Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19829ORDINANCE NO. ~~ ~a~ AN oRDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS.~F4R SANITARY SEWE THE RIVER ROAD AREA ~~ RS IN FoR ',BASINS !~ rrD'r~ rrErr r A~ rrFrr ~ ~ DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ~~~ ,: FINDINGS: In the exercise of its discretion to determine wh at is necessary or essential, the City Council has previousl authorize Y d the construction of a sanitary sewers stem in the ' .. Y River Road Area. In Resolution No. 4246 adopted by the Cit Council on Y May 13, 1991 the Council directed that sanitary sewers be cans tructed to serve certain property that would be benefitted thereb . Y on April 2, 1991 the City. Engineer called for bids on the .. proposed impravexaent and based thereon has determine ' d the final cost to construct the proposed improvement to be 4 66 $ , 5,402.16, of which $3, 787, 517.14 is to be assessed to and bo • me by the specially benefitted propert described in ~ • Y Exhibit C hereto, as provided In Section 7.170 of the Eugene Code, 1971 E.C. . { ~ and E.C. ?.175. In addition, the local and regional S stems Develo Y pment Charges ~SDC~ totaling $640,555.22 shall be included in the i • ndividual billings as provided in E. C. ?, 720~~5} , A notice containing the information re iced b E y .C. 7.185 has been posted on a bulletin board at Cit Hall and • Y given by certified mail to the owners of the parcels of real ' property subject to the assessment at least ten days prior to the ublic heari p ng before the Hearings official . At the time and laces • p pecified therein, a Hearings Official received the re art of the Cit ' p y Engineer and DEF ORDINANCE Page 1 Finance Officer as required by E.C. 7.187 ~ 1~ , heard all evidence and argument presented, fully considered the same and has reported his adopted findings to the City Council. Because of the general proximity of the sanitary sewers constructed in Basins "D", "E" and "F", because the work was done during the same construction season, because the historic ublic P notices, hearings, proceedings and information have been the same for the specially benefitted properties, and because of savings in engineering and administrative costs it is equitable that the cost of the three separate contracts under which the local improvement has been constructed in 1991 be combined when calculating the assessments for the individual specially benefitted properties. Parcels for which sanitary sewers were constructed earlier but which were not fully assessed until being included in this local improvement district are to be assessed based on the same unit values as the 1991 construction. The casts for extra capacity of the River Road and Santa Clara areas Sanitary Sewers were initially paid for by federal grant and the City. The extra capacity constructed in existing sanitar Y sewer in the River Road and Santa Clara areas was dane with the intention and determination that the City's costs of that extra capacity benefitted the property to be served by such and that the City's costs therefore would be equitably spread to all properties served within the River Road and Santa Clara areas . The $ ~ . 0 2 5 per square foot local SDC included in the billing equitably spreads such extra capacity costs to all the properties in the River Road DEF ORDINANCE Page 2 and Santa Clara areas. Without such extra capacity to receive sewage, the sanitary sewer laterals and service lines recently constructed could not function and would not immediately benefit the abutting properties. None of the revenue received from the $4.425 local SDC will be used for projects to be constructed outside the River Road and Santa Clara areas nor to reimburse the City for projects it has constructed for other areas. The affected property is also obligated under E.C. 7.745 to pay a development charge for regional sewerage facilities prior to connection to the sanitary sewer regional development chargey. Such charges may be paid in installments on the same basis as local improvement assessments. As a convenience tv the owners of the affected property and as a means of avoiding multiple billings of accounts receivable to each affected property owner, the notice of assessment and the obligations created by this Ordinance shall also include the local and regional development charge. The total costs for this capital construction project are as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference . In these proceedings for the formation of the local improvement district and the levying of special benefit assessments, the City has afforded the owners of the affected property the same notice opportunity to be