The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution No. 4488 RESOLUTION NO. LfL/}S A RESOLUTION INITIATING AND ORDERING ESTABLISHMENT OF A lOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR SANITARY SEWERS IN THE SANTA CLARA AREA FOR BASINS "X", "U", AND "S" (Jobs 3398, 3013, and 2928) THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF EUGENE FINDS AS FOllOWS: A. Under ORS 224.020, 224.040, 224.050, and 454.215 the City may construct sanitary sewers within or without its corporate limits and do all work the City Council deems essential and proper for the construction and operation of sanitary sewers. These statutes and ORS Chapter 35 also authorize the City to institute proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of private property for public purposes, including the construction and maintenance of sanitary sewers. B. On December 4, 1986, the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission adopted Final Order 861 which approved the City of Eugene's extraterritorial extension of sanitary sewers into the River Road and Santa Clara areas. C. The City of Eugene is in the process of constructing sewers in the Santa Clara area in conformity with the Metropolitan Area General Plan as amended. On November 20, 1989, the Council approved the amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) initiating the seven-year program to construct sewers in River Road and Santa Clara. D. The City Council's determination to construct sanitary sewers and form local improvement districts to assess the property specially benefitted by the construction of a sanitary sewer is a discretionary act based upon the Council's assessment of what is X,U,S RESOLUTION necessary or essential for the public good. E. Because the groundwater in the Santa Clara area shows contamination by private septic systems, because of the limitation on further development in the Santa Clara area imposed by the Environmental Quality Commission, and because the public has already spent approximately $38 million to construct sanitary sewerage facilities to serve the River Road and Santa Clara areas and must now fulfill its contractual obligations to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to make sanitary sewers available to the existing structures with plumbing fixtures, the City Council deems it necessary and essential that it now form local improvement districts to assess the cost of constructing the sanitary sewer system and to allow specially benefitted property to connect to the system when the connections are consistent with the provisions of the Metropolitan Area General Plan. F. At this time in order to avoid the premature development of vacant property in the Santa Clara area, the parcels of real property that are improved with structures having plumbing fixtures or developed with or only capable of being developed with adjacent properties under the same ownership shall be included within the local improvement district. Property encumbered with right-of-way used for roads, drainage, or other restrictions that prevent development of the property shall not be deemed to be benefited. G. On November 20, 1989, and in each fiscal year thereafter, sanitary sewer construction projects within the River Road and Santa Clara area basins were included in the Council approved CIP. On November 22, 1989, the Council directed the City Engineer to begin the design of these sanitary sewer projects as they were identified in the CIP. X,U,S RESOLUTION H. The City Engineer's report and Hearings Official's minutes, findings and recommendations presented to the City Council in conjunction with this matter and this resolution ratify past decisions of the City Council regarding initiating the formation of the local improvement district and satisfy the requirement of Section 7.160 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (EC). I. Notice of the public hearing regarding formation of the proposed local improvement district was published in the Register-Guard, a newspaper of general circulation in the City and Santa Clara area on March 5, 1996. The City Engineer sent notice of the public hearing by first-class mail to owners of property in the contemplated improvement district as allowed by EC 7.165(2). J. As the Council's designee the Hearings Official conducted the public hearing required by EC 7.166 on May 15, 1996, at which time he considered the City Engineer's report, filed written remonstrances, and the testimony and evidence offered at the public hearing. Prior to the hearing an information session was held May 8, 1996. K. Regardless of the remonstrances filed in these proceedings, Section 37 of the Eugene Charter of 1976 allows the City Council to proceed with formation of the proposed local improvement district. L. In the proceedings for the formation of the proposed local improvement district, the City has afforded the owners of the affected property the same notice, opportunity of remonstrance and all other rights and remedies which the owners of property within the City have under local and state law. X,U,S RESOLUTION M. The City Engineer has called for bids on the proposed improvement and based thereon has determined the estimated total cost of the proposed improvement to be $4.6 million of which $4.6 million shall be assessed to and borne by the specially benefitted property as provided in EC 7.170 and 7.175. N The proposed improvements shall be in compliance with, and in furtherance of, the plans and specifications prepared by the City Engineer in accordance with provisions of Chapter 7 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and applicable policies of the City of Eugene. O. Because the proposed local improvement district is located outside the City's corporate limits, the full faith and credit of the City shall not be pledged to pay the short- term or long-term debt incurred by the City for the construction of the sanitary sewers authorized herein except upon the Council's express approval, which approval is not granted in this resolution. P. To minimize administrative costs in processing the collection of system development charges at the time any specially benefited property is connected to the sanitary sewer, the City Engineer and Finance Officer are authorized to allow property owners to include within any assessment to be paid in installments, the system development charge required by the City at the time of assessment. Q. The assessments to be levied against specially benefited property are for a capital construction project, shall not exceed actual cost, are for bestowal of a special benefit to specific property or to rectify a problem caused by specific property, shall be imposed in a single final assessment upon completion of the project and may be paid with X,U,S RESOLUTION interest over at least a ten-year period at the property owner's election. R. In order to allow adequate time for property owners to partition or otherwise change the configuration of their property and to allow adequate time for staff to reflect those changes in the calculations in the final assessment all changes to the boundaries of lots and parcels within the proposed local improvement district must be completed by December 1, 1996. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Eugene hereby adopts the above findings and incorporates them herein by this reference. Section 2. As used in this resolution the "property specially benefited" or "specially benefited property" means (a) a parcel as it exists on December 1, 1996, upon which there is all or part of a structure in which there is installed a plumbing fixture or otherwise determined by the City Engineer to be developed and (b) when there is in the same ownership another parcel adjacent to the parcel described in (a) and the adjacent parcel is improved with features which are ancillary to the parcel described in (a) or the adjacent parcel is determined by the City Engineer only to be developable in connection with the parcel described in (a). "Property specially benefited" or "specially benefited property" does not include all or part of a parcel encumbered by road right-of-way, by drainage right- of-way that is identified by the City as a drainage corridor, or by other restrictions of record which prevent development on the area so encumbered. X,U,S RESOLUTION Section 3. The Council hereby establishes a local improvement district comprised of the specially benefitted property within the area described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference made apart hereof, for the construction of sanitary sewers to serve the property specially benefited. Section 4. The City Manager is directed to award the contracts for the construction of the improvements described in Section 3 hereof and to construct all improvements in accordance with the City Engineer's prepared plans and specifications. The costs of such improvements shall be borne by, and assessed to the specially benefited properties in the district, in accordance with EC 7.175. Included in the costs shall be the overhead costs specified in EC 7.170 and whatever other special costs, such as the interest on inter-fund loans used for short-term financing and the acquisition of interests in real property, or the costs of road repair if another source of revenue to pay for such road costs is not make available to the City, as are necessary to make the improvements. Upon completion of the improvement project, the final costs of the project will be calculated and the specially benefited property shall be assessed as provided in EC 7.185 through 7.265. The assessments to be levied for these improvements are hereby characterized for purposes of the property tax limitation in Section 11 b, Art. XI of the Oregon Constitution as assessments for a local improvement, not subject to the constitutional limitation of $10 per thousand of real market value. Notice of the intent to so characterize the assessments was sent to the affected property owners prior to the adoption of this resolution. Section 5. The City Council hereby declares that the construction of the X,U,S RESOLUTION improvements as set forth herein is for public purpose, is necessary for the public welfare, is authorized under the laws of the State of Oregon and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Eugene, and is ordered by this Resolution. Section 6. Any warrants or other short-term debt and other evidence of indebtedness authorized by Chapter 902, 1992 Oregon Session Laws, issued to finance the improvements shall be indebtedness for them and any fund which may be pledged as security therefor. They shall bear interest at a rate set by the City Manager at the time of issuance and shall be redeemed as provided by their terms. Section 7. Proceeds from unbonded assessments, improvement bonds, and foreclosure of improvement liens based on the improvements, from revenues appropriated for that purpose, and from ad valorem taxes, if any, levied to pay the warrants, shall be deposited in the fund that repays the cost of these improvements until the warrants or other short-term debt issued to finance the improvement are redeemed. Proceeds so deposited may be used only to pay warrants or other short-term debt issued to finance the improve- ments. Section 8. The Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Officer may sign warrants and other evidence of debt by facsimile signature with a check-signing machine. The Finance Officer shall cause the seal of the City to be printed on the warrants or other evidence of debt. Section 9. The City Council declares the adoption of this resolution not to be a land use decision for the reasons set forth in Exhibit "8" which is attached hereto and hereby X,U,S RESOLUTION adopted and incorporated herein. The foregoing Resoluf X,U,S RESOLUTION :s::~ ,1996. · EXHIBIT ..L · Santa Clara Sewer Basins 1995/1996 ..' .... i ....ii.i;;,;; ii .... · i)i.)ii./,;!, ),h/iX'. . ......,\ ........ ....... ...... ......., """'.'.'''><< ../>.'. ..... ...".,.X' ,........< ............... '. 'i ..... i'i., .)'i....... / /iih) ,.t. ,., "i i '/.,' .... "i a.""", )i..i!i \) ....! I' . ii.' .../)) ...... .... . 7' ,x)>'.. >> . .. ....'<ii>, < """", ....... .. ..... ... ..... '.,.' ...... . . .. ,....><.:: ....'.. """.<>x..\.!!. ..; '.) '. .' V ./> ! '. &Ji<on _ L~~er .! .... ' '. . ,...... ....> .. ... ....... <> .\<i,,<> . ...... ...... .......... . .<>< . ..... ... ...<................................... ................ .... .......... ",i/ ~ . ." c: ~ " .,... ........ << ......<.m .,.'", i \ ..,.,.....,.'.... ... . .> ,h) i"))', /! r-- <\\'1/ i',; )<.... - _ie, ",'. · <<X.>/ .. ..... Calomet 1995 / ...........\X ................ '!"~:'i I~\~,..\.\ '"'\ .>>\< i ....<1><\ < ~'--4~ ~.~..........j,...'.....'.~... "%~\ \ .x, .... "I Noltingharr I lUX. }> ~I~ ~<\~ OU.n'\ \ . ""'1< Watsonn> ......1.2'>. ....... '. \ l ... ~ ~. .. .<'..> ........, ... <><n k.loO~blJry .'. ...... ....~ . ",', < d, ~pririgtree~r. >u ( ... .... ....<.::--,. '.... .'.......,'.,..,....'",>> .. ""'. .<<". "'..'. I...,'.' .... ","'. 1<"... <<I) ~.n0 . '...."1 >> -I- ~ Lyri~b. "~ !9)7~' !it i....... .) ,1(0:, ~hC q~'1Ppu~,~ F'b · F/,>. ... " ' meeL .,.r.~ ::. .." . !(' ....i'.."","", !') ~rrrOii(.~' "'hi ....!'! ..... d.. I '" Tir .(ff I >, ..' ",,,,.,/t' .;" !! "',i.. SwaiR. ,2". hi ..... . ' 2'1:/1Ji<> Vi1la ~ril .1,.....,...-.:.)).;);",;;; T" ~)\ \~ ~ ('~> :"1..'.....9.......95 51......."....... I' ,"'",' .,.,......<, Hoyt ~ :r: \ .." ." "", ,.....,...,., "", """"'.'. "",,? 85 Wilkes Sanborn ~ I".. ........", .2. ,,<','. ~11~ dl\c- -2 ",' \ I i)'('X ,..... ",.<'. "",." c: 0 ~ E I I I a ......'..<>> ..>>\ Anchor r 85 a.. Anchor t ~ ~ S"ille ,....,. ......, . 0 _ ""'", r Stillman ,\., ./.",><F i. .,........ 0- GL~:"tow " ./ ..... .., i ~'I~I< .:It:r:;j-~ ~'<'I ib River Loo. 1 - i o Tlvoli _ e I'"'' ~ .' _ ~ ~ Fayette f-... u..... .... .... I" f- - ... -:P .. .....~.. _J:.ommodore - of995 I ~ ~ II' \ .B Grlzzl ~ -t I ~ ~ . _ _ ~ ~ ..' \ --w- Ii E" ill . " . 0 .. .. _ ~ RN: L-:;' l;~lnb~(ee .... .. d I ~ - I I _ ~ II !I,. ~ ~-(l&. ~ .... I ~I ~f~ ....... ~ ~% "., 1.<" Banton \~ J? :2: I[ . ~I' E. Mvoak .... .... % "11' cfJ I I . t- ...~~ -.. I \ >. .............. ... . . "...... ~f19r....~~~, ~I'i"'.a: .. ..... c :..,"~ /~~>,~ .... I I II".-, .1l ! ,lj , ~I+/. 'Irvin. . . j I. 1.....~........,1...'~.. .....~,.:~.....()...... ,I~...~n~ii-#~JI' . I" .-".. .. .......:-..,.. .;:;;.. ..~>~ ::.S:i. ~r I*r----- G)'~ . . . 'I -I-- ..... Ziii~r~Q ...... Clararl~ ..' '"'... \.... .. >--!l."':I1cl"':". .' ".> ,',.)"H~~~: !~~:~~:.:il'~~ ... .............,. · .-' 0 J ............. ........ ......> > ......... . .... ...... '<'<}/i) ...... dd '.. ........ ")'} .... .. ...................... ..\ ........... i I .. .,.>.<., .:' '.. . ......,"......."......::........... . .' .... ............... ." ...... .............. .............. ......\ .>. ". .... ........ . ..........'\..<.......i>.......>... .. ...><) ..................... Sf ". .....>.... .. ....... .<) ..... .>}/ ...} -.' ...... ...>d >.' ........>> .........> , · ..' ... ...... .>< >i. . .... '.'i"" .. ., t>i <> ...... '. .... ....... '" .... . . .. '.. . ....... ". .... . ..... ...... ......... . .i-.-.. .< ........, ....d.... ..t... ..... ...... . . .. l ~ . .> I ::xHISIT --L .. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATINS SUBJECT: SANTA CLARA SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 1996 BASINS S, X, and U; FORMATION OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR JOBS 2928, 3013, AND 3398 BACKGROUND The City of Eugene has identified the 1996 Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer project as a project necessary to address an important health and welfare issue within the metropolitan area. The project conforms to the Metropolitan Area General Plan requirements and stipulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant conditions which include service delivery targets. The 1996 project represents the seventh year of a seven-year program to service the River Road- Santa Clara area. On November 20, 1989, the City Council amended the Eugene Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) by modifying the timing for service delivery to the River Road/Santa Clara Area. Following that amendment, the City Council authorized the City Engineer to proceed with the phased prepara- tion of plans and specifications for the improvement and to call for bids each year of the program. On March 5, 1996, the seventh consecutive year's construction projects were advertised in the legal section of The Register-Guard and in the Daily Journal of Commerce. To comply with the EPA grant connection schedule condition, to maximize competitive bidding and administrative efficiency, and to minimize as much as possible the disruption to the neighborhoods, the River Road and Santa Clara areas were divided into a number of construction basins. Each year since 1990, sewers have been installed in several basins. In 1996, sewers are scheduled to be installed in three basins in Santa Clara. Basin 96S(Job 2928) generally includes properties between River Road and Beaver Street and Division Avenue and Salty Way. Basin 96U (Job 3013) is described as generally properties between Federal Lane and Blackfoot Avenue and River Road and Marvin Drive. Basin 96X (Job 3398) is described as the properties between Irving Road on the South and Cinnamon A venue on the north and Stark Street on the east and Northwest Expressway on the west. Several bidders submitted bids for the 1996 construction. Four (4) bidders submitted bids for Basin 96S on April 23, 1996. The low bid was submitted by Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. for $1,558,315.00. Five (5) bidders submitted bids for Basin 96U on April 24,1996 The low bid was submitted by Dan D Allsup Contractor for $1,173,996.00. Three (3) bidders submitted bids for Basin 96X on April 25, 1996 The low bid was submitted by Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. for $289,489.00. The total of all three (3) bids is $3,021,800.00, which is approximately nine percent below the Engineer's estimate for the 1996 work. SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928, 3010 and 3398 Page 1 As with the previous local improvement districts in the area, sanitary systems development charges (SDCs) will be imposed and collected at the same time as the assessments for the 1996 LID. There are two sanitary SDC components: a local charge to reimburse the City for its cost to construct major sanitary sewer collection facilities in River Road and Santa Clara areas; and the regional charge required by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). Revenues from the local charge will be deposited to the City's sanitary sewer user fund and revenues from the regional charge will be transferred to MWMC. The authority to collect the system development charges is provided in Eugene Code section 7.720(I)(c), Owners of partially developed large lots meeting certain criteria will be allowed to delay payment of a portion their local SDC until their properties are further developed. The criteria for the phased collection of the local SDC are as follows: the parcel must be one acre (43,560 square feet) or larger; it must be of a configuration that will allow further development; and it must not be encumbered in such as way that would prevent further development. For lots meeting those criteria, the area used to compute the local SDC will be limited to the area used to compute the lateral assessment. Any unpaid SDC will be collected at the time of further development. City of Eugene Engineering staff will identify those properties in the 1996 LID that appear to meet these criteria, and the owners of those properties were notified that their properties appear to qualify for the phased collection of the local SDC. Property owners who will bear the cost for the proposed improvements were notified of the May 15 hearing with the hearings official and the City Council session to establish the LID through a notice published in The Register-Guard on March 5, 1996. Letters informing the identified property owners that the City had identified of the hearing and anticipated Council action date were mailed on April 15, 1996. The letter also invited property owners to an information session conducted on May 8 to address individual property owner questions as well as to notify property owners of the intent of the City to characterize the sewer assessment as an assessment, not a tax, as required by ORS 305.583(5). Approximately 240 property owners and interested parties attended the May 8 information session. Those attending received written estimates of their sewer costs and had the opportunity to discuss their estimates, concerns about the project, and financing options with Engineering and Finance staff. Estimates were mailed to property owners who did not receive their estimates at the information session. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) The City's proposal is that one LID be formed to assess all annexed properties and developed properties outside the City boundaries and within the indicated basins. For purposes of determining whether a lot is developed, staff reviews if there are plumbing fixtures, the value of improvements, the size of the lot, access to the property, common ownership with adjacent lots, and other factors listed on the "RR/SC Vacant Lot Determination II flow chart. SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928, 3010 and 3398 Page 2 This LID will include the properties served by the sewers constructed under the three City contracts (for basins S, X, and U). ASSESSMENTS The source of funding for this project is predominately from assessments of those properties that will ultimately receive service from these improvements. The costs for the three City contract basins (S, X and U would be combined and the assessable areas also be combined for a single LID assessment calculation. In accordance with EC 7 .175(2)(b )5c, the costs for the project would be apportioned on a per-square-foot basis for the lateral sewer, and on a per-each basis for the service connection points. Vacant properties not annexed to the city would be included in the computation of assessable costs but will not be included in the LID, assessed or receive service until annexation and development occurs, as provided in Metropolitan Plan policies. The City of Eugene will bear the assessable costs for unannexed, vacant properties through the sewer fund until such properties are annexed and developed. At that time, an equivalent assessment will be collected in accordance with EC 6.476. PARTITIONS It is anticipated that a limited number of property owners may be partitioning or modifying the existing configurations of their properties to create vacant parcels that may not be subject to assessment. If a change is completed (i.e., the change receives final approval by the City and is recorded with Lane County) by December 1, 1996, the change will be reflected in the final assessment calculations. RIGHTS-OF- WAY AND DRAINAGEW A YS In addition to vacant property not being included in the LID there are two other condiions under which property within the LID boundaries should not be included in the assessable area: 1) street rights-of-way, and; 2) portions of property within drainageways meeting certain criteria. The criteria that a property must meet to exempt a portion of the property from assessment as a drainageway are as follows: 1) the drainageway must provide community-wide benefit; 2) the drainageway must be recognized as an open channel drainage corridor in the City's storm drainage master plan; and 3) the property within the drainageway must be dedicated to the City or County, or there must be an easement giving the City or County perpetual use of the drainageway for drainage purposes. The second criteria, a drainageway recognized as an open channel in the storm master plan, is a guideline. The master plan is a planning document and was not intended to deal with individual lot issues. Lots which appear to have drainageways which are determined by staff to be part of the system recognized by the drainage master plan may be recognized as meeting the second criteria. Staff will review properties in the LID that abut known drainage channels and will send revised notices of reduced assessment to the owners of those lots that fit the criteria listed above. For SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928, 3010 and 3398 Page 3 lots that do not fit all three criteria, staff will consider that the channel area is part of the open space which can be used by the property and will generally benefit from the sewers. DRYLINES The proposed 1996 LID includes approximately six properties adjacent to previously constructed sewers. These previously constructed sewers are located in Maranta Cul-de-sac. Typically, these sewers were installed in the public rights-of-way by private subdivision developers in the 1970s. Because they cannot function until they are connected to a working sewer system, these sewers are called "drylines." The City has evaluated the utility of these "drylines" through inspection and testing. It has been determined that these "drylines" can be used and the "drylines" will be connected to the sewers to be installed in 1996 on Maranta Street south of the Maranta Cul-de- sac. The cost incurred by the City for this testing, evaluation and construction process will be distributed among the benefited properties through a lateral assessment. The incurred cost will include costs for engineering, inspection, cleaning, testing, construction, administration services and short term financing. If it is found that any of the "dryline" service connection points cannot be used, a new service will be installed under the 1996 contract, and the benefited properties will be assessed based on the 1996 per-each construction cost for a service. This is consistent with past practices and conforms to the City's general policy of assessing propeties for improvements if they have not previously been assessed for those improvements. UNDEVELOPABLE LOTS IN COMMON OWNERSHIP WITH DEVELOPED LOTS At several locations throughout the proposed LID, there are undevelopable lots adjacent to and in common ownership with developed properties. Typically, these parcels are developed in common with the adjacent parcel as a lawn or garden area and are considered undevelopable because they are landlocked or have an insufficient size to allow them to be developed as they are currently configured. In such cases, existing practice has been to include the undevelopable lot with the commonly owned developed lot for purposes of calculating the lateral assessment and local systems development charge. This practice will be followed in the present LID as well. ASSESSMENT COSTS Listed below are the Engineer's estimate for the 1996 construction. The costs reflect the three City contract basins (S, X and U being combined into a single LID. The estimated costs reflect the low bid costs, 10 percent contingency of the contract cost, 5 percent administration charges, anticipated legal fees, right-of-way costs, consulting fees, short- term financing costs, bond anticipation notes, costs for Engineering services, and other charges associated with the project which are allowed to be assessed by EC 7.175. The final assessment will be based on final contract costs, actual Engineering service costs, actual short-term financing and BAN costs, a 5 percent finance administration cost, and other direct costs attributable to the project. SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928, 3010 and 3398 Page 4 Approximately $206,051 of the total assessable cost represents the share for vacant properties and has been included in the computation of assessment unit costs. Vacant lots will not be assessed until the lots are developed. The project includes several street repair components: trench patch of various types, street repair beyond the trench, and street reconstruction. On May 16, 1990, Lane County Commissioners agreed to pay the cost of that work. Since these costs will be borne by Lane County they will not be assessed. They have been deducted from the total estimate of costs and the total assessable costs. If Lane County chooses to no longer participate in these costs, the costs will be included in the final assessment. Road repair items will be included in the assessment if not funded by Lane County. Based on low-bid costs, the road repair cost would be an additional $0.08 per square foot of assessable area. There are two streets, Ross Lane and Lone Oaks Drive that are in City of Eugene's jurisdiction. These streets are not part of Lane County's road repair commitment. The cost to resurface these streets will be distributed among all the property owners within the LID. Based on the low bids, the estimated unit amounts on which to base the preliminary assessment amounts are: Total Assessable Cost: Total Assessable Area: $ 3,772,252.61 8,491,641 square feet Lateral Costl: Service Cost: Local SDC: MWMC: $ 0.324 per square foot of assessable area $ 1,310.00 each $ 0.025 per square foot of total lot $ 350.002 per single family dwelling Notes: I Lateral costs do not include trench patch or reconstruction cost anticipated to be paid by Lane County. 2 The current MWMC fee is $332.00 for a single-family dwelling. This estimate anticipates an increase in July 1996. When property owners in the 1996 construction basins requested estimates, the City suggested the property owners contact the City in early May, after bids were received. When given, pre-bid estimates were based on a conservative assumption that 1996 prices would be higher than 1995 prices. For a median-size lot of 9200 square feet the pre-bid estimate (including SDCs) was $5,468. Based on the low bids, the current estimate (including SDCs) for a median-size lot is $4800. SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928, 3010 and 3398 Page 5 The costs used for the pre-bid estimates were: Lateral Cost: $ 0.39 per square foot of assessable area Service Cost: $ 1300.00 each Local SDC: $ 0.025 per square foot of total lot MWMC Charge: $ 350.00 per equivalent dwelling unit The MWMC fee is based on the amount of water used per month, the number of fixtures per dwelling, or the standard fee (currently $332.00 per single family dwelling). This fee, based on the rate in effect at the time of final assessment, will be included in the overall billing required to be paid. The Council-adopted rate for the local portion of the SDC is $0.025 per square foot of the total lot, and will also be collected with final assessments. For large lots, this fee may be based on the lateral area of the lot, as discussed earlier in this report. Assessment costs are to be characterized as a local improvement assessment under Section 11 b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. All properties within the district will be eligible for ten-year financing through the City. The City has obtained low-interest funds through the Department of Environmental Quality State Revolv- ing Fund for sewer projects. This low-interest money will be used to lower the long-term financing interest rates and for a portion of the short-term financing required for the project construction. Low-income deferral programs are also available for those property owners who qualify. Qualification will be determined at the time of final assessment. REMONSTRANCES Property owners were informed of the right to file written remonstrances in the March 5, 1996, legal notice and property owners specifically identified as potentially subject to assessment in the proposed local improvement district were given additional notice of the right of remonstrance in the April 15, 1996 letter. The notices informed property owners that written remonstrances must be submitted by May 10, 1996. Remonstrances from two property owners were received. The property owners remonstrating represent an assessable cost of approximately $16,858.69, which is less than one percent of the estimated total cost of the project. These calculations do not include the separate system development charges, which are not subject to remonstrance. The remonstrances do not represent a large enough portion of the project cost to have an effect on the Council's authority to form the proposed LID. SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928, 3010 and 3398 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff provided the Hearings official with a Memorandum, dated May 15, 1996, which outlined the above information. A public hearing concerning the proposed LID formation was held on May 15, 1996, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 777 Pearl Street. Hearings Official Milo Mecham presided. A copy of the minutes of that hearing is attached as Exhibit A, and a copy of the Memorandum provided by staff is attached as Exhibit B. Prior to the public hearing, the City Engineer provided the information required by the Eugene Code 7 .166( 1). The Hearings Official finds that notice of the public hearing was provided and the public hearing conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Eugene Code and state law. At least one of the property owners within the proposed LID was not identified in a manner that allowed time for mailed notice of the hearing in a timely manner. EC 7.165(2) provides that "the city engineer may" provide notice by mail. Omission of this one property owner was not a violation of the Eugene Code. Even if one assumes that a remonstrance would have been filed if more complete notice was given, such a change would not have affected the outcome of the process. The Hearings Official finds that the project was initiated in accordance with the Eugene Code through a Council-approved capital improvement plan. As described in the Minutes, three members of the public offered comments. Laura Roberts expressed concerns about having all of her property assessed when a portion of the property is a drainageway, and a different portion of her property is under powerlines and subject to an easement for the powerlines. Ms. Robert's property has been examined by City staff, who determined that the drainageway portion of her property is eligible for exclusion from the LID. There is no similar provision in the Eugene Code, or in established practices for the exclusion of the area of the powerline easement. While the use of this property may be restricted, it is still available for some use, and is considered as a part of the property when the size of the property is considered for such things as calculating lot coverage, and the proportion of the lot eligible for development. For this reason it can legitimately be considered a part of the parcel specially benefited by the availability of sewers. The Hearings Official does not recommend that the portion of the parcel under the powerlines be excluded from the LID. Mary Thompson and Mary Sailada objected to the proposed assessments of their property because their properties are connected to the City sewers by way of already constructed lines. Much of the frustration that these property owners feel was caused by what they regard as misleading or mistaken information provided them by City staff. This opinion was in turn based on a suspicion that attempts by City staff to clarify earlier statements, or to explain why previously incorrect statements were being corrected, were actually attempts by City staff to disobey the law or continue errors rather than admit to inconsistencies. It does appear that during the course of several exchanges between the property owners and several different City staff persons, misleading information was provided to the property owners. SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928, 3010 and 3398 Page 7 The properties in question were required to connect to the existing sewer system as a condition of development. Of the options then available, the property owners chose to pay the cost of constructing longer than usual connecting lines and connect with a privately constructed lateral line installed in an alley to the south of their property. Because this line was connected to the City's system, at the time these property owners connected they were required to pay the SDCs that any property owner is required to pay when connecting to the sewer system. The City is now proposing to construct a sewer line along Green Lane, the street that abuts the property. The City identified the two properties as specially benefited, and proposed to include the properties in the Basin S portion of the LID. EC 7.175(5)c.