Ordinance No. 20007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ownership and thus was assessed as a single unit, rather than by individual lots. Mr. Lyle also explained that the area within the proposed subdivision dedicated to streets and other rights of way had not been assessed. After some discussion concerning ownership, Mr. Ebenbeck conceded that the property was owned by a partnership. Ms. Cahill explained to Mr. Ebenbeck that this did constitute common ownership and thus warranted a single assessment for the entire area. Mr. Ebenbeck stated that he was concerned that, despite the absence of an of~~cial plat, the partnership had taken reservations for the sale of the property, and that these reservations might be canceled when the prospective owners learned of the assessment. In response to Mr. Ebenbeck's statements regarding earlier estimates of the cast, Ms. Cahill indicated that the City's estimate of the cast of the sewers has changed over time since the costs have changed each year. Ms. Cahill indicated that it was passible that Mr. Ebenbeck had received estimates which were accurate at the time even though they had been revised upward later because of the passage of time and the refinement of the City's estimates. The next person to address the hearing was Jean ~V"ycoff. Ms. Wycoff indicated that while she did not object to sewers and to fair costs, she did abject to being gouged. Ms. Wycoff indicated that she objected because, while she felt that the cost of bringing the sewer to her property was no greater than the cast far others, she was being charged mare than was fair because of the size and shape of her lot. She rejected the idea that larger lots could be developed further as far as that idea applied to her lot. Ms. Wycoff described her lot as being narrow enough at the street so that it could not be divided. Ms. Wycoff objected to what she characterized as taxation without representation because she felt that the arbitrary standards in the Eugene Code should not apply to areas outside the City. Ms. Wycoff also objected to having to pay the regional SDC charge because she felt that it was based on the prior fourteen years of usage which had been of no benefit to her. Mr. Lyle explained to Ms. Wycoff that the method of calculating casts set dawn in the Eugene Code required that the costs be apportioned according to the area of the lot within X64 feet of the street where the sewer was installed. Ms. Wycoff objected that this method had no relationship to doe cost of the sewer or to the beneftt Ms. 'Wycoff might derive from the sewers. Mr. Lyle described the efforts previously made by the City of Eugene to determine the fairest method of assessing the costs of local improvements. While the method selected is not satisfactory to all persons, no other method was discovered that was a more fair distribution of the costs. The relative fairness of this method of assessment was supported by the fact that it is used by a number of other cities in the Northwest. Mr. Lyle stated that this method had been made a part of the Eugene City Code and was therefore binding on the Public works Department. 4n every occasion when the City Council has had reason to examine the question, the Council has again affirmed the current method of assessment as the proper method. Mr. Lyle also explained the regional SDC as a reimbursement for treatment plant capacity necessary to serve the area. The level of the charges was set by the MWMC board anticipating that the sewers would be made available to persons in the River RoadlSanta Clara area. ~n response to a question by the Hearings officer, Mr. Lyle explained that the SDC charges were being levied concurrently with the assessment to allow persons who wished to Minutes ~ LSD Final Assessment Hearing March 29, 1995 Page 3