Ordinance No. 20007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

because that would not be fair to anyone who acquired the property after her mother-in-law. Ms. Fisher did agree to examine the information she was provided concerning the deferral. Ms. Fisher also requested information on her own behalf. Ms. Fisher indicated that while she did not live in the area, she was concerned about what she felt was a common pattern of behavior by the City. Mr. Lyle and other members of the City staff assured Ms. Fisher that they would work with her to provide her with the information that she requested. The next person to speak was Robert Trivelpiece. Mr. Trivelpiece was concerned about the size of his property in relation to the local SDC. Mr. Trivelpiece's property is slightly less than 1 acre. Properties one acre or greater in size qualify for a charge of the SDC on only the first I6o feet of the depth of the property, while properties of less than one acre are charged for the entire area of the property. Mr. Trivelpiece's property was recently reduced in size when Lane County widened River Road. At that time Lane County acquired ten feet off the front of the property, which resulted in the property being reduced from just over one acre to just under one acre. Mr. Trivelpiece asked that he be allowed the 16o foot basis for the SDC charge rather than having his entire parcel subjected to the SDC charge. Mr. Trivelpiece said that his property met the other standards for the SDC imposed on larger properties. Mr,. Trivelpiece also stated that he felt that the charges were ten to twelve percent too high. In response to Mr. Trivelpiece's remarks, Mr. Lyle indicated that the decision an whether to recommend a change in the SDC would be left to the Hearings officer. Mr. Lyle also indicated that the charges for the sewers in front of Mr. Trivelpiece's property were based on the same units used for all other properties within the basins, not on the amount Lane County charged the City for the installation along River Road. There was some difference in costs in the different basins due to the different costs related to installation in the basin. All of these differences were removed by totaling the cost and spreading the cost across the entire local improvement district. This was done to remove any distinctions that would otherwise have been caused by the City's decision regarding implementation of the installation program indifferent basins. Mr. Lyle explained that it was decided that it would not be fair to differentiate the cost to same because of choices made by the City. Mr. Lyle explained that the one acre standard for the SDC is a long established standard that has been used inside the City and previously in the River Road and Santa Clara area. It has been applied by previous Council decisions when the Council approved assessments for the previous sewer projects in the river road area. There being no further testimony, the hearing was concluded at 7:35 p.m. Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing March 29, I995 Page 6