(1) provides that the standard service area for lateral sewer lines is the portion of the property lying within 160 feet of the lot line where the sewer is located. For larger parcels where a sewer line runs along more than one side of the parcel, the City can and does assess the property for all of the area within both of the standard service areas, except where the 160 foot areas overlap. If there is an overlap, the area of the overlap is only subject to one assessment. Recognizing that the property owned by Thompson and Sailada have access to sewers at the back of the property, the City Engineer's staff proposed to include only the portions of the properties that were more than 160 feet from the sewer lines in the alley south of the property. In this way, the staff was treating the properties in a manner consistent with city policy where a single property has access to two sewer lines that are more than 160 feet apart. The staff chose this option even though the 160 foot long area along the alley side of the properties had never been assessed for sewer construction by the City. The result of this concession is that less than the entire 160 feet depth of the properties from the proposed sewer line would be subject to assessment. The City Engineer had appropriate reasons to propose construction of a sewer line down Green Lane in front of the Sailada and Thompson property. There are several developed properties that require service at the end of Green Lane and north along River Road, and the physical layout of the area is such that the only practical means to serve these properties is by way of a line along Green Lane. The presence of this line means that all the properties along Green Lane are specially benefited, and all the properties are now included within the proposed LID. Ms Thompson was given misinformation concerning the proposed assessment of the property across Green Lane which is owned by the 41 school district. The Acting City Engineer has provided the Hearings Official with evidence showing that these properties are and have been proposed for inclusion within the LID. Like the Thompson and Sailada properties, these parcels are specially benefited by the presence of sewers along Green Lane, even though they may not intend or be required to connect to the sewers when they are installed. The City cannot assume that present conditions and the present intent of the property owners will last forever. If there is a change in intent or a change in ownership, the presence of sewers will be a benefit that already exists. The City will be providing the benefit this year, and this will be the City's only opportunity to capture the value of the benefit that is being provided. Even if Ms. Thompson or Ms. Sailada do not now intend to take advantage of the benefit of sewers that are closer to their residences, and could SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928, 3010 and 3398 Page 8 provide additional service if the property were to be rezoned to allow more dense development, the benefit is being provided and it is appropriate for the City to assess the property. FINDINGS Engineering staff have reviewed the low bid proposals and find them to be in order. The total of the three low bids submitted for the 1995 project is less than the total of the Engineer's prebid estimate, and costs are less than or comparable to costs for projects of similar size elsewhere in Oregon. The unit prices for the construction are reasonable under the circumstances. The formation of the LID will allow the City to comply with the EPA grant connection schedule; will begin to resolve the groundwater contamination problem which is the mandated goal established by EPNDEQ; and will allow further development to occur. Under the City charter a simple majority vote of the Council forming the LID is all that is required for action. The remonstrances do not require any special action. The Hearings Official also finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local improvement as set forth in ORS 310.410 because: 1. The assessments do not exceed actual costs; 2. The assessments are imposed for a capital construction project which provides a specific benefit for a specific property or rectifies the problem caused by a specific property; 3. The assessments are imposed in a single assessment upon completion 0 the project; and 4. The assessments allow the property owners to elect to pay the assessment with interest over at least ten (10) years. In light of all of the above discussion, the Hearings Official recommends the formation of an LID in River Road/Santa Clara basins X, Sand U, with the following characteristics: 1. Not to include within the LID vacant properties outside the City as defined in the resolution. 2. Not to include within the LID areas of properties that are dedicated road rights-of- way, or drainageways meeting the specific criteria listed in this report. 3. Road repair costs shall be assessed unless alternative funding is made available by Lane County. 4. Recognize land divisions or modifications completed by December 1, 1995, for determining what will be in the LID at the time of final assessment. 5. Include in this LID, for purposes of assessment, those developed properties served by older "dryline" sewers installed at the time of subdivision development that can SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928,3010 and 3398 Page 9 be included as part of the public system and that become functional as a result of the 1995 sewer construction. The Hearings Official supports the staff recommendation and the intent of the Capital Improvement Plan to complete the proposed project, Accordingly, the Hearings Official recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the formation of the proposed local improvement district to construct sanitary sewers in basins S, X and U in the Santa Clara area. ~~ Milo Mecham Eugene Hearings Official Date: June 3, 1996 SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "S" "X" AND "U" Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2928, 3010 and 3398 Page 10 Exhibit A MINUTES Local Improvement District 1996 Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project, Basins X, Sand U Jobs # 2928, 3013 and 3398 May 15, 1996 Public Hearing Hearings Official Milo Mecham convened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. He described the subject matter of the hearing and the procedures to be followed at the hearing. Present at the hearing representing the City of Eugene were Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston, Michelle Cahill, Jerry Behney, and Sue Malone. Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston began by providing a brief description of the project and its history. On November 20, 1989, the City Council of the City of Eugene amended the Eugene Capital Improvement Plan, authorizing the City Engineer to proceed with the phased preparation of plans and specifications for the installation of sanitary sewers in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Each year since 1990, sewers have been installed in several basins. On March 5, 1996, the seventh consecutive year's construction projects were advertised in the legal section of the Register Guard and in the Daily Journal of Commerce. The 1996 construction is scheduled to install sewers in three basins in the Santa Clara area. Mr. Lankston explained that Basin 96S includes property between River Road and Beaver Street and Division Avenue and Salty Way. Basin 96U includes generally the properties between Federal Lane and Blackfoot A venue and River Road and Marvin Drive. Basin 96X is generally the properties between Irving Road on the south and Cinnamon A venue, and Stark Street and the Northwest Expressway. Several bids were received for each Basin. The total for all of the lowest bids was $3,021,800.00, which is some nine percent lower than the Engineer's estimates. Based on the low bids, the estimated cost of the project will be $3,772,252.61, which will be divided amongst the total assessable area of 8,491,641 square feet in the three basins. This would result in an estimated lateral sewer line assessed cost of $.324 per square foot of assessable area, and a service line cost of $1,310 each. Mr. Lankston ended his introductory presentation by recommending formation of the local improvement district. The first member of the public to address the hearing was Laura Roberts. Ms. Roberts had several questions concerning the propriety of assessing the portions of her property that were subject to easements. Part of Ms. Roberts' property is subject to a drainage way easement, another portion is subject to an easement for an electrical power line. Mr. Lankston responded that the City had examined the drainage easement and had determined that it qualified for the City's program that excluded the area of the drainage easement from the assessable area of the local improvement district. Mr. Lankston also responded that the electric easement is not eligible for exemption. Ms. Cahill also explained that the electrical easement, even though development is restricted, is still available for some use. Because it has some useful value for the property owner, the property is subject to an assessment. Minutes, May 15, 1996 Public Hearing, River Road Sewer Basins U, X and S Page 1 The next member of the public to testify was Mary Thompson. Ms. Thompson began by calling attention to several statements in the Engineer's report which she felt were incorrect. Ms. Thompson and Jeff Lankston discussed these matters, and clarified the intent of the statements in the report. Ms. Thompson also discussed her disappointment with the design and assessment decisions surrounding the city's process. Ms. Thompson's property is served by a privately constructed sewer, installed at the south end of the property, approximately 200 feet from Ms. Thompson's home. The City is now proposing to install sewers along the northern side of Ms. Thompson's property. Ms. Thompson feels that, because her property already has sewer services, the City should not assess any of the property. The City is proposing to include in the LID the portion of the 160 feet of Ms. Thompson's property closest to the proposed City sewer that would not already have been assessed if the private sewer had been constructed by the City. After she had been notified of the proposed assessment of her property, Ms. Thompson contacted the City and inquired why an adjacent property was not being assessed. Ms. Thompson explained that she had been told that the adjacent property was not being assessed because, since it already had sewer services, it was not considered to be benefited by the installation of City sewers. Since Ms. Thompson's property is also served by the same privately constructed sewer, Ms. Thompson felt that her property should not be assessed. Ms. Thompson wrote a letter explaining her position to the City. Ms. Thompson felt that her trust in government was undermined because, instead of responding to her letter by excluding her propery from the assessable area of the proposed LID, the City responded by including the adjacent, previously excluded property. Ms. Thompson believes that the City's original decision concerning the adjacent property was correct, and should be applied to her property. Mr. Lankston explained that Ms. Thompson's letter had called attention to an error on the City's part. The City had mistakenly omittted inclusion of the adjacent property, and had corrected its error after Ms.. Thompson's letter. Mr. Lankston also explained that the City was following its standard policy of not assessing the portion of Ms. Thompson's property that was within 160 feet of the previously constructed sewer. Ms. Thompson responded by claiming that the City needed to clarify the definition of specifically benefited, because she felt that the it was assessing properties that were not specifically benefited by the sewer project. The Hearings Officer explained that the term in the Eugene Code was specially benefited. This is the statutory term that is used to distinguish properties that may be subject to an assessment for a public improvement from other properties. Public improvements are often undertaken because they provide a general benefit to all members of the public. While the idea of specially benefited property has a wide range of meanings under different circumstances, part of its basic meaning is that certain properties, because of their location or because of their special characteristics, have the potential to benefit more or in a different manner than does the general public or properties in different locations. Thus, all the residents of Eugene derive a general benefit from sewer projects in the River Road area because of the positive effect that installation of the sewers has on the threat of contaminated groundwater in the area. Properties and their owners which are located within 160 feet of the sewers being installed, and which therefore have an opportunity to connect to a publicly constructed wastewater treatment-system that was Minutes, May 15, 1996 Public Hearing, River Road Sewer Basins U, X and S Page 2 previously not available, or available under different circumstances, are regarded under the Eugene Code as being specially benefited because they have a relationship to the newly constructed sewer system that is different from the relationship of properties located in other areas. The Hearings Officer concluded his explanation by noting that under the definition of the term in the Eugene Code, properties can be found to be specially benefited even though they do not immediately connect to the newly constructed sewer system. Ms. Thompson concluded her remarks by stating that it would have been more convenient if the notices to her had contained a definition of specially benefited prior to the hearing, so that she would not have had to spend time on the dispute that might have been resolved if she had more information. The next member of the public to address the hearing was Ms. Mary Sailada. Ms. Sailada lives next to Ms. Thompson, uses the same sewer system, and shares the same frustration with the proposed assessment. Ms. Sailada was required as a condition of receiving a building permit to connect to the privately constructed sewer south of her property. Ms. Saliada had to pay the cost of installing a connecting sewage line about 200 feet back to the location of the house. After she connected to this privately constructed sewer, it was gifted to the City, without any cost to the City. Because Ms. Sailada has already paid to connect to a sewer, she feels that her property is not specially benefited by the proposed sewers. The current zoning of the properties means that the cannot be developed further, so Ms Sailada felt that there was no benefit to having an additional opportunity to connect to the sewers. Ms. Sailada reported that she also was confused and frustrated by the different information supplied to Ms. Thompson. On one day Ms. Thompson had reported that the City believed that the adjacent property, occupied by a gas station and connected to the same sewer line as the Sailadas and the Thompsons, was not benefited by the proposed sewer construction and would not be assessed. The next day, Ms Thompson reported that she had been told that the City would be assessing the gas station because it was benefited. Ms. Sailada felt that the City was being inconsistent. Ms. Sailada also reported that she was certain that the gas station owners had not been notified of the hearing or the proposed assessment. Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston responded that the City was trying to apply its policies consistently. Mr. Lankston explained that the City always assesses both ends of a property where the property is more than 160 feet long and there are sewers constructed adjacent to both ends of the property. Mr. Lankston explained that this is the standard policy of the City, and that the apportionment of the costs for this project had been based on an assumption that this assessment method would be followed. Giving an exemption would raise the costs for other properties. Ms. Cahill also contributed some historical knowledge concerning the properties in question. According to Ms. Cahill's memory, the properties now owned by Ms. Sailada and Ms. Thompson were given the option of either connecting to the private sewer along the south end of their properties or instead building a line along Green Lane, where the current proposed sewer will be constructed. If such a system had been installed along Green Lane, it would have been abandoned in 1996 when the public sewers were installed. Ms. Cahill also pointed out that all of the properties were being given credit for the rear 160 feet of their properties in the same way as Minutes, May 15, 1996 Public Hearing, River Road Sewer Basins U, X and S Page 3 would have been done if the private sewer had been constructed by the City and an assessment already paid. Ms. Thompson asked to add additional comments. Ms. Thompson reported that she was still disturbed by the miscommunication that she felt occurred. Ms. Thompson felt that the original explanation that properties connected to existing sewers were not specially benefited was the correct interpretation of the law. Ms. Thompson also questioned the validity of extending a public sewer down Green Lane. According to Ms. Thompson's understanding, the line was only being extended to serve a few properties at the end of Green Lane, which she believed could have been served from a different location, Ms. Thompson also felt that she and her neighbors were the only ones being asked to pay the cost even though they were not benefited. A discussion ensued concerning the property across Green Lane from the Thompson and Sailada property. Ms Thompson described this property as being owned by the school district, and as not being assessed because it was vacant. Ms. Cahill responded for the City, stating that she believed that the school property was being assessed. Ms Cahill stated that it has been the City's policy to assess school property, even if it were vacant, and that she was not aware of any change in the policy. Ms. Cahill also pointed out that notice of the proposed hearing had been published, as required. While the service station had not received the courtesy letter that is usually sent to property owners, notice has been given through publication in the newspapers. Ms. Thompson closed with a request that the engineering decisions leading up to the decision to place a line down Green Lane be revisited. Ms. Thompson felt that the necessary services could be provided with a different line. Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston and other staff members examined the plans and reported that although the alternative alignment along River Road appears to be approximately the same length, there may not be sufficient depth in the line in Hunsaker (the only alternative street available) to serve property along River Road. Staff also noted that existing physical conditions along River Road could make construction costs higher. Staff concluded by promising that they would review alternative alignments. There being no further testimony, the hearing closed at 7:35, with a promise by Acting Chief Engineer Jeff Lankston to investigate and report to the hearings officer whether the school property across Green Lane was actually subject to assessment. Minutes, May 15, 1996 Public Hearing, River Road Sewer Basins U, X and S Page 4 MEMORANDUM May 15,1996 TO: Hearings Official FROM: Jeff Lankston, Acting City Engineer SUBJECT: CITY ENGINEER REPORT ON SANTA CLARA SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 1996 BASINS X, S, and U; FORMATION OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR JOBS 2928, 3013, AND 3398 BACKGROUND The 1996 Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer project is identified as a project necessary to address an important health and welfare issue within the metropolitan area. The project conforms to the Metropolitan Area General Plan requirements and stipulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant conditions which include service delivery targets. The 1996 project represents the seventh year of a seven-year program to service the River Road- Santa Clara area. On November 20, 1989, the City Council amended the Eugene Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) by modifying the timing for service delivery to the River Road/Santa Clara Area. Following that amendment, the City Council authorized the City Engineer to proceed with the phased preparation of plans and specifications for the improvement and to call for bids each year of the program. On March 5, 1996, the seventh consecutive year's construction projects were advertised in the legal section of The Register-Guard and in the Daily Journal of Commerce. To comply with the EPA grant connection schedule condition, to maximize competitive bidding and administrative efficiency, and to minimize as much as possible the disruption to the neighborhoods, the River Road and Santa Clara areas were divided into a number of construction basins. Each year since 1990, sewers have been installed in several basins. In 1996, sewers are scheduled to be installed in three basins in Santa Clara (see map attached as Exhibit A). These basins are described as follows: Basin 96S(Job 2928) generally includes properties between River Road and Beaver Street and Division Avenue and Salty Way. Basin 96U (Job 3013) is described as generally properties between Federal Lane and Blackfoot Avenue and River Road and Marvin Drive. Basin 96X (Job 3398) is described as generally properties between Irving Road on the South and Cinnamon Avenue on the north and Stark Street on the east and Northwest Expressway on the west. Several bidders submitted bids for the 1996 construction (see the bid summaries, exhibits B through D). Four (4) bidders submitted bids for Basin 96S on April 23, 1996. The low bid was submitted by Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. for $1,558,315.00 (Exhibit B). Five (5) bidders submitted bids for Basin 96U on April 24, 1996 The low bid was submitted by Dan o Allsup Contractor for $1,173,996.00 (Exhibit C). Three (3) bidders submitted bids for Basin 96X on April 25, 1996 The low bid was submitted by Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. for $289,489.00 (Exhibit D). The total of all three (3) bids is $3,021,800.00, which is approxi- mately nine (9) percent below the Engineer's estimate for the 1996 work. As with previous local improvement districts (LIDs), sanitary systems development charges (SDCs) will be imposed and collected at the same time as the assessments for the 1996 LID. There are two sanitary SDC components: a local charge to reimburse the City for its cost to construct major sanitary sewer collection facilities in River Road and Santa Clara areas; and the regional charge required by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). Revenues from the local charge will be deposited to the City's sanitary sewer user fund and revenues from the regional charge will be transferred to MWMC. Authority to collect in this manner is outlined in EC 7.720(1)(c). Owners of partially developed large lots meeting certain criteria will be allowed to delay payment of a portion their local SDC until their properties are further developed. The criteria for the phased collection of the local SDC are as follows: the parcel must be one acre (43,560 square feet) or larger; it must be of a configuration that will allow further development; and it must not be encumbered in such as way that would prevent further development. For lots meeting those criteria, the area used to compute the local SDC will be limited to the area used to compute the lateral assessment. Any unpaid SDC will be collected at the time of further development. Staff will identify those properties in the 1996 LID that appear to meet these criteria, and the owners of those properties will be notified that their properties appear to qualify for the phased collection of the local SOC. Property owners who will bear the cost for the proposed improvements were notified of the May 15 hearing with the hearings official and the City Council session to establish the LID through a notice published in The Register-Guard on March 5, 1996 well in advance of the minimum 10 days stipulated in Eugene Code (EC) 7.165. Letters informing property owners of the hearing and anticipated Council action date were mailed on April 15, 1996 (Exhibit E). The letter also invited property owners to an information session conducted on May 8 to address individual property owner questions as well as to notify property owners of the intent of the City to characterize the sewer assessment as an assessment, not a tax, as required by ORS 305.583(5). Approximately 240 property owners and interested parties attended the May 8 information session. Those attending received written estimates of their sewer costs and had the opportunity to discuss their estimates, concerns about the project, and financing options with Engineering and Finance staff. Estimates were mailed to property owners who did not receive their estimates at the information session. City Engineer's Report - LID Formation May 8, 1996 - SC Sewer Basins X, S, & U 2 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) Staff is recommending that one (1) LID be formed to assess all annexed properties and developed properties outside the City boundaries. For purposes of determining whether a lot is developed, staff reviews if there are plumbing fixtures, the value of improvements, the size of the lot, access to the property, common ownership with adjacent lots, and other factors listed on the "RRISC Vacant Lot Determination" flow chart (Exhibit F). This LID will include the properties served by the sewers constructed under the three (3) City contracts (for Basins X, S, and U). ASSESSMENTS The source of funding for this project is predominately from assessments of those proper- ties that will ultimately receive service from these improvements. Staff recommends that the costs for the three (3) City contract Basins (X, S, and U) be combined and that the assessable areas also be combined for a single LID assessment. Per EC 7 .175(2)(b )5c, the costs for the project will be apportioned on a per-square-foot basis for the lateral sewer, and on a per-each basis for the service connection points. Vacant properties not annexed to the city will be included in the computation of assessable costs but will not be included in the LID, assessed or receive service until annexation and development occurs per Metro- politan Plan policies. The City of Eugene will bear the assessable costs for unannexed, vacant properties through the sewer fund until such properties are annexed and developed. At that time, an equivalent assessment will be collected per EC 6.476. PARTITIONS It is anticipated that a limited number of property owners may be partitioning or modifying the existing configurations of their properties. If a change is completed (Le., the change receives final approval by the City and is recorded with Lane County) by December 1, 1996, the change will be reflected in the final assessment calculations. RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND DRAINAGEWAYS In addition to vacant property not being included in the LID there are two (2) other condi- tions under which property within the LID boundaries should not be included: 1) street rights-of-way, and; 2) portions of property within drainageways meeting certain criteria. The criteria that a property must meet to exempt a drainageway from assessment are as follows: 1) the drainageway must provide community-wide benefit; 2) the drainageway must be recognized as an open channel drainage corridor in the City's storm drainage master plan; and 3) the property within the drainageway must be dedicated to the City or County, or there must be an easement giving the City or County perpetual use of the drainageway for drainage purposes. The second criteria, a drainageway recognized as an open channel in the storm master plan, is a guideline. The master plan is a planning City Engineer's Report - LID Formation May 8, 1996 - SC Sewer Basins X, S, & U 3 document and was not intended to deal with individual lot issues. Lots which appear to have drainageways which are part or determined by staff to be part of the system recog- nized by the drainage master plan may be recognized as meeting the second criteria. Staff will review properties in the LID that abut known drainage channels and will send revised notices of reduced assessment to the owners of those lots that fit the criteria listed above. For lots that do not fit all three criteria, staff will consider that the channel area is part of the open space which can be used by the property and will generally benefit from the sewers. Staff recommends including the full lot area in calculating the assessable area for these properties. DRYLlNES The proposed 1996 LI D includes approximately six (6) properties adjacent to previously constructed sewers. These previously constructed sewers are located in Maranta Cul-de- sac. Typically, these sewers were installed in the public rights-of-way by private subdivision developers in the 1970s. Because they cannot function until they are connected to a working sewer system, these sewers are called "drylines." The City has evaluated the utility of these "drylines" through inspection and testing. It has been determined that these "drylines" can be used and the "drylines" will be connected to the sewers to be installed in 1996 on Maranta Street south of the Maranta Cul-de-sac. The cost incurred by the City for this testing, evaluation and construction process will be distributed among the benefited properties through a lateral assessment. The incurred cost will include costs for engineer- ing, inspection, cleaning, testing, construction, administration services and short term financing. If it is found that any of the "dryline" service connection points cannot be used, a new service will be installed under the 1996 contract, and the benefited proper- ties will be assessed based on the 1996 per-each construction cost for a service. This is consistent with past practices and conforms to the City's general policy of assessing proper- ties for improvements if they have not previously been assessed for those improvements. UNDEVELOPABLE LOTS IN COMMON OWNERSHIP WITH DEVELOPED LOTS At several locations throughout the proposed LID, there are undevelopable lots adjacent to and in common ownership with developed properties. Typically, these parcels are in common development with the adjacent parcel as a lawn or garden area and are consid- ered undevelopable because they are landlocked and/or of insufficient size to allow them to be developed as they are currently configured. In such cases, staff recommends that the undevelopable lot be included with the commonly owned developed lot for purposes of calculating the lateral assessment and local systems development charge. This is consis- tent with the method used to assess similar properties in previous LIDs. City Engineer's Report - LID Formation May 8, 1996 - SC Sewer Basins X, S, & U 4 Parcels Assessed for Multiple Sewer Lines Some parcels are adjacent to sewers built and made available in earlier construction years. For these lots, the area not previously assessed and within 160 feet of the earlier construction is included in the