heard and all other rights and remedies which the owners of property within the city have under the Charter and ordinances of the city. The City Council has reviewed and considered the assessment DEF QRDINANCE Page 3 report of the City Engineer and Finance officer and the findings and summary of hearing prepared by the Hearings official, and based thereon, THE CITY of EUGENE DgES gRDAIN AS FgLLgWS: Section 1. The Summary of the hearing conducted by the Hearings Official is hereby made a part of the Council's record in these proceedings, and the above f findings and the Hearings Official's findings, including those regarding compliance with E.C. 7.160 through 7,190, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adapted. Section 2. The casts of construction of the improvements, including the overhead costs specified in E.C. 7.170 and whatever other special costs, such as expenses incurred to obtain short-- term financing and tv defend legal challenges to the City's authority to undertake these improvements, as are necessary to make the improvements, as declared in the Hearings Official's findings are hereby assessed against the parcels of land and lots hereinafter described in the amounts set opposite, respectively. Notwithstanding that the improvements in Basins, "D", "E" and "F" were constructed under three separate contracts, all costs of the improvements are combined for the local improvement district as a whole and are apportioned on that basis. The division of this local improvement district into three areas is for engineering and administrative convenience and has no relation to the manner in which casts are to be assessed to individual specially benefitted properties within this local improvement district. DEF ORDINANCE Page 4 Section 3. The City Council does hereby determine and assess each parcel of land and lot being within the described local improvement district as set forth on the assessment roll attached as Exhibit C hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. The City Council does hereby determine that each parcel of land or lot hereinabove described is specially benef fitted to the extent of the assessment set forth. The Finance Officer shall give notice of the assessments to the owners of the assessed parcels and lots advising them the assessment may be paid in full, without interest, within ten days of the effective date of this ordinance. Assessments that remain unpaid after the ten day period are declared to be liens upon the respective lots or parcels of land against which said several amounts are assessed, and may be paid, with interest on the unpaid principal amount commencing ten days after the adoption of this ordinance: 4.1 in up to twenty semi-annual installments, including principal and interest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.022 through 2.024; or 4.2 if the property owner so elects, in 120 monthly installments, including principal and interest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.022 through 2.424 plus a service charge to be determined by the City Manger as provided in E.C. 2.020. Section 5. The parcels and lots herein assessed are also obligated to pay a development charge for local and regional sewerage facilities under E.C. 7.705. If the local and regional DEF ORDINANCE Page 5 development charge is unpaid at the time the notice required by Section 4 of this ordinance is sent, the local and regional development charge shall be included in the notice and shall be a lien against the property to be paid along with the assessment as provided in this Ordinance. Section 6. The City Recorder is directed to enter in the docket of City Liens a statement in connection with each unpaid assessment containing the following: 6.1 A description of each lot, part of lot or acreage specially benef fitted by the local improvement; 6.~ The name of the owner or reputed owner thereof ar that the name of the owner is unknown; and 6.3 The sum assessed upon said property, the amount and date from which interest accrues, and the date of entering the same in the docket of City Liens. The City Recorder is further directed to file with the county clerk a certified transcript of the assessments as required by ORS z24.o90. Section 7. The assessments levied herein are characterized for purposes of the property tax limitation in section 11b, Art. XI of the Oregon Constitution as assessments for a local improvement not subject to the limitation of $lo per thousand of real market value. Section 8. Upon enactment of this ordinance the Finance 4f f icer shall send notice of the assessments and local and regional development charges by first class mail postage prepaid to