Ordinance No. 20007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

take advantage of the financing options available through the local improvement district assessment. The next person to speak was David Coon. Mr. Coon read a letter addressed to the Hearings Df~icer and the Eugene City Council, attached as Exhibit E. Mr. Coon objected to the engineering of the project, which he felt led to unnecessary costs, and to what Mr. Coon described as inequitable assessment because the project was spread out aver several years. Mr. Coon's primary objections were to what he described as the 160 foot rule. Mr. Coon stated that when this rule is applied to irregularly shaped lots it leads to inequities with some lots with smaller areas having to pay higher costs than adjacent lots with larger areas and potentially larger use of the sewers ~e.g. future development}. Mr. Coon also objected to the imposition of charges on residents in the River RoadlSanta Clara area who had no opportunity to vote for the Eugene City Council or influence the decisions of the elected representatives who set the standards in the Code applied to the River RoadlSanta Clara area. Mr. Coon also objected to the process of reviewing the proposed assessment where the concerns of the public were reviewed by a Hearings Cfficial who was hired by and paid by the City of Eugene, Mr. Lyle explained to Mr. Coon the method of assessment, as it applied to Mr. Coon's property. The assessment on Mr. Coon's property came about because his lot is the equivalent of a corner lot with sewers on two sides, which means that a larger portion of Mr. Coon's property is subject to assessment. The Hearings Officer responded to Mr. Coon's remarks by explaining the hearings process as set by the Eugene Code. The next person to speak with regard to the assessment was Jan Balogh. Ms. Balogh objects to being subject to some City charges despite living in the County. Ms. Balogh objected to being assessed based on the square footage of the property rather than an assessment based on linear footage to get access to the property. Ms. Balogh indicated that she objected to the use of the 160 foot standard when her property could not be further developed. Finally Ms. Balogh asked if any of the assessment included a profit for the City. Mr. Lyle explained that the 160 foot assessment area was not based on the potential for development, but on the extent of service area possible from a service line. The cost of the assessment was based oncost to the City and did not include any profit. The next person to speak was Danny Dexter. Mr. Dexter objected to the assessment on his property being in excess of $10,000. Mr. Dexter objected to the fact that even though his sewer access was from River Road his property was being assessed for a sewer that ran along Brotherton Street on the side of his property. Mr. Lyle explained that, according to established policy, properties that had access to sewers along two sides of the lot were assessed for both sewers in a way that did not assess the lot twice for the same portions of the property but did assess portions of the property for the second line that were beyond the 160 foot limit of the first sewer. Mr. Dexter objected to what he characterized as the injustice of the assessment based on the fact that other properties which might make greater use of the sewers had a smaller charge than did his property. Mr. Lyle explained to Mr. Dexter that part of the reason that his property was subject to higher assessments was because of its size. As a large lot which could be but had not been divided, Mr. Dexter's property was subject to an assessment that could have been reduced or Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing March 29, 1995 Page 4