current assessment calculations. The engineering choices that led to installation of multiple sewer lines close to the particular parcels were dictated by the overall needs of the sewage system. Several of the parcels in question could be and may at some time actually be divided. At that time the full effect of the present benefit from several adjacent sewer lines will be realized. While it may seem unfair when the cost of the sewer construction falls with particular force on some individuals, it would be no more fair to create special exemptions for some and thereby create other situations of unfairness. The method of assessing all property within the scope of one or more sewers is consistent with previous assessment practices against properties owned by public agencies and individuals inside the City and in the River Road/Santa Clara area and is done according to the requirements of the Eugene City Code. OTHER ISSUES Folke F. Carlson has expressed concerns to staff about being assessed on a lot that is undevelopable. The parcel is tax lot 807 (17-04-11-21) the property is encumberments by a 20 foot dedicated drainage easement, making it of insufficient size for further development. However it is in common ownership with a developed lot. (shown on map Exhibit G). Laura and David Roberts expressed to staff that because of a dedicated utility easement across the front of their property they have no frontage. The easement is for a underground storm sewer line and does not restrict ingress and egress to their property or their ability to benefit from the sanitary sewer. It is a utility easement dedicated to the public. The sanitary sewer service can be built through the easement to serve the property. Brad Fortier at 3025 Memory Lane tax lot 4600 and 4501 (17-04-11-13) challenged staff's position that tax lot 4501 was developed because of the existence of a structure that had a value of $14,500. Upon further investigation it was determined that the structure did not have plumbing fixtures and based on the "RR/SC Vacant Lot Determination for Purposes of Levying Assessments" this lot should be considered vacant. Mary Sailada at 62 Green Lane, tax lot 2000 (17-04-11-44) and Mary Thompson at 84 Green Lane tax lot 1900 (17-04-11-44) feels that because their properties are connected to an existing privately built public sanitary sewer in an easement on the south side of their properties that they receive no benefits from the proposed sanitary sewer to be built in Green Lane. The property owners have asked the hearings official to recommend to the City Council that their properties be eliminated from the Local Improvement District (LID). In their letter of remonstrance they have raised several points, including 1) That the properties do not conform to the requirement expressed in the Metropolitan Area General Plan, 2) The City Engineer's Report - LID Formation May 8, 1996 - SC Sewer Basins X, S, & U 5 property owners were required to annex into the City of Eugene to gain access to the existing sanitary sewer for development. SDC and MWMC were collected at this time. 3) the properties are not specially befited by the sanitary sewer in Green Lane because they are connected to the existing sanitary sewer that's located along the south property line. 4) the property owners do not intend to subdivide the lots. (See attached letter Exhibit H) Owners of these properties paid Local Systems development charges (SDC) and MWMC charges when they connected to the existing sewer but have never been assessed for lateral cost. The proposed assessment would not cover an area that is within a 160 feet of an existing public sanitary sewer. Areas not within 160 feet of the existing sanitary sewer are benefited by the proposed construction and should be assessed. ASSESSMENT COSTS Costs listed below are the Engineer's estimate for the 1996 construction. The costs reflect the three (3) City contract basins (X, S, and U) being combined into a single LID. The estimated costs reflect the low bid costs, 10 percent contingency of the contract cost, 5 percent administration charges, anticipated legal fees, right-of-way costs, consulting fees, short-term financing costs, bond anticipation notes (BANs), costs for Engineering services, and other charges associated with the project which are allowed in EC 7.175. The final assessment will be based on final contract costs, actual Engineering service costs, actual short-term financing and BAN costs, a 5 percent finance administration cost, and other direct costs attributable to the project. Approximately $206,051 of the total assessable cost represents the share for vacant properties and has been included in the computation of assessment unit costs. Vacant lots will not be assessed until the lots are developed. The project includes several street repair components: trench patch of various types, street repair beyond the trench, and street reconstruction. On May 16, 1990, Lane County Commissioners agreed to pay the cost of that work. Since these costs will be borne by Lane County they will not be assessed. They have been deducted from the total estimate of costs and the total assessable costs. If Lane County chooses to no longer participate in these costs, the costs will be included in the final assessment. Road repair items will be included in the assessment if not funded by Lane County. Based on low-bid costs, the road repair cost would be an additional $0.08 per square foot of assessable area. There are portions of two (2) streets, Ross Lane and Lone Oaks Drive that are in the City of Eugene's jurisdiction. These streets are not part of Lane County's road repair commitment. The cost to resurface these streets will be distributed among all the property owners within the LID. City Engineer's Report - LID Formation May 8, 1996 - SC Sewer Basins X, S, & U 6 Based on the low bids, the estimated unit amounts on which to base the preliminary assess- ment amounts are: Total Assessable Cost: $ 3,772,252.61 Total Assessable Area: 8,491,641 square feet Lateral Cost 1: Service Cost: Local S.C.: MWMC: Notes: $ 0.324 $1,310.00 $ 0.025 $ 350.002 per square foot of assessable area each per square foot of total lot per single family dwelling 1 Lateral costs do not include trench patch or reconstruction cost anticipated to be paid by Lane County. 2 The current MWMC fee is $332.00 for a single-family dwelling. This estimate anticipates an increase in July 1996. When property owners in the 1996 construction basins requested estimates, we suggested they contact us in early May, after bids were received. When given, pre-bid estimates were based on a conservative assumption that 1996 prices would be higher than 1995 prices. For a median-size lot of 9200 square feet the pre-bid estimate (including SDCs) was $5,468. Based on the low bids, the current estimate (including SDCs) for a median-size lot is $4880. The costs used for the pre-bid estimates were: Lateral Cost: Service Cost: Local SDC: MWMC Charge: $ 0.39 per square foot of assessable area $ 1300.00 each $ 0.025 per square foot of total lot $ 350.00 per equivalent dwelling unit The MWMC fee is based on the amount of water used per month, the number of fixtures per dwelling, or the standard fee (currently $332.00 per single family dwelling). This fee, based on the rate in effect at the time of final assessment, will be included in the overall billing required to be paid. The Council-adopted rate for the local portion of the SDC is $0.025 per square foot of the total lot, and will also be collected with final assessments. For large lots, this fee may be based on the lateral area (see previous discussion on page 2 of this report). Assessment costs are to be characterized as a local improvement assessment under Section 11 b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. City Engineer's Report - LID Formation May 8, 1996 - SC Sewer Basins X, S, & U 7 All properties within the district will be eligible for ten-year financing through the City. The City has obtained low-interest funds through the Department of Environmental Quality State Revolving Fund for sewer projects. This low-interest money will be used to lower the long- term financing interest rates and for a portion of the short-term financing required for the project construction. Low-income deferral programs are also available for those property owners who qualify. Qualification will be determined at the time of final assessment. REMONSTRANCES As outlined in the March 5 legal notice and in the April 15 property owner letters, written remonstrances were to be submitted by May 10, 1996. As of May 14, 1996, remonstrances were received from two (2) property owners in the proposed local improvement district. The property owners remonstrating in Basins X Sand U represent an assessable cost of approximately $ 16,858.69 (excluding system development charges), or less than 1 percent of the estimated total assessable cost. These remonstrances do not affect the Council's authority to act in adopting the requested resolution for formation of the LID. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Engineering staff have reviewed the low bid proposals and find them to be in order. The total of the three low bids submitted for the 1996 project is less than the total of the Engineer's rebid estimate, and costs are less than or comparable to costs for projects of similar size elsewhere in Oregon. The unit prices for the construction are very reasonable. The formation of the LID will allow the City to comply with the EPA grant connection schedule; will begin to resolve the groundwater contamination problem which is the mandat- ed goal established by EPAlDEQ; and will allow new or redevelopment to occur. Under the City charter a simple majority vote of the Council forming the LID is all that is required for action. Remonstrances do not require any special action. Staff recommends the following: 1. Not to include within the LID vacant properties outside the City as defined in the resolution. 2. Not to include within the LID areas of properties that are dedicated road rights-of-way, or drainage ways meeting the specific criteria listed in this report. 3. Road repair costs shall be assessed unless alternative funding is made available by Lane County. City Engineer's Report - LID Formation May 8, 1996 - SC Sewer Basins X, S, & U 8 4. Recognize land divisions or modifications completed by December 1, 1996, for determining what will be in the LID at the time of final as- sessment. 5. Characterize the sewer assessment as an assessment for local improvement. 6. Include in this LID, for purposes of assessment, those developed properties served by older "dryline" sewers installed at the time of subdivision development that can be included as part of the public system and that become functional as a result of the 1996 sewer con- struction. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution for formation of the LI D which establishes findings and recommendations for the sanitary sewers in Basins X, S, and U. e:\support\rrsc-96\ 19961id.mem 5/8/96 (sfm) City Engineer's Report - LID Formation May 8, 1996 - SC Sewer Basins X, S, & U 9 Santa ~Iara Sewer Basins 1995/1996 EXHIBIT "A" ~ LOOMo" I l I ? < :I: ~ IT1 ~ A" C l'l:" \Q ..... t1) c... t1) ., ::s lit t1) C Vl n "0 c-t 0 Vl ::s n t1) lit PI < ::s 0 .... c-t a. ::s ::s ., c-t C A" ., "'tJ n PI PI ~ m n n -S S" .... 0 PI -it ::s < ;S .... ~ - n B ~ CI ::s !II fl \ \ , '- !- 1\ IB \ \ \ - ~S ClO \. Ii In m B:::t c ~= ;, :& E m - a i ~ :!l i .. ~ ~ \, (<- ;::>< ; r--. @ ~ 8 ~ t> ~ :& k ~ ~ "4 "'''' ~' '- , ~ m ~ ~ ~ E' ~ ,~ ~ -- ~ ~ ma ',: ~. ~ ~ +.... "8,, .LI8IHX:I --t: ~ ~ ' j!!:F. ~ -.....: .::I- .~. , ~, ' " I I ~ ~ : :....~ t\) .~ I . ,'", 1;1 <~ , ! a,~.~:J ..,' ,11.,(1) " " ",'(1)' g )>,: ~, ... c -s,,:5. ~. ~ ",CQ ..... !? ~A',!i( ~ e. \0 . " t1) ~ !:~ J "",,0) ".:C" , ,;":E '0 ... ~ UJ ::r (1) (1) .... ..... o o o ?>> 3: ~ ,~ ~ ~ z .. i Vl PI ::s .... c-t PI ., c... o lit C" ~ =It: t1) ~ ~ N ()) ...;' ::s ~' ,lit ...".: ::S' en, 'I .sm~ i to"1Ja 5" i!,m '. ~~i 'l ~l i '.,., g, ;.,; ;"i: ~:~,; ~ < m ~ s::: :I: C -' c.o DI ~ ;<:' rD go ~ rD ~ v. "1 rD ~ ? ::r (/) (/) n n c-t- DI 0 ~ 0 rD :::; ~ ~ :5. 0.. III ...... III c-t- III c-t- ~ go "1 s::: "1 s::: "C s::: " en n n DI , ~ n Mj, ~ ~. DI 0 < 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ :' c-t- foR ~ l"S n .. DI 'Cl ...... n m ...... ...... ~ c-t- ~ ~ f> 0 f> f> , .. ...... ~ ~ \ ~ \ \ \ lID QIID ~a ,. n \ '\ \ ~= CIa ~5 Ii) m 9::1 lKlK ~~ a'" :z !: fn m lID 6 i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 1."\ ~ ~ ~ ~ t:\ .. w I~D ~0 ~ I\....J ~ ,~ ~ ~ ..~ Ii .......... " "- ~ ,~ ~ ~ I"- Id I I I ..~ ~ ,I\) ,,01 +~ ~ :.-1. ":),, .LIHIHX3 ~ m ~ ~ .5 I ~ ? ~ ~'\ ~ __ S'L _ L l~ [ ~~ m CD:o ~ 0 ~CD CQ ~ CD8 -. ~a ~ ~ CD CD n :J:a ~. 0 "C ~ s::: J. ~ CQ n ..... ...... N OJ ~ n Q ::r DI 3 1.0 -i 0'" 1.0 rD m m "1 III C' 0 :E 0 0 0 :J:a ... 3: ~ tn ::r CD CD " 1 1 S\ ~ z s::: (/) ~ DI ~ rt :"! DI ~ DI ~ "1 0 DI 0'" tx:l =tt: DI W III ~ ..... ~ w c e m~m~ !r "10 Q),< 10 ~~;;?a :r 1O.!lJlIlm · -"o:LC !: J) !J]~ ~ ~:~ ~- :IE: :t: IT1 I ~~ m .... c ::J ~ go 10 if 9: c... rD CQ :) lit ro -. !'t' ~ I ~t WI VI ::I :) ri- 0- n :.- ~ VI ~ 0 "0 -. ri- A'> C .., ::J .., n ::I .... C ~: 'P ~. ~ CQ n "1 ~ 0 p; ~ N ::I < IIIIlI ~ m 0 ~ a n ::I a ::r -. 91 PI ~ Q. 3 \0 C'" \0 ~ rD 0\ "1 Q) Vl 0" 0 :e 0 0 0 ):It ~ ~ ~ tn :T CD \ \ CD " IIIIlI ... QIIIIlI ~a r; '\ \ ~= \ 1m "'0 -0 S. S. G') a ~ m B::! ~ (/) i PI ~. ::I .... ~~ :'1 ri- e>> c.... ~ z 0 C'" VI =tt: ~ : W rD W "1 \0 VI CD E .... ::I m CD IIIIlI PI 6 VI .... ::I >< i ~ ~ i {j "- 5 ..J = ..J 01 :-' i -C e (" ~ (D r'\ ~ = ~ "'V \J .~ ~ .~ l\.\ ~cSEa !l'~ ,~ ~ ~ Ed 1QD' u.lI"D9. (8' I8j ! m ~ '- ':t::: ~ ~ ...~ t s-~ "([,, .LIHIHX:i ~ ~ ~. ~f~ lQ f. : I I ~ ' .::t ..... II i ~ P' ~ g .EXHlHI'1' ""E" c nJDIIC WOr1<:s Engineering River Road/Santa Clara Sewer Project April 15. 1996 Dear Property Owner: City of Eugene 244 E. Broadway Eugene. OR 97401 (503) 687-5560 Public bidding for the 1996 phase of the Santa Clara sewer improvement project is under way. The next step involves the formation of a local improvement district that includes all those properties being served by this year's sewer construc- tion. This letter lists the dates of several important meetings related to the formation of the local improvement district. and it also contains important information about the local improvement district and your lights as a property owner. May 8 Information Session A drop-in information session will be held Wednesday. May 8. from 3:00 to 7:30 p.m. at Santa Clara Elementary School Gymnasium. 2685 River Road (corner of River Road and Hunsaker). May 15 Public Hearing A hearings official will hold the public healing for the formation of the pro- posed local improvement district at 6 p.m. on Tuesday. May 15 in the City Council Chambers, 777 Pearl Street. June 10 City Council Action The Eugene City Council will consider the formation of the local improvement district on Monday. June 10. at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. 777 Pearl Street. This is not a public hearing. 1!~llr The City of Eugene Engineering staff will have calculations of assessable square footage. the primary unit used to distribute the project costs. for each property within the proposed local improvement district. as well as the number of service lines proposed to be extended to each property. The staff will have estimates of preliminary assessments based on the apparent low bids for the 1995 sewer construction project and the assessable units (square footage. number of service lines). General information on financing and construction timing will be available. You do not need to pre-register to attend the information session. The City staffwill be aVailable throughout the session. so plan to come at a time that is convenient for you. ::~~ji:r~t~~lf!~lm~~ilif:i~!J~1ili~~1l~f:li~I~;i:il!iji;j:ii:jl:~tji~i:i:~ii~]i\li11l:~~]f:;:ifu11:i:~t~\t:l:f . ;~W't .. The City of Eugene Hearings Official will gather public testimony and consider any written objections from property owners in the proposed local improvement district. ALL WRITTEN MATERIAL TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE, 244 E. BROADWAY NO LATER THAN NOON, FRIDAY, MAY 10. Following the hearing. the Hearings Official will summarize the testimony and written objections, prepare fmdings. and make recommendations on the formation of the local improvement distrlct in a report to the Eugene City Council. .... . ~1i~ii:iif[~I~!lili~i:l~11*jil:ii~l~m1~:~i\!i~:11:i:i:j:iil]::i:l:ii!:!::I!~;li~1~J~1l~1~~~k~!llt*"ifiil@:li!l:~11:1iooll_~mlt1\~I:!ltlilt:[~ At this meeting. the Eugene City Council is scheduled to take final action on (orming the local improvement district. The City Council action will be to create. modify and create. or reject the formation of the proposed local improvement district. Prtor to taking action. the City Council will consider the overall cost. terms of financing, City participation in the improvement project. and estimated cost to owners of properties served by the sewers. The City Council also will take into account the Hearing Official's report. including any written objections filed by property owners in the proposed improvement district. Our records indicate you own property within the improvement district being considered. The tax lot number is shown on the address label. If you do not own this property or if you have no financial interest in this property. please let us know so we can contact the correct owner. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS INCLUDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. WHAT IS A LOCAL IMPROVEM' DISTRICT? Local improvement districts are areas with set boundaries in which specific improvement projects, such as the provision of sanitaIy sewer service. are made in the public rights-of-way or easements and paid for by the abutting property owners. As part of the process of forming a local improvement district, the City establishes the type. location and extent of the proposed improvement. identifies all parcels of land in the district and their owners, and prepares an estimate, based on the low bid. of the total cost of the proposed improvement with a breakdown showing the estimated total cost to be assessed in the district. WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED COST TO CONSTRUCT SEWERS THIS YEAR? The City's Engineering staff has estimated the total cost for the projects to be constructed this summer at $4.6 million, of which $4.6 million will be borne by owners of properties served by the sanitary sewer system. This estimate includes costs for engineering. contract administration services and finance administration. Local and regional systems development charges will also be collected at the time of final assessment. On March 5. 1996, the City advertised for bids to construct public sewer improvements in the construction areas depicted on the accompanying map. Updated estimate information based on the low bid will be available at the May 8 information session. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS: As required by ORS 305.583(5). the special benefit assessments for this project will be characterized by the City Council as an assessment for local improvements. Pursuant to ORS 305.583. within 60 days of this notice any ten interested property owners within the proposed assessment district who disagree with this character- ization may file a petition with the Oregon Tax Court. WHERE WILL SEWERS BE BUILT IN 1996? The original authorization for the staff to pre- pare plans and specifications for the River Road/Santa Clara sewer construction project was given by the City Council on November 22. 1989. This year. sewers are scheduled to be built in three construction basins (see map). The basins and their general boundaries are: BASIN 96X: Generally all of Calla Street and a portion of Maranta Street south of Maranta cul-de-sac and Arrowhead Street south of Calla. BASIN 96S: Generally between River Road and Beaver Street and Division Avenue and Hunsaker Lane. BASIN 96U: Generally between Federal Lane and Blackfoot Avenue and River Road an Dahlia Lane. Construction is expected to begin in June. after City Council action and the City Manager has executed contracts with the low-bid contractors. The City's sewer work is scheduled to be com- pleted by mid-November. Assessments will be calculated when all construction has been com- pleted, and property owners will be notified of proposed final assessments by certified mail in early 1997. If you own vacant property and meet specific criteria. you will not be assessed at this time. However. to develop vacant property or to receive sewer service. you will be required to annex and pay an assessment. Vacant properties will be included in the calculation of assessable area which is used to calculate the cost per square foot for lateral sewers. If you have any questions about the proposed improvements. estimated costs, assessment procedures or other sewer-related questions. please call Sue Malone. public information specialist for the Santa Clara sewer construc- tion project. at 683-8823. f~~ Acting City Engineer EXHIBIT "F" RRlse Vacant Lot Determination For Purposes of Levying Assessments November 1991/Revised March 1995 .~ IS PROPERTY m &1 ANNEXED? [I ;~~$.~ Il*i*~illl1Wit~~1 j!ifl;.iiW$tWml~ DOES SpA !ili l"\ w~ REPORT PROPERTY :i~ ;;m AS VACANT ill r<:~~w.: "4~~~2~;: ow:' . ..:... . ,:"'::"::~dI ' YES '. TAIMS IMPROVEMENT .... v, ALUE $ ::::* l"\ < 5,000 :i~ iif'~1h'1t~f.$i :~f@~:"':>?~:":~~>;'::~'~i::l*1 USE REQUIRED AS I CONDITION FOR ::<~.: ADJACENT LOT? ::::~~ 0;:;::'''; :N=-J TOTAL AREA ::::::* [f~m~ > 4,500 SQ. Fr. :[1 GOOD FRONTAGE ETC. "BUILDABLE" OVERHANGING STRUCTURES WI :::~:i. m:>: IMP VALUE> $1,500 :lfj OR LOCATED TO ......... MAKE PROPERTY NON-BUILDABLE PROPERTY OWNER SAYS PROPERTY IS VACANT PERMANENT STRUCTURE W/PLUMBING? TAIMS FIELD RIDTL OR CHECK COMMON OWNERSHIP WITH ADJACENT LOT . -:OT~ V)1~DLt tAT .q13DIJ! /'r----- p,. 7..'Z u \ / '\v\. \OilOr; --.-< L.AT,. \Ollo') ~ EXHIBIT "J" '" ! rn \ \.. 4-'2?C7 :..-, ,'"7D"I. to,~Y:)l / LAT. \D,Vll .;J77Z.. ~Z2\ r-- .,~201 i \0\ . \?J:'&''2 l....A.. "\. \ 'Z I ') l.P 1. l!)-r. ~poo LI~\ . 6pO:? lOT. B,OOD LA"T .9,'000 c Ai/€. ~~o~ / :t\- ') Dli iVI. \Ort.r2. \ LA..T ,\DI~)\'2. r--\~~ \ ,/ \./'Wi. \\,D4\ L4\. Il,D4\ , ~ ~ 40, ,/10\ .(,SOD l..A-r .llC;OD j" I \ ~. bOt> lOT, \4, ~Sl) m\. ~/,3\ r--' / / \ \ ~ e,oz. ~T. lo,SLl LAT, \O,el\ ,:~4D(P '\V1. -'j9\4 l...A.,. . 1,"1 \ 4- /I\~~~ ''..~. 81\00 ~\, eliDe LOBeLIA AVE , I I .- 1-- ..._~ \ \ r., \ , EXHIBll""H" May 14,1996 TO: Hearings Official Mary Haworth Thompson, 84 Green Lane, Eugene, OR 97404 Timoci and Mary Sailada, 62 Green Lane, Eugene, OR 97404 SUBJECT: Request that the hearings official recommend in his report to the city council- on the formation of a local improvement district for the 1996 phase of the Santa Clara sewer improvement project - that Basin 96S be modified by eliminating the properties at 84 and 62 Green Lane. FROM: Exclusion from local improvement district Policies governing the creation of a new service district are specific as to the reason properties are included within its boundaries. The properties owned by Mary Thompson, 84 Green Lane, and Timoci and Mary Sailada, 62 Green Lane, do not conform to the requirements expressed in the Metropolitan Area General Plan. Policy #14 (Page II-B-5) lists 5 criteria that must be satisfied. The first requirement is that there be no other method of delivering the public service. The text is as follows: Metro Area General Plan II. Fundamental Principles B. Growth Management and the Urban Service Area 14. Creation of new service districts or zones of benefit within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Metropolitan Plan shall be considered only when all of the following criteria are satisfied: a. There is no other method of delivering public services which are required to mitigate against extreme health hazard or public safety conditions. b. The three. . . (Page II-B-5) The southern boundary of each of these properties is adjacent to a public sewer and the dwellings on these properties are connected to that sewer. Backg rou nd Tax lots 1900 (Thompson-84 Green Lane) and 2000 (Sailada- 62 Green Lane) are connected to a public sewer that extends along the full length of the south property lines. (This sewer was privately constructed then given to the city.) On February 3, 1982, the Metro Plan was adopted by Lane County. This plan included a policy requiring annexation for the extension of any city service - most specifically access to a sewer. Page 1 of 3 Written testimony prepared for Public Hearing 5/15/95 Accepted by City Engineer's office on 5/14/96 On October 6, 1983, tax lots 1900 and 2000 were annexed into the city in order to gain access to the sewer for development. Local SDC charges have been paid on both lots. A new home was built at 84 Green Lane (tax lot 1900) in 1991. This property has been in the owners family for over 50 years. There are no plans to further develop this lot through partitioning or subdividing. 5 A new home was placed on 62 Green Lane (tax lot 2000) in 1991. There are no plans to partition this lot for an additional dwelling. Both lots are zoned R-1 and the owners were required to trench apx. 200 feet to access the existing sewer and to pay the city service connection and MWMC fees. Estimated costs for properties served by sewers in Basin 96S Even the language in the Eugene Code regarding "Sanitary sewer assessments" precludes these properties from bearing the cost of the new sewer construction. Eugene Code 7.175 Local Improvements - Apportionment of Assessments (2) (b) 5. Sanitary sewer assessments. The cost of sanitary sewer construction shall be borne in the following manner: a. The properties specially benefited by a sanitary sewer shall bear the cost of the sewer up to and including eight inches of pipe diameter. The additional cost of a sanitary sewer may be borne by the specially benefited properties, the city and others as provided in subsection (1) of this section. (Page 7-20 - 11/01/92) (2) (b) 6. Other local Improvements. The cost of local improvements not identified in subsections (b) 1 through (b) 5 of this subsection shall be borne by the property specially benefited as provided in the council resolution forming the local improvement district. (Page 7-24 - 11/01/92) These properties will not be specially benefited because there is llQ. benefit to them to have a sewer line also adjacent to their northern boundaries. Page 2 of 3 Written testimony prepared for Public Hearing 5/15/95 Accepted by City Engineer's office on 5/14/96 A common argument The argument that ". . . there is a benefit that the property gains because it is located next to a second lateral line. These properties may be divided into smaller parcels which then could be developed and could benefit from access to the second line." [Page 10, 4th paragraph, Findings and Recommendations - Jobs 2924,2925,2926, and 2927, Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project 1995] is not applicable. Every part of lots 1900 and 2000 is accessible to the existing sewer. Furthermore, it is not the intent of the owners, who also reside on these residential lots, to divide and develop them as separate parcels. Exemptions already CJranted According to Sue Malone, Santa Clara Sewer Project, (in a telephone conversation 5/13/95 around 4:15 p.m.) an exemption from being assessed has already been granted to the gasoline station and deli on the southeast corner of River Road and Green Lane (2585 River Road - tax lot 2100). The decision was dated April 4, 1996, with the explanation that this property is non-benefited by public sewer. The reason it is non-benefited by the proposed public sewer is because it is connected, through an easement down the western boundary of 62 Green Lane - tax lot 2000, to the same sewer providing the connections to 62 and 84 Green Lane. KFC restaurant at 2545 River Road - tax lot 2200 (immediately south of the gasoline station and adjoining tax lot 2000) is also exempt because it is connected to the sewer that runs along its southern edge. The same sewer being used by 62 and 84 Green Lane. In Summary According to the written policies governing the Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project and the precedence already established by exempting from assessment the gasoline station and deli on tax lot 2100, the owners of tax lot 1900 (84 Green Lane) and tax lot 2000 (62 Green Lane) request exemption from all assessments relative to this local improvement district on the basis that both properties are already served by the public sewer that extends the full length of their southern boundaries and will not benefit from a second sewer to be built along their northern boundaries. Page 3 of 3 Written testimony prepared for Public Hearing 5/15/95 Accepted by City Engineer's office on 5/14/96 "~ ;/'" J " ;J " Oral Testimony , Public hearing for the formation of the proposed local improvement district May 15,1996 - 6 p.m. Mary H.Thompson 84 Green Lane The letter from the Sailada's and myself that is attached as Exhibit "H" in this memorandum contains our request to be exempted from all assessments relative to this local improvement district. We have clearly identified the city policies and codes that support this request. " " "" My testimony tonight is about actions that happened subsequent to our written report. In support of this testimony I have made a copy of my log and it is attached to the comments I am now making. These actions I feel are at the heart of the problem that exists between the "city" and its "citizens." That of trust and credibility. First I wish to say that I believe fervently in our system of government and in the importance of each citizen understanding and obeying its laws. I write my comments out in order to be accurate and to show respect for the process of the implementation of these laws. ' . It is to honor this process and those entrusted with it that I have spent so much time "trying to get the information needed to determine if I was being just in asking for this exemption against my property. It is to honor this process that I have spent so much time trying to make my presentation in a professional manner. The incident that occurred that bothers me greatly is the information I was given about the exemption of the gasoline station (tax lot 2100). In my written testimony on page 3 under the title Exemptions already granted I recount the information given to me by Sue Malone regarding the determination by "Tom F." on April 1 0 that taxlot 2100 be marked non- benefited because it was connected to the same sewer that runs along the back of our property and that we are connected to. I felt that this information corroborated my interpretation of the code and completed my report. I was given this information on Monday around 4:15 p.m. Sue knew I viewed this exemption as validating our request. " ' Tuesday morning I spoke again to Sue and referred to this information as being added to my report. Sue told me that this information was discussed and it was felt that a mistake had been made. The gasoline station will now be assessed and that the person making the determination - Tom F. - didn't even remember why he designated it as non- benefited. Because I still believed in my interpretation of the codes (s~e page 2 of my written report) I submitted itas written and tried even harder to get a definition of "Specifically Benefited." I still have not been given this information. -<" . . I Now I want to go back to the subject of trust and credibility. This is the seventh and last year of the River Road/Santa Clara sewer project. For six years the "Sewer Project Team" has identified properties to be assessed as "specifically benefited" and exempted properties that are "non-benefited." These people are experienced professionals. By now they know the code and how to apply it. I believe that "Tom F." was doing his job and made the determination based on the information he had at hand. I believe that if "Tom F." had had similar information about taxlots 2000 and 1900 the same determination 'would have been made. I also believe that He couldn't remember. specifics about this action because it was routine and based on actual codes and policies. I do not believe that "Tom F." made a mistake. The mistake is being made by city employees who feel presured to implement policies based on the "vision" of providing more housing for people who might want to move to Eugene. These same employees must monitor revenue and be fiscally accountable for implementing this vision. The policies and codes have been adopted to bring this vision to , fruition. Occasionally the policies and codes will back up a condition that the employees feel will not bring about this city's vision. This has happened in the situation I have just described. The mistake is made when the city employees feel they must choose a "vision" over the law. When critical elements of a law, such as "Specifically Benefited", are given no definition. It is this mindset and practise that I believe are contributing to the growing lack of trust and respect for our city employees and elected officials. I'm not trying to find "loop holes." I don't enjoy causing trouble for other people. My comments are more "preachy" than lam comfortable with, but the ordeal of struggling to meet the deadlines imposed by this process with information being given to me in little bits and pieces as I tried to figure out the right questions to ask has really worn me down. I hope that the findings of the hearings official are embedded in the policies and codes that should be the structure for all our actions. The policies, codes, and definitions that we all have been given and are trying to live by. Log - Mary Thompson - Actions regarding secondary sewer AUQust 22. 