Ordinance No. 20007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lyle then addressed specific matters raised by property owners prior to the hearing. He addressed the concerns of property owners with drainage ways or drainage easements on their property. These property owners axe concerned that the drainageway is not available for use to them, and thus should not be assessed. The Public works Department has developed standards to determine if the area of the drainage channel can be subtracted from the total area of the property subject to assessment. To qualify for such a deduction the drainage must: ~ . provide acommunity-wide benefit; 2, be recognized as an open channel drainage corridor in the City's storm sewer master plan or be a logical extension of the stormwater system ~. the master plan; and 3. be dedicated to the City or to Lane County, or be subject to an easement giving the public perpetual use of the drainageway for drainage purposes. Consistent with prior practices, if these standards are met, the area of the drainageway is deducted from the assessable area of the property. Mr. Lyle then addressed a letter from Mr. Jim Seaberry. Mr. Lyle described the letter as objecting to the assessments based on pending litigation. Mr. Lyle indicated that the Eugene City Attorney had advised the Public works department that the pending litigation had no bearing on the decision to levy the assessment. The first member of the public to speak was Mr. Jim Seaberry. Mr. Seaberry stated that he believed that Mr. Lyle had mischaracterized the nature of his letter. Mr. Seaberry then read his letter, which stated that he objected to the notice of proposed assessment, based an pending litigation, and that he intended to reserve that objection whether he paid the assessment or not. After reading his letter Mr. Seaberry went on to state that he further objected to remarks which he described as being made by a City employee on the sanitary sewer project to Mr. Seaberry's neighbor. Mr. Seaberry characterized these remarks as being to the effect that everyone working on the project knew of Mr. Seaberry as a troublemaker. Mr. Seaberry also stated that he wished that the City of Eugene had provided more information concerning deferring the connection to the sewer. Mr. Seaberry stated that he had only found one small reference to the possibility of deferring connection. Mr. Seaberry described the deferral available to senior citizens and stated that it would have been more fair to have provided more information about the possibility of deferral. The next person to speak was Rudy Ebenbeck. Mr. Ebenbeck stated that he had received an assessment for property on Calumet Avenue. He understood that the City would only assess properties fironting on the streets where sewers were installed. Mr. Ebenbeck described his concerns as arising because he had only four lots of a planned subdivision that fronted the street, but was assessed back 1 d0 feet, which resulted in an assessment on eight lots. Mr. Ebenbeck also stated that he had installed the sewers for this area, which he described as being a subdivision, for a cost of around $50 a foot. He could not understand why the City's costs were so much higher, and were also higher than the original estimate. Mr. Lyle explained that according to the property records, the property was under common Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing March 29, 1995 Page 2