Ordinance No. 19831 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the actual figure was $U.2157 per square foot. This would indicate that the probable assessment for Mr. Hunter's properties is about half of what he claimed. when this amount is factored over four properties, it does not appear unreasonable. Even if the assessment would seem high, Mr. Hunter does not point to any error of calculation by City Staff. Secondly, there is no mechanism whatsoever for the City of Eugene to obtain additional monies from Lane County on some theory of "negligence" or "moral responsibility". The Eugene Code and the agreements among the governmental units to require sewer hookup permits the city to assess these properties. The Cifiy has no standing whatsoever to bring any litigation against Lane County. whether individual property owners might have such standing or authority is debatable, but up to the property owners to determine. Therefore, it is the finding of the Hearings Ofhicial that the amounts levied in general and with regard to Mr. Hunter's properties specifically, have been conducted in accor- dance with the Eugene Cade. It is the recommendation of the Hearings Qflicial that the amounts be assessed as have been proposed by staff. 3. Others. em A. .F „ property. As noted in the Memorandum, Mr. Kempf owns two properties, one of which is vacant and not being assessed at this time. The proposed assessment includes the area of the developed lot within 160 feet of the sewer that is adjacent but not contiguous to the lot. Mr. Kempf states he gave the City an easement acquired on the vacant lot, in lieu of a sewer fee. There is an easement document which indicates no monetary compensation was paid far the property, nor does it indicate a waiver of fees. An estimate for the developed lot, indicates only that the farmer trunk sewer levy currently the local SDC) would be charged. The six-inch line along the vacant lot includes services far two properties. Therefore, staff believes that the six-inch line can serve the property and feels the proposed assessment is consistent with policy and practice. A letter received from Nlr. Kempf, which outlines his position is attached as Exhibit " 3". The Hearings Official has no information upon which to corroborate and confirm any agreement to waive fees in return for an easement. while Mr. Kempf may have sincerely concluded that such an agreement was reached, there is no documentation of any kind to support it. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Hearings ~f~cial that the Kempf property be assessed as proposed. B. Tucker roe . Mr. Harald Tucker submitted a letter which was received after the public hearing and is attached as Exlu`bit "4". Mr. Tucker appears to be complaining that the amount of the assessment is high considering that the property only has a small living structure and some animals on it. There is also reference to the direction of drainage on the property.