Laserfiche WebLink
~~ <br />ASSF..S.SMEN'T <br />As com uteri under Ci of Eugene assessment policy, 44 percent of cost is assessed to the <br />P tY <br />abuttin ro erty owners. The costs to be assessed are shown below: <br />gP P <br />14foot alley paving $ 3.51 per front foot/zone factor point <br />14-foot alley paving $ 0.032 square foot/zone factor point <br />Sanitary sewers City Cost <br />Costs listed below are the Engineer's estimate and preliminary costs quoted to property <br />owners at the award hearing following bid opening. <br />14-foot alley paving $ 4.36 per front foot/zone factor point <br />14-foot alley paving $ 0.038 square foot/zone factor point <br />Sanitary sewers City Cost <br />RECONnV~NDATT4N OF STAFF <br />The final costs are slightly lower than preliminary casts quoted at the award hearing and are <br />cam arable to ro'ects of this size. Staff has responded to the concerns identified. Staff <br />P P~ <br />recommends approval of the assessment distribution. <br />FIlVDINOS Aria RECOMMEr~aATloNS of c~s oFF~C~ <br />As noted above a hearin regarding the assessments was held on April 9,1991. Testimony <br />g. .. . <br />was received b the Hearin s official from James Guido and Eve McClure of Quantum, <br />y g .. .. <br />Znc. located at 754 washin tan Street. ~n addition to this testimony, the Hearings Official <br />g <br />considered a Hearin Request Form prepared by Charles Bierman, which is attached to <br />g <br />these Findin s and Recommendations as Exhibit 1 and the letters of Eve McClure dated <br />g .. <br />A riI 3 and A ril 4, 1991, which are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3. Finally, the Hearings <br />P P <br />official received an additional Memorandum from Paul K1ope of the City Engineer s office <br />dated A ril 9 1991 which addresses concerns regarding the interpretation of Eugene Code <br />P <br />Section 7.175 as it a plies to 754 Washington Street. This Memorandum is attached as <br />P <br />Exhibit 4. <br />The Hearin s Ofbcial examined Eugene Code 7.175.2}~b~Z. The precise interpretation of <br />g .. <br />that rovision was not immediately clear. Therefore, the Hearings Official requested an <br />P ~ .. <br />inter retation from the City Attorney as is set forth in Exhibit 5. <br />P <br />Attached as Exhibit 6 is the reply of the City Attorney. Based upon the history as described <br />b the Ci Attorne , it is the conclusion of the Hearings Official that either interpretation <br />y tY y .. <br />number 1 or number 2 as set forth in page 3 of Exhibit b is the more reasonable. As <br />described in the Ci Attorney's further discussion, either of these interpretations results in <br />tY <br />