the DEF oRDINANCE Page 6 owners or reputed owner of the assessed parcels containing the information required by E.C. 7.190 and enclose therewith an application for paying the assessment in installments according to the terms set forth in Section 4 of this ordinance. The notice required herein shall also declare the Council's characterization of each assessment as a local improvement assessment under section 11b~ Art. XI of the Oregon Constitution and advise that such characterization may only be challenged by the petition of ten interested taxpayers filed pursuant to ORS 305,583 within 64 days of the date of the notice sent. Such notice may also include information regarding programs that allow the deferral of payment of the assessments for qualified property owners. Section 9. The unpaid assessments and local and regional development charges and any assessment to be paid in installments that is in default shall be foreclosed as provided in E . C . 7.2 2 5 ~ 2 } yr collected as otherwise provided by law. Section 10. Proceeds from the payment ar foreclosure of assessments levied by this ordinance shall be deposited to the City funds as follows: 14.1 The determination to use a rate of $0.45/square foot of total lot for the local system development charge under E, C. 7.745 et seq is ratified and the proceeds therefrom shall be used to reimburse the City for the cost of the extra capacity required in the sewer interceptor system to serve properties within the River Road and Santa Clara area; and 10.2 The proceeds from the regional development charge shall DEF ORDINANCE Page 7 be deposited to the appropriate fund; and 14.3 The balance of the proceeds shall be deposited to the City funds which advanced the cost of the construction of the sanitary sewer system serving the properties assessed herein and may be used to reimburse the City for its costs in constructing said sanitary sewer system or to retire any indebtedness incurred by the City for that purpose, Section il. The matters contained in this Ordinance affect the public health, safety and welfare concerning the City's ability to continue to finance the construction of sanitary sewers using its sewer utility funds. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, retention by the Mayor for more than ten days, or readoption over a mayoral veto by two-thirds of all members of the Council. Passed by the City Council this day of ~ ~ 1992 m i n i imrr~~w~ ,! City Recorde Ap roved by the M yor this day of , 1992 ayo DEF ORDINANCE page 8 Exhibit A EXHIBIT A - ASSESSMENT ~V4RKSHEET In tt~e City of Eugene, t.ane County, Oregon, an ordinance levying assessments for. Sanitary Sewers i n tie River Road Area far Basins "D", "E", and "F'• irt:t~t 1, Amount paid to Contractor: Contract ~ 91-07 91-a$ 91-Q9 Job ~ 2649 2650 2651 Cap P:vt. ~ 915685 915695 915705 Ordinance N ITEM Z. Liquidated damages: ITEM 3. Other d'~req costs: p~ ~~ 'Ceordr ~ Date pew ~ ~ Fes; ,~,,, 1 a cumen a on .,~___~. T ~_ -~-~-- - ~,~885 _-____ ~,_,-- l3• ~vivalenl of trunk fewer ~~ ri ITEfr! 4. Subtotal: Items 1 through 3 ITEM 5. Basis for 6z Finance Adminisiratian fee cakutatson. Subtotal -item 4: S r3,,f~,lfi, Total riot subjeq a 6x Finance Fee (Item 13c) ~~ i 73 ~ ITEM Sa. Finance costs sus~eq !0 6X fee: s 7 ITFM ~. Engineering charge: (e' equivalent portion ~ S 1 ITEM 7. 6~ Finance Administratirre fee (6x X Item 5:y: ~1TEM t1. Interest an shorltenri constrrrglon firuncinq; ITEM 9. other chu~pes: d a ck to Fund 532 ~ __ ITEM it), Die to sewer fund for local SDC; due back tD Fund 532 IrL:M 11. MwMc Fac~i;y E~va~Zatian Fee ~ $244 , 233.99 due to MWMC ~ due back to Fund 332: city Admin. Charge = X11,583} ITEM 1~• TOTa~. ASSESSMENT. and SDC per ardi Hance ITEM t 3. City's share of cost Ior completed contraq w°~ ACK tai ibf ~ 3 392 I45.76 - r ~rr..w~~ ~.rr~~ ~ X9,958.49 s a 623.03 ~~ a9a. ~o s ,_-lea 41,..~~~._ s S 3.616.471.70 s fi46 303.22 .. . 183 184.32 s 18~ 202.5 s s . s ~+T.I ~f1r23 S 255,816.99 ~ 5 345,981.38 f~lred Cott End. Fee Interest 4~~ tdl fie} = i 43 ,532 9Z ; 28 212.34 Intersections ~ ; S Tool: Not subjea b 6z Finar~ F ~ ; ~ •ceordr s- ~~ 3 s a5 36,~. 36670 ; 2a 691.30 Total m spa" 661 , 0 . S s :62.5. ITEl~t 14. Deterred Assessments included Irt Item 12. (Eugene Code 7.1~1~. Advanced Irom Fund , A,f E M ITEM ~ 5. Costs not Iienable Included in Item 12 - fcrnded aY Clty a~oun~. Exsraterritor(a! ACK: Vacant outs[de Cityr limits ACK; ~-~--- f~anlcrupt aaounts ACK: _ ~ 250 427. 9 . - 3 091.78 NOTES: Road Re air Reimburse b E.ane Count Short term financin far Maxwel oa sewers rove a ou a un RRISC - Ll!