Ordinance No. 20007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MWMC Charge Several property owners raised concerns about the regional SDC, also known as the MWMC charge. The legality of the MWMC charge was discussed in depth in the hearings off'icial's Findings and Recommendations for the formation of the I994 LID. These findings upheld the legality of the charge. an another MWMC issue, a property owner has asked for a reduction in the MWMC charge because of a 25-centwper-month sewer charge collected in the 1950s and early 'bos through the River Road and Santa Clara water districts. In response to a similar request made by a property owner at an assessment hearing in I99~, the hearings official did not support or recommend any changes in the proposed assessments in his findings and recom- mendations. Furthermore, the appropriateness of the MWMC charge is not an issue under the purview of the hearings official since it is not part of the assessment calculation. Staff recom- mends the MWMC charge be collected in conjunction with the assessments by the City of Eugene on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission to facilitate the ability of property owners to finance the charge with their assessments. This recommendation should be accepted. Pending Litigation In written testimony Jim Seaberry objects to levying of the assessments at this time, based on the fact that litigation remains unresolved in two cases stemnv.ng from the sewering of River Road and Santa Clara. The cases he cites are Lake et al v. Lane County ~Gregon Supreme Court, Case S4I912~ and Neely v. Goss et al Oregon Court of Appeals, Case A85754}. The City is not a party in either case. Lake v. Lane County challenges a Lane County ordinance established an in-lieu-of--tax charge on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. Neely v. Goss is an appeal of acourt-ordered eviction. Eugene Public Works Staff contacted the City Attorneys Of~~ce in response to Mr. Seaberry's letter. Mr. Lyle reported that the City Attorney assured Mr. Lyle that the pending litigation would have na effect on the recommended assessments. A memorandum from the City Attorney regarding this issue was later received and is attached as Exhibit D, After stating his objections in his letter and his testimony, Mr. Seaberry indicates that he is reserving his rights to challenge the assessments when the cases are resolved. Since Mr. Seaberry's rights to challenge these assessments do not depend on when these cases are resolved, no change in the proposed assessments is recommended in response to Mr. Seaberry's statements. Aetermination of Vacant Properties In their letter to the hearings official, Eldon and Sallie Walker question the initial staff characterization of their property as being "developed. " They believe the property is "vacant. " Staff has further reviewed the two barns located on the property and found no plumbing futures located in the barns. Based on the "RRISC Vacant Lot Determination for Purposes of Levying Assessments" staff has revised its recommendation and recommends that the property be considered vacant for purposes of assessment. Assessment of this property SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L" "M" AND "V" Page 9 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECCMMENDATI4NS