Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20007ORDINANCE NO. o~D27U .AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWERS IN THE SANTA CLARA ROAD AREA FOR BAS- ~NS ~' L" ~ "M'~ , and "v" ; AND DECLARING AN EMER- GENCY. CONTRACT #94-0$r 94-07, .AND 94-86} FINDINGS: In the exercise of its discretion to determine what is necessary or essential, the City Council has previously authorised the construction of a sanitary sewer system in the Santa Clara Area. In Resolution No. 4448 adopted by the City Council on May 9, 1994, the Council directed that sanitary sewers be constructed to serve certain property that would be benefited thereby. on February 16, 1994, the City Engineer called for bids on the proposed improvement and based thereon has determined the final cost to construct the proposed improvement including local and regional Systems Development Charges ~SDC} to be $6,734,419.91 of which $5,148,922.56 is to be assessed to and borne by the specially benefitted property described in Exhibit C hereto, as provided in Section 7,170 of the Eugene Code, 1971 ~E. C.} and E. C. 7.175. A notice containing the information required by E. C. 7.185 has been posted on a bulletin board at City Hall and given by LMV oRDINANCE - Page 1 certified mail to the owners of the parcels of real property subject to the assessment at least ten days prior to the public hearing before the Hearings official. ~t the time and place specified therein, a Hearings official received the report of the City Engineer and Finance Cf f icer as required by E . C . 7.18 7 ~ 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 "L", "M", and "v", because the work was done during the same construction season, because the historic public notices, hearings, proceedings and information have been the same for the specially benef fitted 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 1994 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 1994 construction. The extra capacity constructed in existing sanitary sewer interceptor lines in the River Road and Santa Clara areas was done LMV oRDINANCE -- Page 2 with the intention and determination that the casts. of that extra capacity benefitted the property to be served by such interceptors and that the costs therefore would be equitably spread to all properties served within the River Road and Santa Clara areas. The $0.025 per square foat local SDC included in the billing equitably spreads such extra capacity costs to all the properties in the River Road 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 $0.025 local SDC will be used for projects to be canstructed outside the River Road and Santa Clara areas nor to reimburse the City for projects it has canstructed for other areas. The affected property is also obligated under E. C. 7.705 to pay a development charge for regianal sewerage facilities prior to connection to the sanitary sewer regional development charge7. Such charges may be paid in installments on the same basis as local improvement assessments, As a convenience to 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. LMV ORDINANCE - Page 3 The totals casts 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 improve- ment 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 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 GF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 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 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 incorpo-- rated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section 2. The costs of construction of the improvements, including the overhead costs specified in E. C. 7.170 and whatever LMV ORDINANCE -.Page 4 other special costs, such as expenses incurred to obtain short-term financing and to defend legal challenges to the City's authority to undertake these improvements, as are necessary to make the improve ments, as declared in the Hearings official's findings are hereby assessed against the parcels of land and lots hereinafter described in the amounts set apposite, respectively. Notwithstanding that the improvements in Basins "L"~ "M", and "v" 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 costs are to be assessed to individual specially benefitted properties within this local improvement district. 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 benefitted to the extent of the assessment set forth. The Finance officer shall give notice of the assessments to the owners of the LMV ORDINANCE -- Page 5 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 l20 monthly install- ments, including principal and interest at the rate set by the City manager as provided in E. C. 2.022 through 2.024 plus a service charge to be determined by the City Manager 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 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 LMV ORDINANCE - Page 6 lien against the property to be paid along with the assessment as provided in this ordinance. Section G. The City Recorder is directed to enter in the docket of City Liens a statement in connection with each unpaid assessment containing the fallowing: 6.1 A description of each lot, part of lot or acreage specially benefitted by the local improvement; 6.2 The name of the owner or reputed owner thereof or 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 224.090. Section 7. Upon enactment of this ordinance, the Finance officer shall send notice of the assessments and local and regional development charges by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the 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. Such notice LMV ORDINANCE - Page 7 may also include information regarding programs that allow the deferral of payment of the assessments for qualified property owners. Section S. 