} tcta;td pfiar tC l/tl91 • 21~, of 8' iqufvalfnt In ftem 3y due back tv Fund 532 •/, interest an this SS58SSment will begin torQt faR~t 1121~t EXHIBIT "a" FINDINGS AND REC~MCMENDATIQNS StTBJECT: BASINS D, E AND F SANITARY SEWERS IN THE RIVER RUAD AREA, LEVYING FINAL ASSESSMENT IN LOCAL nVIPRaV~ DISTRICT. BACKGRC]UND Dn May 13,1991 City Council initiated the local improvement district for sanitary sewers in the River Road area for Basins D, E and F, This district encompasses thane parcels served by the sanitary sewer construction in 1991 in the River Road area. The majority of the properties taking sewer service from these facilities will be assessed based vn a distribution of the cumulative construction and staff service costs for the three Basins. Included in the billing with the assessments will be the local and regional sanitary sewer Systems Development Charges. Some of the properties in Basin F are served by sewers constructed under a Lane Coun . tY construction contract for which the City entered into an intergovernmental agreement, The casts for sewer construction under this contract and the corresponding properties served b . y this construction are included ~n the cost d~strzbution v~nth Banns D, E and F. Prior to the hearing regarding the initiation of the Local Improvement District LID on May 13, 1991 property owners who will bear the costs were notified in advance of the minimum 10-days' notice stipulated in Section 7.165 of the Eugene Code SEC}. Notice of Proposed Assessment was given as stipulated in EC 7.185. The sanitary sewers are projects constructed under three separate City contracts: 1 Basin D, 91-07, 2} Basin E, 91-08 and 3} Basin C, 91-09. The previously mentioned sewer work done under a Lane County contract was from the Maxwell Road improvement pra'ect. J An informational session was held January 28,1992 at the River Road Park District facilities on Lake Drive for property owners in this LTD. Approximately 30 prope owners ~Y attended, ASSESSMENTS A. CALCULATIQNS: The cost to construct the sewers under the three contracts administered by the Ci for ~' Basins D, E and F was $3,376,824.41. Additionally, $157,954.41 is included in the cost distribution far work in Maxwell Road. -1- The total cast includes contractor payments, professional staff char es Ci Staff char es g ( ~Y g for D, E and F and Lane County Staff working on Maxwell Road , reconstruction video . )P documentation costs, geotechnical exploration, field testing, City Administration fee short term financing charges, and legal fees. A portion of the total casts includes $b14,9ob.$3 of street re air casts which under the P ~ntergovernment agreement, will be paid by Lane County. These costs have not been included within the assessment distribution against property owners. Additionall some . Y~ service line work for properties prev~ausly assessed for services ~s been aid for b the Ci . g P Y ty ~$11,SSd.90}. The remainder of the costs were divided into lateral and service line onions P of the assessment and spread among all properties or artlons of ro ernes in the LID P PP which have not previously been assessed. All developed properties with the boundaries of the Local Im rovement District that have P not previously been assessed for the sewers will be assessed. Vacant ro ernes outside the P P Crty will nat be assessed but were included m the unit cost calculations. The Ci will ca . ~ t3' ~Y these casts in ant~c~pat~on of future collections through the eight-inch a uivalent rocess. . q P ) Vacant property annexed and w2th~n the C1ty l~nuts, or antici aced to be within the Ci b • P tY Y March will be assessed. The determrnatlon of vacant pro ernes has resulted in some . P controversy which ~s addressed ~n a later section. B. UNIT CASTS AND ESTIMATES: The proposed assessment costs and billings were calculated usin the followin fi res: g g ~ Total lateral cost: Total lateral area: Total Service line cost: Total connection points; Unit costs are: Sanitary sewer lateral: for area w/in I bo' $3,122,592.95 14,4?1,9b5 square feet $ 909,23?.ss 1,120 $ o.21s?b Sanitary sewer service: for each connection point Local SDC far total lat area $ 811.82 $ 0.025 Regional SDC (MWMC) $ 222.00 for each single family dwelling -Z- These costs are well within the estimates given after the bids were received. The estimates were: Sanitary sewer lateral: $ 0.233 for area w/in 16~' Sanitary sewer service; $ 859.41 for each connection point Local SDC $ 0.025 for total lot area Regional SDC ~MwMC} $ 212.00 for each single family dwelling The regional MwMC was affected by the July I adoption of the SDC ordinance which included a 5% City administration fee. C. FINANCING: Ali properties to be assessed will be eligible for 10-year assessment financing. Law income deferral programs are also available for those property owners that qualify. Qualification will be determined at the time the financing application is signed. D. iVT ISSUES: A public hearing regarding these assessments was held on February 11, 1992 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. In addition to the information received during the public hearing, the Hearings Official received a Memorandum from the City Engineer which outlined the above information. Also, the Hearings Official has conducted a personal review of some of the properties in dispute. Finally, additional information, in response to inquiries Pram the Hearings Official, has been provided by Les Lyle, City Engineer. 