811
810 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723 -04201 000
$13,220.00
AUSTIN SHANNON RAE
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2008--027376
839 CREST'DR
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-04300 000
$13,220.00
WILLS LINDA A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2007 -- 045961, 045962
86020 LORANE HWY
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-04401 000
$13,220.00
DONOVAN JOHN J & BARBARA J
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2002 -- 043532
885 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-04500 000
$12,253.62
MAYBERRY STEVEN PAUL
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2003. 066139
3439 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723-04502 000
$10 ■ 445.12
NIELSON CLYDE R
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 2312-9745023
3441 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
18030723 —04600 000
$13,220.00
HELGESON RICHARD C JR
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 1695-9122053
895 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
18030724w- 00101 000
$11,898.00
WOHLBERG RICHARD M
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2006- 041639
420 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
18030724-00200 000
$11,898.00
LOSCO JULIE A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2008 - 061772
330 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
18030724 -00300 000
$3,966.00
SMITH— STEWART MARGARET
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2047 -- 072361
346 CREST DR
s
EUGENE OR 97405
18030724 - -00400 000
$13,220.00
BRODKORB CLAIRE & PATRICIA
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
BK 268 PG 392 LCSO 38376
368 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
180307247.40500 000
$13,220.00
YORK PETRINA
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2005 - 009904
390 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
18030724 -01704 000
$12,557.68
KAPPA KATHARINE
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2005- 0247$5
410 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
18030724 - 01705 000
$11 ■899.32
WOHLBERG RICHARD M
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
REEL 2042 — 9531509
420 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
REPORT I0: RPT236SP
TAX LOT
18030724-01804 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030724 - 01806 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
16030724 -01807 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030724 - 01900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030724 -02900 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030724 -03000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030724-01100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030724 -03200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030724- -03300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030724 -03400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030732-00100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030732-00400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030732 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030732 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030732 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030732-05300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004546- CREST AREA ST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PAGE: 7
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT AMUNT
OWNER INVORMATION
$13,220.00
WATT PETER K & JUDITH R
2008- 067787
550 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$6,996.02
JOST JONATHAN ALLEN
2006 - 015807 2009-029393 LOTLINE ADJ
560 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$6,610.00
MCDONALD JADES E
2009 - 029393
570 CREST DR'
EUGENE OR 97445
$13.220.00
SCHAFFER LUCILLE
BK 433 PG 594
580 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$5 ■ 589.42
HELWIG STEVEN
2009 -- 002023
700 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$1,299.97
MOYER NEIL & LAURIE
2006- 083763
714 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$1,366.07
MARX LYNN E
2001- 038485
724 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$8,196.40
PEREZ JANET A
2009 - 047360 LOT 4 WM LIGHTFOOT ADD.
736 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$5,023.60
PEREZ JANET A
2009 - 047360 LOT 5 WM LIGHTFOOT ADD.
736 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
LAFFERTY MICHAEL M REVOC. TR
200.9 - 049002
PO BOX 2066
EUGENE OR 97402
$13,220.00
EDDIE DR. WILLIAM & MARION
2002 - 047092
830 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$13 ■ 220.00
GIUSTINA JACQUELINE L TRUST
2005 -- 100844
PO BOX 989
EUGENE OR 97440
$13,220.00
TSCHERSICH HAMS U & HERTA H
REEL 1770-9234077
1423 BARAN
KODIAK AK 99515
$13 ■ 220.00
LIBRETT JEFFREY S
2004 - 079483
920 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$11,886.10
LORISH FRED C
2008 - 023436
897 W 36TH AVE
r EUGENE OR 97405
$10,576.00
RUSHMORE GROUP LLC
2006 - 043663 LOT I CREST MEADOWS PUD
90465 WOODRUFF ST
EUGENE OR 97402
REPORT ID: RPT236SP
TAELDT
18030732 -05400 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030732 -06700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18030732-06800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18041214 -05901 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18041214 - 06000 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18041214 - 06001 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18041214 -0 6200 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18 041214 -06300 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18041240 - 00100 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18041240-00101 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18041240 - 00102 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
1804x244- -00500 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18041240-00600 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18041240-00700 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
18041240 -00800 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
3.8041240 - 00801 000
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF EUGENE
PAGE: 8
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004545 - CREST AREA ST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT
OWNER INFORMATION
$12 ■ 537.85
KNODE KIPP ALLAN & MEGAN M
2008 - 060572
3001 W BAILEY HILL DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
RUSHMORE GROUP LLC
2046- 043563 LOT 15 CREST MEADOWS PUD
90465 WOODRUFF'ST
EUGENE OR 97402
$7,248.53
RUSHMORE GROUP LLC
2006-043663 COMMON AREA "A" CREST
90465 WOODRUFF ST
MEADOWS PUD
EUGENE OR 97402
$2,203.33
GAMER GARY N
REEL 2007 - 9476758
3484 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97305
$8,763.98
TOMPKINS ROSAMOND A TE
REEL 2331-9759477
3466 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
BROWN MARTIN J
2003 - 105927.
3446 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97465
$13,220.00
SCHAEFERS MARY ELLEN
2003 - 091316
2005 RIVERVIEW ST
EUGENE OR 97403
$13,220.00
NEET DONALD E & DIANE M
REEL 2380 -w9806282
3436 STOREY BLVD
EUGENE OR 97405
$8,575.82
RUDE JOHN P
1943 - 9429862 PARCEL 3
1207 COURTNEY PL
EUGENE OR 97405
$3,930.30
RUDE JOHN P
1943- 9429862 PARCEL 1
1207 COURTNEY PL
EUGENE OR 97405
$2.005.47
RUDE JOHN P '
1943- 9429862 PARCEL 2
1207 COURTNEY PL
EUGENE OR 97405
$2,203.33
RITZMAN WANETA
2010 - 057661
937 CREST DR
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
CREST INVESTMENTS LLC
REEL 2339-9765384
1268 COURTNEY PL
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
CREST INVESTMENTS LLC
2003 -- 119978
1268 COURTNEY PL
EUGENE OR 97405
$13,220.00
CALCIANO FRANK & FRAN
REEL 1735-9162592
1780 POLK ST APTA
EUGENE OR 97402
$17,179.39
SCHOOL DIST 4J
ANNEXATION ORD. #13577, MICROFILE
200 N MONROE ST
1541.030
EUGENE OR 97402
REPORT ID: RPT236SP CITY OF EUGENE PAGE: 9
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT REGISTER (CITY COUNCIL)
93004546 - CREST AREA ST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TAXLOT TOTAI. IMPROVEMENT AMUNT OWNER INFORMATION
TOTAL ACCOUNTS = 128
TOTAL AMOUNT = $1,320,176.92