1992 · · Letter from Michelle Cahill, Project Manager, regarding sanitary sewer options for 84 Green Lane. Two options given: 1) connect to existing sewer available along southerly end of the property, and 2) build a private line under the conditions of a revokable permit along Green Lane to connect in the area of manhole N5W2-103. This line would need to be reconnected to the Green Lane Sanitary Sewer scheduled for 1996. December 7. 1995 · Telephone call to Sue Malone asking for information on where the sewer would be run on Green Lane now that all Green Lane properties west of manhole N5W2-103 are connected to the sewer or - in the case of the 3 taxlots to the north belonging to the school - will not be developed in the foreseeable future. Sue suggested calling in January when the team would start working on the 1996 project. Regarding the three school taxlots (40.0., 30.0., and 200) Sue mentioned that vacant unannexed and developable parcels will not be accessed for sewers until they are developed. She also said that the sewer project is not required to serve vacant property. January 16. 1996 · · Letter to Sue Malone suggesting there would be no need to construct the Green Lane sewer west of manhole N5W2-103 because all properties to the south of Green Lane are connected to the existing sewer and the properties to the North of manhole N5W2-1o.3 are either connected to the sewer or are vacant. January 30.. 1996 · · Response from Jerry Behney, Senior Engineering Technician, stating that the four developed taxlots on River Road north of Green Lane are required to be . served through the River Road/Santa Clara sewer project. Therefore the sewer line will be built to accommodate these taxlots. April 15. 1996 · · Received notice regarding May 5 Information Session, May 15 Public Hearing, and June 10. City Council Action. May 1. 1996 · Jarvis talked with neighbor Stan Vanderhoff who said he was partitioning part of his property in order to defer sewer assessment charges. .'" i Mary Thompson, 84 Green Lane, Eugene 97404 Page 1 . . · Called Surveying Firm of Ford Ness & Fassbender to determine if partitioning would be an option to help offset assessments on the proposed sewer line. Paula said to contact the city for their packet of information. Also to find out what will be the deadline on partitioning. May 2. 1996 · Called sewer project office to determine in advance of the May 5 meeting if there would be any grounds for deferral of sewer charges since my property is already connected to the sewer line. I mentioned that at least one neighbor on Green Lane was partitioning to defer part of the assessment obligations. Asked for information on how to partition and when would be the deadline to have the partitioning completed. · S Malone said to talk with Cathy Szerniakin the Planning Department. · Called C Scerniak who said she would put together a packet of information, but when she heard we were already annexed she said she wanted to check out a couple of things. She will call back. Said that deadline for completion of partitioni ng wou Id be December 1. May 3. 1996 . · Called Paula at Surveyors to tell her I was waiting on C Szerniak's call back and info. Relayed the December 1 deadline. Paula said 12-1-96 would be a tight schedule, but do-able. May 7. 1996 · 8:45 a.m. left word on answering machine at Planning Dept for Cathy Szerniak. · 9:10a.m. C Szerniak returned call. Said that since we had been annexed in 1984 any partitioning would not result in deferred assessments. · Called Sue Malone about this development. She said there were about 20 properties along Green Lane and Lone Oak that had been previously annexed and that these properties were governed by a different set of rules than the rest of the properties being served by the sewer project. She had asked C Szerniak to research this information for her. Told me to come to the May 8 meeting to pick up OUT estimate. May 8. 1996 * · Picked up estimate information at meeting. Talked with Michelle Cahill. Told her I felt I was running around in circles and time was running out. I don't even know what questions to ask to get accurate information on our rights. . . especially since we are already on a sewer. Michelle suggested a get the draft copy of the engineer's report for the hearing official. Also that I read Eugene Code Section 7.175. · Immediately following the above meeting, called Cathy Szerniak to ask where to find the rules governing the sewer teams decisions. -Cathy referred me to the Metro Plan (which I have ).Pg 11-8-7 Policy number 20. When the Metro Plan Mary Thompson, 84 Green Lane, Eugene 97404 Page 2 was adopted (Feb. 1982) annexation was required for the extension of any city service. * · Our annexation was effective 10/6/83. Cathy faxed this info to me with the date that the Metro Plan was amended to allow sewer service without annexation. (6/13/90) * · Cathy then faxed this change to me, since it was not recorded in the 1987 update to the Metro Area General Plan I had purchased last year. Pg II-D-7, 12/31/91 corrected) May 9. 1996 · Cld Sue Malone. Asked for the Eugene Code pertaining to sewer assessments. Mentioned it might be 7.175. Also asked for the draft of the engineer's report. * · Sue faxed pages 7-20, 7-23, and 7-24 · Sue said it might serve me better to have the 95 engineer's report for formation of the LID. Said she will be gone tomorrow, but will leave the report with the receptionist to pick up in the morning. I said it might be difficult to complete my report by noon tomorrow. She said I could wait until Monday, but they would still want a copy. May 10.1996 * · 8:20 a.m. Picked up April 12, 1995 report to the Hearings Official. · Walked to the Planning Department to get the missing pages of Eugene Code on Local Improvements. Department closed until 1 0:30 a.m. for employee workshops. · Read all material to see if there was anything written in policies, code, or previous findings that pertained to property with two sewer lines. Ascertained the need for the Findings and Recommendations of the Hearings Official after consideration of the 95 engineers report. Also, need to learn actual assessments for all the properties fronting onto the proposed sewer extension. Made list of requests for Sue Malone on Monday. Determined that taxlots 1900 and 2000 did not qualify for inclusion in the new service district because the first requirement that must be satisfied for inclusion in the LID is that there be no other method of delivering the public service. (Page II-B-5, #14. a.) Also, the Eugene Code regarding "sanitary sewer assessments" says that the cost of the sewer will be borne by the specially benefited properties. There is no benefit to 1900 and 2000 from the proposed sewer line. I need to check the Findings of the last hearing to see. if there is any argument to refute my interpretation of these laws. Mary Thompson, 84 Green Lane, Eugene 97404 , , Page 3 , * May 13.1996 · Requested of Sue Malone - Copy Findings and Recommendations - 95 Hearing - Copy Draft Engineers Report SC 1996 Basin 96S - Maps of Green Lane showing existing and proposed sewer extensions - List of all properties west of manhole N5W2-103 and the estimated assessment on each. * * * · Picked up material from Engineers office On estimates: only received Sailadas, Vanderhoff (not needed) and Rossell (not needed). · Wrote most of the report for the engineer. · 4:15 p.m. Called Sue Malone to ask for the assessments calculated for the school lots, the four business lots on River Road that are going to be served by the sewer, and for the Gasoline Station. Sue said the school did not receive notice of any assessments because they are deferred. She gave me the figures for the four business lots: 900 - $3429.00, 800 - $2925.59, 601 - $5369.87, 501 - $1619.03. · When I asked about lot 2100 (Gas Stn) Sue said it did not have to be assessed because it was non-benefited by public sewers. I questioned her again because the proposed sewer would front along at least one half of the property's north boundary. She insisted that taxlot 2100 was appropriately excluded because it "has already built a private sewer line and service and have connected." This determination was made on April 1 0, 1996. I told Sue that the sewer line from the Gas Station was running along an easement granted by tax lot 2000 and connected into the same sewer that taxlot 2000 and 1900 were connected to. Sue said that the engi'1eers have still determined that taxlot 2100 does not benefit from the proposed sewer line and therefore has not been included in the process. · I told Sue I could have my report done by tomorrow. The exclusion of taxlot 2100 collaborates my interpretation on the policy and codes. * · Report draft completed by 10:30 p. m. May 14.1996 · 8:45 a.m. Sue Malone in ,a meeting. Iw for her to return my call. . Mary Thompson, 84 Green Lane, Eugene 97404 Page 4 · 9:15 'a.m. Sue returned call. I asked if there would be an overhead available at the hearing. If so I would put my maps on acetate. Sue said the project team doesn't have an overhead projector but she could ask for one from another department. I said not to bother, I'll just put the maps on paper. Sue said the head engineer wanted my report by noon. I said it might be difficult to make that deadline because I was working on some changes due to the information she gave me about taxlot 2100. Sue said that had been changed. She brought it to the attention of the engineers and it was decided that a mistake was made and taxlot 2100 would be assessed after all. · I asked for faxed copies of the notes she was reading from when she said that taxlot 2100 had been excluded. These notes were' faxed to me. * · I called back to say I would be bringing my report by to meet the engineers noon deadline. · Gave report to Sue Malone at 11 :45 a.m. ,. Called Sue for faxed copies of the rest of Eugene Code 7.160 through 7.195. Note: I feel my interpretation of "non-benefited" is correct, as the engineers agreed until they discovered that Sailadas and we also were in the same position which would eliminate too much money from ,their project. Asked Sue for a copy of the final engineer's report. She said it should be completed by the end of the day. · Called Sue around 4 p.rn.. She said the engineer's report won't be ready until tomorrow morning. I should be able to pick it up by 9 a.m. · 4:50 p.m. cld Sue to get the actual definition of "Specially Benefitted." Sue had gone home. No one in the office was able to give me this information. My name and phone and fax numbers were taken if anyone would be able to look this information up. I said this was important. May 15. 1996 · Cancelled appointments and cleared morning schedule to examine engineers report and prepare a response if necessary. · 9:25 a.m. Cld Sue Malone to see if the Engineer's report is ready to pick up. Sue and "team" haven't come in to the office yet because of the hearing tonight. The report is not ready. My name and phone number was taken and I will be called when the report is completed. Sue may be in by 10:30 or 11 a.m. if I want to call back. · 10:30 a.m. called by the typist. I can pick up a copy of the report at 11 :30 a.m. I asked the typist if I can also pick up the defi nition of "specially benefited" as it is defined in the city code. I was told I was to ask the Hearings Official to define .j" ,- Mary Thompson, 84 Green Lane, Eugene 97404 Page 5 I * it for me. 1 asked the typist to have Sue Malone call me regarding the definition that has been used by the sewer team throughout the six years of implementing this project. · 11 :45 a.m. Picked up report. Asked if Sue Malone was there so I could get the definition of. specifically benefited. 1 was told that Sue had gone to lunch. 1 said I thought she had come into work around 11 a.m. The typist (I think that is who I was talking to) said "Oh no, she's been here sinceiabout.9 a.m." · Cancelled afternoon appointments. - · Written testimony completed. No definition of "specially benefited" has been received. * · Hearing - 6 p.m. * designates a document Mary Thompson. 84 Green Lane. Eugene 97404 Page 6 . , , Oral Testimony Public hearing for the formation of the proposed local improvement district May 15, 1996 - 6 p.m. Mary H.Thompson 84 Green Lane Clarifications in the Memorandum document Location Pg 5 1[1,s2 Pg 6 1[1 11 2, s 1 1[ 2, s 1 Comment Question the wording: "For these lots. . . Calculations." The. way this sentence reads is that if a property is 200 ft deep it would be assessed for the 160 ft from the previous construction, plus the remaining 40 ft. If the property was 500 ft deep it would be ~ssessed on 320 ft. Is this what was intended? - For Accuracy - Delete: "SDC and MWMC were collected at this time. " Incorrect. Delete: "when they connected to the existing sewer" Add: at end of sentence "because the sewer was built with private money at no cost to the city." \ The sentence who thus read "Owners of these properties paid Local Systems development charges (SDC) and MWMC charges, but have never been assessed for lateral cost because the sewer was built with private money at no cost to the city." Pg 8 Question of intent. 1[ 4 Why does this memorandum direct the City Council not to take action on the 1[ 7 requests made by the property owners? I " \. c:1 -' "'- .:v1ay 23, 1996 TO: Milo Mecham, Hearings Official FROM: Jeff Lankston, Acting City Engineer SUBJECT~ Additional Information following public hearing for formation of LID - Santa Clara Basins 96X, 96U, & 96S; Service ID 3398,3013, and 2928 At the public hearing, held May 15, 1996, there was a request for information and clarification on the City's policy related to assessing public property such as school sites that occupy several tax lots. In Basin 96U, School District 4J owns Santa Clara Elementary School which occupies six tax lots. It is and has been the City's policy to assess these school properties for sanitary sewer as being fully developed even when one or more of the tax lots may be void of a valued structure. Attached are copies of the square footage/costestimate letters that were mailed to the school district office following the information. session held May 8. These estimate letters clearly show that all of the property owned by School District 4J at this site will be assessed for the proposed sanitary sewer system. This method is consistent with previous assessments against properties owned by School District 4J in the River Road-Santa Clara area. I..., . Public Works Engineering River Road/Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project May 8, 1996 TAX LOT NUMBER: 17041141 09100 City of Eugene 244 East Broadway Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687-5560 SITE ADDRESS: 02685 RIVER RD SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J A TIN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE 103013). The chart below lists the square footage and number of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate of the public sewer costs for which you will be billed early next year. This estimate is for public sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges, monthly sewer user fee, or permit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of sewer construction in 1996. If you have questions or concerns about the square footage figure, the sewer cost estimate, or the private connection process, please call 683-8823. LATERAL (Area within 160') 76608.00 x $0.324/sq. ft. = $ 24820.99 LOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size) 136658.00 x $0.025/sq. ft. = $ 3416.45 SERVICE (Connection Points) 1.00 x $1310/service point = $ 1310.00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) 13.00 = $ 4430.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY = 33,977.44 Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, your approximate installment payment will be: 2,803.14 semi-annual -467.19 monthly Includes interest at the current rate of 6.50/0 annually on unpaid principal balance. For more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRELIMINARYI SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 8, 1996 e.. - PUblic Works Engineering River Road/Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project TAXLOT NUMBER: 17041141 09200 City of Eugene 244 East Broadway Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687-5560 SITE ADDRESS: SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J ATTN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 The chart below lists the square footage and number of seWer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate of the pUblic seWer costs for Which you will be billed early next year. This estimate is for public seWer improvements only. It does not include private Plumbing charges, monthly seWer user fee, or permit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of sewer construction in 1996. SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBl/CSEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE 10 2928) , Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, YOur apProximate installment payment will be: 551. 14 semi-annual 91.86 monthly LATERAL (Area within 160') 18011.00 x $0.324/sq. ft. :: $ 5835.56 LOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size) 33798.00 x $0.025/sq. ft. -:: $ 844.95 SERVICE (Connection Points) .00 x $131 O/service point :: . $ .00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) .00 :: $.