Resolution No. 4488 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

previously not available, or available under different circumstances, are regarded under the Eugene Code as being specially benefited because they have a relationship to the newly constructed sewer system that is different from the relationship of properties located in other areas. The Hearings Officer concluded his explanation by noting that under the definition of the term in the Eugene Code, properties can be found to be specially benefited even though they do not immediately connect to the newly constructed sewer system. Ms. Thompson concluded her remarks by stating that it would have been more convenient if the notices to her had contained a definition of specially benefited prior to the hearing, so that she would not have had to spend time on the dispute that might have been resolved if she had more information. The next member of the public to address the hearing was Ms. Mary Sailada. Ms. Sailada lives next to Ms. Thompson, uses the same sewer system, and shares the same frustration with the proposed assessment. Ms. Sailada was required as a condition of receiving a building permit to connect to the privately constructed sewer south of her property. Ms. Saliada had to pay the cost of installing a connecting sewage line about 200 feet back to the location of the house. After she connected to this privately constructed sewer, it was gifted to the City, without any cost to the City. Because Ms. Sailada has already paid to connect to a sewer, she feels that her property is not specially benefited by the proposed sewers. The current zoning of the properties means that the cannot be developed further, so Ms Sailada felt that there was no benefit to having an additional opportunity to connect to the sewers. Ms. Sailada reported that she also was confused and frustrated by the different information supplied to Ms. Thompson. On one day Ms. Thompson had reported that the City believed that the adjacent property, occupied by a gas station and connected to the same sewer line as the Sailadas and the Thompsons, was not benefited by the proposed sewer construction and would not be assessed. The next day, Ms Thompson reported that she had been told that the City would be assessing the gas station because it was benefited. Ms. Sailada felt that the City was being inconsistent. Ms. Sailada also reported that she was certain that the gas station owners had not been notified of the hearing or the proposed assessment. Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston responded that the City was trying to apply its policies consistently. Mr. Lankston explained that the City always assesses both ends of a property where the property is more than 160 feet long and there are sewers constructed adjacent to both ends of the property. Mr. Lankston explained that this is the standard policy of the City, and that the apportionment of the costs for this project had been based on an assumption that this assessment method would be followed. Giving an exemption would raise the costs for other properties. Ms. Cahill also contributed some historical knowledge concerning the properties in question. According to Ms. Cahill's memory, the properties now owned by Ms. Sailada and Ms. Thompson were given the option of either connecting to the private sewer along the south end of their properties or instead building a line along Green Lane, where the current proposed sewer will be constructed. If such a system had been installed along Green Lane, it would have been abandoned in 1996 when the public sewers were installed. Ms. Cahill also pointed out that all of the properties were being given credit for the rear 160 feet of their properties in the same way as Minutes, May 15, 1996 Public Hearing, River Road Sewer Basins U, X and S Page 3