1. Vacant Pro erties: At issue for several properties is whether or not they are "vacant". If the property is vacant and outside the City, assessment far the sewer improvements will not occur until development or annexation. For several properties, the particular issue is whether or not the property owner had partitioned the property prior to assessment. Resolution 4642 which was adopted by the City Council and which established the formation of the Local Improvement District, provided that properties be assessed as they existed at the date of the resolution, May 13, I991. None of the properties described below had accomplished partition by that date. However, for reasons set forth later on, the Hearings official will be recommending to the City Council that consideration be given to two of these efforts toward .3_ partition. A. Biersdorff Pro er r. From the Memorandum and the observation of the Hearings Official, it appears that this is a nearly one acre lot on the corner of Mayfair and Knoop Lane. From the Engineer's Memorandum, it would appear that partition of the property is a possibility. The owner indicates that she was told she could only divide her lot if she annexed to the City, As noted in the Memorandum, there is no documentation of when or under what circumstances such an inquiry had occurred. Ms. Biersdorff's letter describes making phone calls, but does not provide any basis for corroboration. Based upon the information available to the Hearings Official, it would appear that a minor partition, as the division of her property would be, is a straight forward matter and should have been easily answered by staff. Of course, whether she adequately explained to any staff people what she intended tv do is unknown to the Hearings Official. what is known is that the partition did not occur, and had not even been commenced, by the time of the Notice of Proposed Assessment. Therefore, it is the finding of the Hearings Official that partition has not occurred. It is the recommendation of the Hearings Official that this property be assessed as determined by staff, B. Smith Pro ert ~. Ms. Smith also desires to partition her property. She has indicated to staff that she understood she had to wait until after sewers were in the ground to start the partitioning process. From the material submitted to the Hearings Official by Ms. Smith, it appears that an application for tentative Plat Application was submitted on November 21, X991. She further advises that on December 17,1991, she received verbal notification of preliminary approval. It appears that a Notice of Final Assessment regarding these properties was sent on January 1,1992. Staff has recommended to the Hearings Official that some consideration be given to those who actually initiated the partition process early enough to receive approval, which has occurred in advance of the proposed final assessment. Given the extensive efforts of Ms. Smith, as well as Ms. Singer as set forth below, the Hearings Official recommends to the City Council that it consider treating these partitions as complete far purposes of assessment. The Hearings Official recognizes that this recommendation for flexibility with respect to these two properties is not made pursuant to established city policy. The terms of the resolution which formed the LID would suggest that -4- partition had to be complete by May, 1991. This would not be true of either of the properties recommended far consideration. However, it is also true that substantial progress has been made by bath of these property owners within a period of time that has not caused great difficulty for staff in determining final assessments, C. Singer Property. It appears that this property owner did partition in a reasonably timely fashion. The effective date far the partition was December, 1991. The Hearings official concludes that the partition process was timely commenced and has moved forward sufficiently that the vacant parcel should be deferred for assessment until the time of development. Far the same reason set forth concerning the Smith property, it is the recommendation of the Hearings Officer that the City Council consider treating this partition as complete for purposes of assessment. D. Tailor, Property. -~. This property owner is platting his large parcel into several lots. This property is already annexed to the City. Since the property is within the City, there is no exemption far assessing the vacant properties. Therefore, the Hearings Official recommends that the assessment far these properties be in accordance with the determinations of staff. 