Resolution No. 4488 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARING, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff provided the Hearings official with a Memorandum, dated May 15, 1996, which outlined the above information. A public hearing concerning the proposed LID formation was held on May 15, 1996, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 777 Pearl Street. Hearings Official Milo Mecham presided. A copy of the minutes of that hearing is attached as Exhibit A, and a copy of the Memorandum provided by staff is attached as Exhibit B. Prior to the public hearing, the City Engineer provided the information required by the Eugene Code 7 .166( 1). The Hearings Official finds that notice of the public hearing was provided and the public hearing conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Eugene Code and state law. At least one of the property owners within the proposed LID was not identified in a manner that allowed time for mailed notice of the hearing in a timely manner. EC 7.165(2) provides that "the city engineer may" provide notice by mail. Omission of this one property owner was not a violation of the Eugene Code. Even if one assumes that a remonstrance would have been filed if more complete notice was given, such a change would not have affected the outcome of the process. The Hearings Official finds that the project was initiated in accordance with the Eugene Code through a Council-approved capital improvement plan. As described in the Minutes, three members of the public offered comments. Laura Roberts expressed concerns about having all of her property assessed when a portion of the property is a drainageway, and a different portion of her property is under powerlines and subject to an easement for the powerlines. Ms. Robert's property has been examined by City staff, who determined that the drainageway portion of her property is eligible for exclusion from the LID. There is no similar provision in the Eugene Code, or in established practices for the exclusion of the area of the powerline easement. While the use of this property may be restricted, it is still available for some use, and is considered as a part of the property when the size of the property is considered for such things as calculating lot coverage, and the proportion of the lot eligible for development. For this reason it can legitimately be considered a part of the parcel specially benefited by the availability of sewers. The Hearings Official does not recommend that the portion of the parcel under the powerlines be excluded from the LID. Mary Thompson and Mary Sailada objected to the proposed assessments of their property because their properties are connected to the City sewers by way of already constructed lines. Much of the frustration that these property owners feel was caused by what they regard as misleading or mistaken information provided them by City staff. This opinion was in turn based on a suspicion that attempts by City staff to clarify earlier statements, or to explain why previously incorrect statements were being corrected, were actually attempts by City staff to disobey the law or continue errors rather than admit to inconsistencies. It does appear that during the course of several exchanges between the property owners and several different City staff persons, misleading information was provided to the property owners. SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928, 3010 and 3398 Page 7