Ordinance No. 20007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

delayed- if the single lot had been divided, because the vacant lots would not have been assessed at this time. Mr. Dexter responded that he did not feel that this was an acceptable solution because of the cost associated with creating separate lots. The next person to testify was w. E, Schumacher. Mr. Schumacher agreed with the remarks made by Mr. Coon. Mr. Schumacher owns two lots in the area, one behind the other. Mr. Schumacher objected to being assessed for the portion of the back lot that was within the 1G~ foot limit. Mr. Schumacher objected to the regional SDC, which he regarded as being a charge for previous services, from which he derived no benefit. Mr. Schumacher also objected to Lane County transferring administrative authority to the City based on an expectation that the area would soon be in the City. Mr. Schumacher indicated that he did not wish to be in the City and that he did not expect that if he were ever brought within the City he would support the City's requests for approval of bond measures. Mr. Lyle responded to Mr. Schumacher's comments by describing Lane County's participation in the decisions regarding the MWMC charges, which were developed to pay the bonds used to construct a regional treatment plant designed to serve the area within the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Lyle also explained the decisions made by Lane County concerning the City's administration of building permits and other services in the River RoadlSanta Clara area. The next person to testify was Gary Carlile. Mr. Carlile asked for an explanation of why he was being assessed for a landlocked lot that could not be developed. Mr. Carlile stated that he had not received a satisfactory answer in response to his previous questions to City of Eugene staff. Mr. Lyle explained that, according to the policies established by the Eugene Code, Mr. Carlile's lat~ was considered to be the same assessable parcel as the property that abutted the street because the properties were under common ownership and usage. Ms. Cahill responded to Mr. Carlile's comments by identifying herself as a member of the City staff that has discussed Mr. Carlile's concerns earlier. Ms. Cahill recalled that she and Mr. Carlile had discussed the requirements of the code concerning common ownership and the possibility of delaying or avoiding the assessment by transferring ownership of one parcel. Mr. Carlile felt that it should not be necessary to manipulate property ownership to qualify for the delayed assessment. The next person to testify was Carol Fisher, on behalf of her mother-in-law, Caroline Fisher. Ms. Fisher asked if the amount of the assessment represented in the letter received by her mother-in-law was the final amount or if it would be changed. Ms. Fisher also asked about the possibility of alternate methods of payment and about senior deferrals. Finally Ms. Fisher asked for a plat of her masher-in-law's property and if the drainage area on the property had been assessed. Ms. Cahill responded to Ms. Fisher's questions by checking the records and assuring her that the drainageway had been deducted and that the plat maps requested could be provided. Mr. Lyle assured Ms. Fisher that the amount of the proposed assessment was the Baal amount and would not change because of any further changes in costs, since these were the final project casts. Ms. Grandona provided Ms. Fisher with information concerning the posszble discounts and deferrals available to the elderly. Ms. Fisher indicated that she did not believe that her mother-in-law would seek to qualify for the elderly deferral Minutes - L1D Final Assessment fearing March 29, 1995 Page 5