2. Multiple Assessments. Eugene Code 7.1755} provides that real property to a depth of 160-feet of a sewer is to be assessed. 'With large properties which may abut several streets, it is possible that a property may be partially assessed two or more times as sewers are developed in the respective boundary streets. This has resulted in a number of concerns with this round of sewer construction. A. York Propel This is a larger parcel which fronts on River Road and also abuts Hawthorne Avenue to the south. when sewers were constructed in River Road in 1990, this property was assessed to a depth of 160-feet. Sewers were constructed in Hawthorne Avenue in 1991 and an assessment is proposed by staff against the rear portion of the York property, for the remaining area not previously assessed. Staff does agree that since she has connected and paid the MwMC charge, staff recommends deletion of this item, which the Hearings official also recommends. It is the finding of the Hearings official, though, that the -5- balance of the property would be subject to assessment as provided by EC 7.1755). It is the recommendation of the Hearings 4fbcial that the property be assessed accordingly, B. Mescall Pro e This property abuts both Lake and Dak Drives, These are two separate tax lots with the same ownership. Dne of the lots was assessed in the River Road existing sewer district in 199U from Lake Drive. That lot connected to the sewer prior to the adoption of the N[wMC charge. The other lot, which abuts on Oak Drive, is proposed for assessment for these sewers. This lot is under common development with the other lot and does not have a separate service; For that reason, staff recommends that no MwMC charge be assessed, which the Hearings Official also recommends. Again, the Hearings Dfbcial beds that this property is subject to assessment for this additional round of sewer construction and recommends that the City Council assess the property in accordance with the staff recommendation, C. Hunter Property, This is a two acre parcel which has now been acquired by the sans of the prior owners. They have advised that there is a 55-year old house on one corner of the property, Since the street is the southern boundary there was an assessment against the property when the sewer was installed in Howard Avenue in 1991; This property is also connected to Rosewood Avenue, and a sewer in that street has been constructed as a part of this construction, This has resulted in another assessment. The Hunters understand that there may be yet another assessment in the future, This is also a property that was examined by the Hearings Dfbcial. It is a barge and generally undeveloped piece of property. There would appear to be na basis in the Eugene Code not to assess this property, since the assessments have been based on the 16o-foot provision. Therefore, the Hearings official finds that the proposed assessment is in accordance with the Eugene Code and recommends that the City Council assess the property as proposed by staff. 3. Limited Develo meat Pro erties. Some property owners have concluded that they are limited in development possibilities and request that the sewer assessments be adjusted accordingly. -b- A. St. Peters Catholic Church. The Catholic Church owns a large property which is on the south side of Maxwell Road, near its overpass for the Northwest Expressway. The east and south portions of the property are adjoined by the Maxwell connector, which connects Maxwell Road with the Northwest Expressway. it is the church's position that this property should not be fully assessed because they believe they do not have adequate development possibilities. This arises from the difficulty in obtaining access to the southern portion of their property from the Maxwell collector. Based upon information provided by Michelle Cahill, Project Manager for these sewer developments, it appears that access to the Maxwell connector is a possibility if the church can demonstrate sufficient need. As noted, there is no access currently from the Maxwell