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY :: 6,680.51 If you have questions or concerns about the square footage figure, the seWer cost estimate, or the Private connection process, please call 683-8823. lc/udes interest at the current rate of 6.5% annUally on unpaid principal balance. Dr more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRELIMINARY - ---- SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 8, 1996 ~ Public Works - .' Engineering : .: River Road/Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project TAXlOTNUMBER: 1704114109300 SITE ADDRESS: City of Eugene 244 East Broadway Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687-5560 SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J A TTN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 The chart below lists the square footage and !lumber of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate of the public sewer costs for which you will be billed early next year. This estimate is for pUblic sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges, monthly sewer user fee, or permit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of seWer construction in 1996. SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE ID 2928) If you have questions or concerns about the square footage figure, the sewer cost estimate, or the private connection process, please call 683-8823. Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, your approximate installment payment will be: 479.50 semi-annual 79.92 monthly LA TERAl (Area within 160') 15670.00 x $0.324/sq. ft. :: $ '5077.08 lOCAL SDC (Total lot Size) 29401.00 x $0.025/sq. ft. :: $ 735.03 SERVICE (Connection Paints) .00 x $131 O/service point :: $.00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) .00 :: $.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY :: 5,812.11 Includes interest at the current rate of 6.5% annually on unpaid principal balance. For more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 8, 1996 . PUblic Works Engineering River Road/Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project SITE ADDRESS: City of Eugene 244 East Broadway Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687-5560 TAXlOT NUMBER: 1704114400200 SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J A TTN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 The chart below lists the square footage and number of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate of the public sewer costs for which you will be billed early next year. This estimate is for public sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges, . , monthly sewer user fee, or pennit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of sewer construction in 1996. SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE 10 2928) LA TERAl (Area within 160') 17184.00 x $0.324/sq. ft. :: $ 5567.62 LOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size) 25891.00 x $0.025/sq. ft. :: $ 647~28 SERVICE (Connection Points) .00 x $1310/service point :: $.00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) .00 :: '$ .00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY = 6,214.90 -{ Based on ESTfMA TED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, your approximate installment payment will be: 512.73 serpi-annual 85.45 monthly Includes interest at the current rate of 6.5% annually on unpaid principal balance. For more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 0, 19JG . Public Works Engineering River Road/Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project TAXLOT NUMBER: 1704114400300 SITE ADDRESS: City of Eugene 244 East Broadway Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687-5560 SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J A TTN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 The chart below Ii~ts the square footage and number of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate of the public sewer costs for which you will be billed early next year. This estimate is for public sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges, monthly sewer user fee, or permit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of sewer construction in 1996. SQUARE FOOTAGE fNFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE ID 2928) If you have questions or concerns about the square footage figure, the sewer cost estimate, or the private connection process, please call 683-8823. LA TERAL (Area within 160') 35486.00 x $0.324/sq. ft. :: $ 11497.46 LOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size) 53448.00 x $0.025/sq. ft. :: $ 1336.20 SERVICE (Connection Paints) .00 x $131 O/service point :: $.00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) .00 :: $.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY = 12,833.66 Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, your approximate installment payment will be: 1,058.78 semi-annual 176.46 monthly Includes interest at the current rate of 6.5% annually on unpaid principal balance. For more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO CHANGE Ma ., Public Works - .' Engineering : .: - River Road/Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project TAXLOT NUMBER: 1704114400400 SITE ADDRESS: City of Eugene 244 East Broadway Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687-5560 SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J ATTN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 The chart below lists the square footage and number of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate of the public sewer costs for which you will be billed early next year. This estimate is for public sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges,. monthly sewer user fee, or permit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of sewer construction in 1996. SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE ID 2928) If you have questions or concerns about the square. footage figure, the seWer cost estimate, or the private connection process, please call 683-8823. LA TERAl (Area within 160') 25216.00 x $0.324/sq. ft. :: $ 8169.98 LOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size) 34858.00 x $0.025/sq. ft. :: $ 871.45 SERVICE (Connection Points) .00 x $131 O/service point :: $.00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) .00 :: $.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY :: 9,041.43 Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, YOur approximate installment payment will be: 745.92 semi-annual 124.32 ~ monthly Includes interest at the current rate of 6.5% annually on unpaid principal balance. I For more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRE LI M I N A R Y SUBJECT TO CHANGE ,I May 8, 1996 ~ Public Works . , - ~ Engineering , : . I: River Road/Santa Clara . Sanitary Sewer Project ,. '? ~" $ITE ADDRESS: 02685 RIVER RD City of Eugene 244 East Broadway' Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687-5560 TAXLOT NUMBER: 17041141 09100 - .' . ,'. , SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J A TIN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 The chart below lists the square footage and number of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate .of the pUblic sewer costs for which you will be billed early next year. This estimate is for.public sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges, monthly sewer user fee, or permit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of Sewer construction in 1996. SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE ID 3013) If you have questions or concerns about the square footage figure, the sewer cost estimate, or the private connection process, please call 683-8823. . LA TERAL (Area within 160') 76608.00 x $0.324/sq. ft. = $ 24820.99 LOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size) 136658~ 00 x $0.025/sq. ft. :: $ 3416.45 SERVICE (Connection Paints) 1.00 x $1310/service point = $ 1310.00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) 13.00 :: -$ 4430.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY = 33,977.44 Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, your approximate irisb:illment payment will be: 2,803.14 semi-annual ., 467.19 monthly Includes interest at the Current rate of 6.5% annually on unpaid principal balance. For more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. P' R ELI M I N A R Y SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 8, 1996 W Public Works. . - .- Engineering , : ': - River Road/Santa Clara ' \ Sanitary Sewer Project TAXLOT NUMBER: 17041141 09200 , I City of Eugene 244 East Broadway - Eugene, Oregon 97401 . (541) 687-5560 SITE ADDRESS: SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J A TTN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 The chart below lists the square footage and number of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate of the public sewer costs for which you will be billed ~arly next year. This estimate is for public sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges, monthly sewer user fee, or permit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of sewer construction in 1996. . SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE.D 2~28) If you have questions or concerns about the square footage figure, the sewer cost estimate, or the private connection process, please call 683-8823. LA TERAL (Area within 160') 18011.00 x $0.324/sq. ft. = $ 5835.56 LOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size) 33798.00 x $0.025/sq. ft. :: -$ 844.95 SERVICE (Connection Points) .00 x $131 O/service point :: $ .00 ' MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) .00 = $.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY :: 6,680.51 Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, your approximate installment. paymentwill be: .- 551.14 semi-annual 91.86 monthly Includes interest 'at the current rate of 6.5% annually on unpaid principal balance. por more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO' -CHANGE ,,"j" , I'; ~ Public Works Engineering River Road/Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project " ~~.l ,'."', t/ " May 8, 1996 ".... ~.;:.~~~.~ : "iT::':" . " . .., ..."; . ,', "-.":' ;: -:J~":~, ~ . TAXLOT NUMBER: 17041141 09300 SITE ADDRESS: City of Eugene 244 East Broadway Eugene, Oregon 9740; (541) 687-5560 ,!-','\,\,,' . .. '.~~ .): , ',~\: . SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J A TTN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 The chart below lists the square footage and number of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also incluaes an estimate of the public sewer costs for which youwill b~ billed early next year. This estimate is for public sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges, monthly sewer user fee, or permit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of sewer construction in 1996. SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMAlfE FOR PROPERTIES SERVEO BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE 10 2928) If you have questions or concerns about the square 'footage figure, the sewer cost estimate, or the private connection process, please call 683-8823. LATERAL (Area within 160') 15670.00 x $0.324/sq. ft. :: $ 5077.08 LOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size) 29401.00 x $0.025/sq. ft. :: $ 735.03 SERVICE (Connection Paints) .00 x $'131 O/service point :: $.00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) .00 -, $ .00, TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY :: 5,812.11 Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, your approximate installment payment will be: 479.50 semi-annual 79.92 monthly Includes interest at the current rate of 6.5% annually on unpaid principal balance. For more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO CHANGE May 8, 1996 ~ Public Works Engineering River Road/Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project SITE ADDRESS: City of Eugene ' 244 East Broa-dway , Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687-5560 TAX LOT NUMBER: 1704114400200 SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J A TIN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 : . The chart below lists the square footage and number of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate of the public sewer costs for which you will be billed early next year. This estimate is for public sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges, monthly sewer user fee, or pennit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of sewer construction in 1996. SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE 10 2928) If you have questions or concerns about the square footage figure, the sewer cost estimate, or the private connection process, please call 6~3-8823. LATERAL (Area within 160') 17184.00 x $0.324/sq. ft.. :: $ 5567.62 LOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size) 25891.00 x$0.025/sq. ft. = $ 647.28 SERVICE (Connection Points) .00 x $1310/service point = $.00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) .00 :: $.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY :: ,6,214.90 Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, your approximate installment payment will be: 512.73 . semi-annual 85.45 monthly Includes interest at the current rate of 6.5% annually on unpaid principal balance. For more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRE L I MI N A R Y SUBJECT TO- CHANGE Ma ~~ . - -. ,.". -. . Public Works Engineering River Road/Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Project TAXLOT NUMBER: 1704114400300 SITE ADDRESS: City of Eugene 244 East Broadway Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687-55.60 - SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J ATTN: JUDY 715 WEST4TH EUGENE OR 97402 The chart below lists the square footage and number of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate of the public sewer costs for which you will be billed early next year. This estimate is for public sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges, monthly sewer user fee, or permit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of sewer construction in 1996. SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVED BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE 10 2928) . If you have questions or concerns about the square footage figure, the sewer cost estimate, or the private connection process, please call 683-8823. LA TERAl (Area within 160') 35486.00 x $0.324/sq. ft. :: , $ 11497.46 LOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size} 53448.00 x $0.025/sq. ft. :: $ 1336.20 . . SERVICE (Connection Points) .00 x $1310/serv;ce point :: $.00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) .00 :: $.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY :: 12,833.66 Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, your approximate installment. payment witr be: 1,058.78 semi-annual 176.46 monthly Includes interest at the current rate of 6.5% annually on unpaid prinCipal balance. For more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRE L I M I N -A R Y SUBJECT TO CHANGE , J ~~ - -: . I: ~ Public Works I Engineering River Road/Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer. Project Ma TAXLOT NUMBER: 1704114400400 SITE ADDRESS: City of Eugene ' 244 East,Broadway \_. Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 687~5560 SCHOOL DISTRICT #4J ATTN: JUDY 715 WEST 4TH EUGENE OR 97402 The chart below lists the square footage and number of sewer connection points for the property described above. The chart also includes an estimate of the pUblic sewer costs for which you will be billed early next year. This estimate is for public sewer improvements only. It does not include private plumbing charges, monthly sewer user fee, or permit fees. Final billings will be based on actual costs of sewer construction in 1996. , SQUARE FOOTAGE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC SEWER COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES SERVEO BY SEWERS IN BASIN 96S (SERVICE ID 2928) If you have questions or concerns about the square footage figure, the sewer cost estimate, or the private connection process, please call 683-8823. . LA TERAL (Area within 160') 25216.00 , x $0.324/sq. ft. :: , $ 8169.98 lOCAL SDC (Total Lot Size) 34858.00 x $0.025/sq. ft. :: $ 871.45 SERVICE (Connection Points) .00 x $131 O/serv;ce point :: $.00 MWMC FEE (Dwelling Units) - .00 :: $.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY :: 9,041.43 . . Based on ESTIMATED PUBLIC SEWER COST FOR THIS PROPERTY, your approximate installment payment will be: 745.92 semi-annual 124.32 monthly Includes interest at the current rate of 6.5% annually on unpaid principal balance. For more information on Financial Options, call 687-5037. PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO CHANGE