Resolution No. 4488 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The next member of the public to testify was Mary Thompson. Ms. Thompson began by calling attention to several statements in the Engineer's report which she felt were incorrect. Ms. Thompson and Jeff Lankston discussed these matters, and clarified the intent of the statements in the report. Ms. Thompson also discussed her disappointment with the design and assessment decisions surrounding the city's process. Ms. Thompson's property is served by a privately constructed sewer, installed at the south end of the property, approximately 200 feet from Ms. Thompson's home. The City is now proposing to install sewers along the northern side of Ms. Thompson's property. Ms. Thompson feels that, because her property already has sewer services, the City should not assess any of the property. The City is proposing to include in the LID the portion of the 160 feet of Ms. Thompson's property closest to the proposed City sewer that would not already have been assessed if the private sewer had been constructed by the City. After she had been notified of the proposed assessment of her property, Ms. Thompson contacted the City and inquired why an adjacent property was not being assessed. Ms. Thompson explained that she had been told that the adjacent property was not being assessed because, since it already had sewer services, it was not considered to be benefited by the installation of City sewers. Since Ms. Thompson's property is also served by the same privately constructed sewer, Ms. Thompson felt that her property should not be assessed. Ms. Thompson wrote a letter explaining her position to the City. Ms. Thompson felt that her trust in government was undermined because, instead of responding to her letter by excluding her propery from the assessable area of the proposed LID, the City responded by including the adjacent, previously excluded property. Ms. Thompson believes that the City's original decision concerning the adjacent property was correct, and should be applied to her property. Mr. Lankston explained that Ms. Thompson's letter had called attention to an error on the City's part. The City had mistakenly omittted inclusion of the adjacent property, and had corrected its error after Ms.. Thompson's letter. Mr. Lankston also explained that the City was following its standard policy of not assessing the portion of Ms. Thompson's property that was within 160 feet of the previously constructed sewer. Ms. Thompson responded by claiming that the City needed to clarify the definition of specifically benefited, because she felt that the it was assessing properties that were not specifically benefited by the sewer project. The Hearings Officer explained that the term in the Eugene Code was specially benefited. This is the statutory term that is used to distinguish properties that may be subject to an assessment for a public improvement from other properties. Public improvements are often undertaken because they provide a general benefit to all members of the public. While the idea of specially benefited property has a wide range of meanings under different circumstances, part of its basic meaning is that certain properties, because of their location or because of their special characteristics, have the potential to benefit more or in a different manner than does the general public or properties in different locations. Thus, all the residents of Eugene derive a general benefit from sewer projects in the River Road area because of the positive effect that installation of the sewers has on the threat of contaminated groundwater in the area. Properties and their owners which are located within 160 feet of the sewers being installed, and which therefore have an opportunity to connect to a publicly constructed wastewater treatment-system that was Minutes, May 15, 1996 Public Hearing, River Road Sewer Basins U, X and S Page 2