connector. There appears to be no topographical reason that would prevent access to the connector. Although any driveway would be on the inside of the curve of the connector, the arc is flat enough that it would appear that such a driveway could be safely installed. For this reason, it is the finding of the Hearings 4f~cial that the assessment of this property has been properly computed. It is the recommendation to the City Council that the property be assessed as has been proposed by staff. B. O'Neill Pro e This property is a single family dwelling with a drainage area on the rear which has standing water most of the year. Mr. O'Neill believes that this is a wetland property and should result in some assessment relief. However, the Hearings official is unaware of any basis upon which to grant such relief. Therefore, it is the finding of the Hearings official that this property has been properly assessed and recommends that the City Council assess it according to the staff s recommendation. C. Mueller Pra er , This property at IlD Holeman has a basement with plumbing fixtures which cannot be served by gravity, Staff agrees that the sewer configuration is such that this toilet cannot be served. Frain the Hearings Official's observation, this is a single family dwelling with -7- an attic area that has been developed into additional space. There appear to be almost no windows in the basement area. Therefore, it is apparent that the primary living space is on the main and second floors, which are available for sewer service. The Eugene Cade does not guarantee that basement facilities will be serviced by gravity. whether Mr. Mueller has been able previously to service the basement toilet by a septic system, is unknown to the Hearings Official. However, unless the septic system was at least 7 ar S feet underground, which is unlikely; a septic system would not have worked, either. In any event, it is the finding of the Hearings official that this property should be assessed as recommended by staff. D. Church_ of „Christ, Property. This is a very large parcel, essentially in the northeast corner of the intersection of Maxwell Road and the Northwest Expressway. A letter from the minister of this church, Pastor Gaskin, accompanied by other information, was received by the Hearings official, following the conclusive of the public hearing, Those materials are attached to the Minutes. It is the church's position that the church property no longer has frontage along old Maxwell Road since some of that property was deeded to Lane County to allow for a considerable extension of the storm sewer system. A view of this property reveals that it is currently undeveloped in any way. Access is achieved through a small street off old Maxwell Road, just north of the overpass ramp which carries Maxwell Road over the Northwest Expressway. The Hearings official received a Memorandum from the City Engineer in response to Pastor Gaskin's letter. That Memorandum is attached to the Minutes as Exhibit "I". The Memorandum points out that the property acquired by Lane County was added to the right-af-way of old Maxwell Road. Under the Code provisions, property within ~b0-feet of the street right-of-way line is subject to assessment. The Memorandum also points out that while no service line was constructed to the property because of an agreement between the City and the church, there is no legal reason why the church could not use the sanitary sewer line installed in old Maxwell Road. The property is vacant, annexed to the City and could be developed. in addition, there is sewer service provided to the parcel at other locations. Because of the approximately 26 acre size of this parcel, and physical features which includes a floadway channel that bisects the property, it was prudent for the City to provide several sewer connection paints to accommodate future development. wg- It appears clear that the City's assessment policies would require the lateral assessment to be levied on all pardons of the property adjacent to rights-of- way containing sanitary sewers, Therefore, it is the finding of the Hearings Official that portions of this property abut streets in which sewers have been constructed and that the Eugene Cade requires assessment tv a depth of 160-feet. It is the recommendation of the Hearings Ofl~cial that the City Council assess the property in accordance with the staff recommendation. E, Neustadter,.Proper~ty. This property is a lot currently developed with the Bi-Mart store with vehicle access off River Road, immediately south of Beltline. Sanitary sewer service for the store has been provided fram a sewer line built and paid for under the auspices