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. 7.225~2~ or collected as otherwise provided by law. Section 9. Proceeds from the payment ar foreclosure of assessments levied by this ordinance shall be deposited to the City funds as follows 9.1 The determination to use a rate of $0.025/square foot of total lot for the local system development charge under E. C. 7.705 et seq is ratified and the proceeds therefrom shall be used to reimburse the City far the cost of the extra capacity required in the sewer interceptor system to serve properties within the River Road and Santa Clara area; and 9.2 The proceeds from the regional development charge shall be deposited to the appropriate fund; and 9.3 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 LMV ORDINANCE - Page S constructing said sanitary sewer system or to retire any indebtedness incurred by the City for that purpose. Section 1~. The matters contained in this Crdinance 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 far mare than ten days, or readaption over a mayoral veto by twa~thirds of all members of the Council. Passed by the City Council this day of ~~LZ _ 1995 . ~~ City Recorder Approved by the Mayor this ~~ day of 1995. Mayor LMV ORDINANCE - Page 9 -I C7 ...~, ~ ~ c+ ro~ ~~ rv • .. ,..~ ----f D {,n c'7 ~v ~ Oo o -{ C7 cn cp ~ '~ ~' ~ -E O -~• cn ~ 3 D }--~ r cn n ~u n cn n z cn --~ v r~ n r+ o n o ~- o ~r ~+ •~-~ ---t n -~ ~ r~ Q z say ~ ...~•~ r .. .. ~ ~ o ~•• ~ m = cn ra -o D N cn -P -~ ;~a ;~ ~- m ~P .. o m ~ cn oo rn L "5 (/ 1 C71 tU 3 ~ ~ N N t/l n m ~ ~ to ~ y ~ ~v z o o rv ~o z n -~ °v -v Ev ~ -~ n r~ ~ ~ ~ o -~ -s ~ o ~ o ~+ ~- o n ~-~- m m m n ~ ~~ ~ n ~~ ~o ~ ~ D II. c+ Z S J, ...~ o n rn cn ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~p ~ D rD r-r cp cn ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ mv~o n. - ~ ~ ~ r r+ ~ -n m _ cn o cn o n ~• ~ ~ o cnmm z c-r ~ n cn ~ ct c o -.~ ~• ~ ~rcno 3 ~ ~ ~C m ~ ~+ ~ m n m -~• c-t ~ ~ or~z ~~ m ~~ N ~ W Q1 000 ~~ 00 o V Ql ~ V ~ N IV ~-•+ t--~ N ~ ~ ~ lD tD V ~1 N N -P o -P ~ D Q1 ~ C"Z "~ m ---I (/7 N ~ CTS N o to to o ~r i "v D N G7 cn m 0 o r~ ~~~~ n ~ --~ o .~, ~, ~~ m ra ~~ rv • .. ,__, --I A [n C7 ~ w Oo o --~ [7 to (D o ~ N ~ --~ o J• v- -~ ~ o ~ ~ -I c"'t' ~p C rF V. 'O ~ r D ~[ cn J• ~ N 3 tU r cn n ~ n to n z cn -~ a m n ~ a n o~ o Q ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ z -i w--i n -~s A m a z ~ o ~+•• ~ ~ -n cn ~ D o- • . = cn r~ ~ A cn cn w ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~w •• o m a cn N to ~ ~ ~ I~ (D 3 Z3 ~ N N V3 --~ c~ z o o rv ~o z n ~ -o -o w -~ --~ n mm ~ n o -n ~ ~ ~ o ~~+ o n {~ V V} G1 V) ,~ n ~~ m r+ cn ~. ~+ z a ~• -~ ~~ n w r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ cn -a m m ~ ~ n o n m cn ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ~ D~ ~ ~ ~ cn n -~{ c-+ Cp cn .a, ~. ~ ~ m v -t m ~ ~o cn .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D N to CJ C1 ~ cn C 3 ct N ~ CD - ~ o~ o n ~• ~ ~ O cn cU m z r+ ~ n to '-5 ct C a ~ J• ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ r~ ~ c+ cn m n m -~• ct r+ ~ or~z ~~ m N V CTi U1 W -P O I~-x Dl Ul GJ ~ GJ Ol o W I--' N N Ol Ol N R1 ~ ~ ~ ~ V v DO p0 ~ o tD l0 0 ~ ~n ~m ~~ ~~ ~~ o cn cn -~-~foa . ~~ ~n N ~ to m o~ --f C7 ~, p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F-+ ~ N ~ .. ~.,~ --{ ~ V} (~ ~ I~ 00 D -°1 c-H fD C c1' v. ~ tD r ~ tC cn ~. ~ fD 3 ~ r cn n w n Cn n z to -a v ~ n r+ o (7 D ~' O Z? c+ -I -~ n~ ~ N Q z ~ o c-r • • ~ N -n cn ~ ~ t-r • • = cn r~ -o ~ ~ cn w ~ ~a ~ ~- m ~-~- rn . . o m ~ cn ~~ c.~ -~ cn m ro 3 ~ `o w --~ cn n m ~~ o co ~ ~ cv z O D ~1 lD Z n -I ~ "c7 ~ -P --1 n c€~ m ~ ~ o m -~ -z o ~ o ~~ a n ~+ m m rn ~ ~ ~~ ~ n ~~ ~~ ~ y n. ~+ z n. -~• -~ c cn n w r~ ~ V C't' -' U1 ~' ..a. O ~ (n -r~ ~ m ~ ~ n o n m cn ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~o-~ ~+ m ~, .~• -~• ~ r--~ ro ~ -~[ {~ ~ (f} J ~ ~ ~ ^^ -I-~ Ncho ~. ~ C C"fi' fD '~'~ o~ D n -~• ~ ~ a cn [p m z ~~ f7 [n "'~ c+ C D -~ ~,• ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ m ~7 c+ to m n rn J•~+ ~ ~ oroz ~~ m ~~ N ~ N ~ N 0~ ~~ D V N D OD C71 I-3 F--~ 01 D1 Ut CFi ~ N N N ~ ~ V V 0 0 0 .P o ~ r~~'lIflIFIX3 . ~n vm ~~ N~ ~N o cn cn v cn -v -v D N ~7 cn m o r-+ a~ a FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT: BASINS "L", "M" AND "V" SANITARY SEWERS IN THE SANTA CLARA AREA, LEVYING FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT JABS 2922, 2923 AND 3~~4; CONTRACTS 94-08, 94-07 AND 94-06 BACKGRGUND On May 9,1994, the Eugene City Council formed the local improvement district for sanitary sewers in the Santa Clara area for basins "L", "M" and "V". This district encompasses those parcels served by the sanitary sewers constructed by the City of Eugene in 1994 in the Santa Clara area, properties served by sewers built in 1994 by Lane County for the City, and properties served by previously constructed sewers which became functional when they were connected to the sewer system built in 1994. The majority of the properties taking sewer service from these facilities will be assessed