Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Smith said that several minor wording modifications are needed in the <br />ordinance to respond to issues raised by Ballot Measure 5 and its impacts on <br />Systems Development Charges (SDC). This ordinance must be passed with an <br />emergency clause so that the FEC can be included in March sewer assessments. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Smith said that the charge <br />to users could not be levied until recently because the final costs of the <br />treatment facility were uncertain. Most property owners have been making <br />contributions through their property tax payments. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Smith explained that the <br />fact that Salem has a significant capital program funded by user's fees and <br />services demonstrates why Salem's comparable FEC fee can be substantially <br />lower. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles pointed out that the $212 equalization fee would be amenable to the <br />same offsets, delayed payments, and deferrals as the other charges associated <br />with River Road/Santa Clara sewer installation. <br /> <br />Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Wanda Simmons, 1183 Skipper Avenue, testified on this issue. She asked <br />whether property owners who have already connected to sewers would be re- <br />quired to pay the equalization fee. She also asked whether the fee is being <br />classified as an SDC and whether all new construction would be required to <br />pay. <br /> <br />Jessie Waldstein, 1270 E 22nd Avenue, testified against the proposed fee. <br />She indicated that she owns a parcel of property that has not been served by <br />the MWMC for the past ten years, and said it is unfair that she be charged a <br />fee for which she has received no services. As a resident of the River Road <br />area, she also testified that it is unfair that she was not permitted to vote <br />on the bond issue. <br /> <br />Jerry Halsey, PO Box 7341, spoke in opposition to the proposed charge, noting <br />its negative impacts upon new construction and the ability to provide afford- <br />able housing. He questioned whether increasing fees is the City's way to <br />cover loses associated with Ballot Measure 5. <br /> <br />Tom Heintz, 1038 Jayne Street, testified that the proposed fee is both unfair <br />and illegal, indicating that it violates Amendment 5 and Amendment 14 of the <br />U.S. Constitution. <br /> <br />Marie Gray, 353 Knoop Lane, testified against the proposed fee. She distrib- <br />uted copies of information from a previous MWMC meeting indicating that an <br />election would be held before unincorporated areas would be required to join <br />the taxing district. She noted that no such election has been held, and said <br />that this oversight should be corrected. <br /> <br />Bernadette Bourassa, 541 Knoop Lane, testified against the ordinance. She <br />noted that she was recently involved in a lawsuit against the City over the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />January 14, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br />