of the "River Road-Beltline Road Sanitary District". As part of the Basin F construction, the line extended along this tax lot, westerly from River Road. Staff has exempted the area within 164' of the existing sewer, but included the remainder of the lot within 164-feet of the new construction as a part of the cost distribution for the Local Improvement District. The Hearings Official is advised that staff have found an unsigned document in the project file for acceptance of the District lines which included language providing for assessment of new construction far property served by District sewers. The Hearings Official is not aware of any basis upon which assessment for the area within Ib~-feet of the Basin F sewer, excluding that which has been previously assessed, would not be appropriate. The circumstances of this property are essentially identical tv any others which are large enough in size and abut against several sewers. Although it is unlikely that any development change of this propert~r will occur in the near future, in light of the commercial development as a Bi-Mart stare, the fact remains that the property could be developed differently in the future. Accordingly, the Hearings Officer recommends that this property be assessed as recommended by staff. 4. Other issues. The staff have brought a number of other issues to the Hearings Official's attention. In each case, the Hearings Official recommends that the City Council adopt the recommendation of staff with regard to assessment of these properties: ~g. 1. The owner of Tax Lot 17-X4.14-42-54aU, Mr. Cowdin, inquired as to the basis of his assessment charges. Upon further research staff discovered the need to reduce the lateral square footage calculation for lot SOU of l6(l square feet and corresponding $34.51 less in the lateral charge was justified, Additionally, staff noted a discrepancy in the square footage of tax lot 17-U4-14-42W49~Q and recommends the same adjustment for this lot. Staff recommends Mr. Cowdin's account 91-1U43-6n75 and James Pepiot's account 91-1003-647 be reduced to reflect this adjustment. 2. Upon the request of property owner David Dickens, staff looked at the square footage calculations of tax lot 17-a4-24-31-553 and found the lateral area and total lot square footage were too high. Staff recommends the reduction in the lateral and local SDC charges to Mr. Dickens for this property. 3. Leta Newson,1274 Oak Drive called to correct the legal description attached to her two lots (17-44-23-12-531 and 5314}. For the record, staff will correct the mismatched descriptions and thanks Leta Newnan far calling to our attention. 4. Staff also thanks John Neely for calling to staff's attention the right-of-way limits of Horn Lane with respect to his property. His lateral and local SDC square footages were adjusted to reflect the correct right-of-way on Horn Lane. The adjustment is reflected in the proposed assessment. 5. Since the notice of proposed assessment was sent, staff has determined that one property owner that is going through bankruptcy proceeding was notified. In order for the City to protect its ability to collect on a lien, staff recommends that the City pay the proposed assessment and collect the assessment as an eight-inch equivalent at such time it is deemed reasonably prudent to do so. Following this recommendation, delete account 91-1U~3-555 and add account 9 ~- ~ ~~3-b413 as a city account. b. Two lots fall under the landlocked, therefore not developable criteria. Mrs. Jon Pederson, of 1633 Horn Lane, protests the charge of $421.95 for her small orchard. This charge is the local systems development charge for the landlocked tax lot behind the lot where her house is located. Mr. Clarence Kasper, owner of tax lot 17-~4-24-33-1U90U also owns a landlocked parcel and the local system development charge is being billed on the lot. These amounts appear to have been properly assessed and the Hearings Official recommends that City Council follow staff recommendation. r1~r 7. 4n February 21, X992, the Hearings Gf~icial received a further communication from Marie Gray. That letter is attached as Exhibit " 2", The Hearings Gfficial does not support or recommend any of the requests of Ms. Gray, Therefore, the Hearings af~cial recommends that her property be assessed as proposed. RECUMMENDATIGN It is the recommendation of the Hearings 4f~icial that the City Council adopt an ordinance of assessment for the benefitting properties in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Jack A. Billings Hearings. gfficial -11- FINAL ASSESSMENT RILL not attached; it is on file and available b written re to the ~ y quest City Recorder s Office.