based on a distribution of the cumulative construction and staff service casts for the three basins. Included in the billing to developed parcels will be the local and regional sanitary sewer Systems Development Charges ~SDC} which are distinct charges not related to the sewer assessment calculation. Prior to the April 14,1994, hearing regarding the formation of the local improvement district SLID}, property owners who will bear the costs of the improvement were notified in advance of the minimum 1o-days notice required in section 7.165 of the Eugene Code SEC}. Notice of Proposed Final Assessment was provided as required by EC 7.185, The sanitary sewer projects were constructed under three separate City contracts: 1} Basin "L", 94-oS; 2} Basin "M", 94-07; and 3} Basin "V", 94-06. These projects complete the fifth year of a seven-year construction effort to provide sewers to the River Road -Santa Clara Area. A final assessment informational session was held March 15, 1995 at the Santa Clara Fire Station #2 at 3939 River Road for property owners in this LID. Approximately 64 property owners attended. Information was provided on financing, methodology, and calculation of assessments. The project construction has been completed. The project costs have been assimilated and distributed in accordance with Chapter 7 of the Eugene Code. The property owners were notified of the final assessment hearing at least ten Flo} days prior to the hearing. ASSESSMENTS The total assessable cost for the sewers built through the three contracts administered by the City for Basins "L", "M" and "V" was $5,905,580.39. The total assessable cost Includes contractor payments, .professional staff charges, finance administration fee, short-term SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L~ "M" AND "V~ Page 1 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS financing interest charges, costs for preconstructionvldeo documentarian, job advertisements, DES plan review, right-of way geotechnical exploration, field testing, and other associated costs allowed in EC 7.170. A portion of the total assessable cost includes approximately $671,795 of public street repair costs which will be paid for by Lane County under an intergovernmental agreement. These costs have not been included within the costs distributed against properties in the LID. The total costs distributed against properties in the 1994 LID also have been reduced by approximately $663,059 due to City participation inn costs associated with dewatering and extra-depth sewer lines as outlined in the LID formation. The remainder of the costs are divided into lateral and service line portions of the assessment and spread among all properties or portions of properties in the LID which have not previously been assessed or which were previously only partially assessed. Assessment Amounts All developed properties ar portions thereof within the boundaries of the local improvement district that have not previously been assessed for the sewers or which were previously only partially assessed will be assessed. Vacant properties outside the City are not proposed to be assessed but are included in the assessable unit cost calculations. The City will bear the vacant lot costs in anticipation of future collections through eight-inch equivalent assessments as a result of annexation and development. } Vacant property annexed and thus within the city limits axe proposed to be assessed in this LID. A small number of landlocked lots in common ownership with property adjacent to the right-of way are considered to be developed and are proposed to be assessed consistent with past practice. Under Ciry of Eugene assessment policies, the total project costs and final unit assessable costs are determined to be as follows: Total lateral cost: Total lateral area: $3,426,047.92 11,425,743 square feet Total service line cost: Total connection points $1,102,941.48 10.02 Unit costs are: Sanitary sewer lateral: for area wlin 160' Sanitary sewer service: for each connection point Local SDC Regional SDC ~EDU =equivalent dwelling unit} $0.299853403/square foot $1,100.74/each $0.025/square foot of total lot $305.00/EDU SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L" "M" AND "V" Page 2 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECCMMENDATIGNS Properties served by the sewer installed by Lane County through an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Eugene are proposed to be assessed in accordance with the equivalent method ofassessment detailed in Eugene Code 6.476, using the unit costs listed above. The proposed assessment costs and billings for properties served by previously installed "drylines" were calculated using the following figures: Total lateral cost: Total lateral area: Unit cost per square foot: $37,935.561 392,334 square feet $0.096692/square foot For properties with a usable "dryline" service but not a usable "dryline" lateral, the proposed assessment costs and billings were calculated using the following figures: Total service line cost; $2,897.70 Total connection points: 5 Unit cost per connection paint; $579, 54 The lateral and SDC unit costs described in this section are the same as or lower than the estimates given after the bids were received. Those estimates were: Sanitary sewer lateral: for area wlin 160' Sanitary sewer service: for each connection point Local SDC Regional SDC $0.30/square foot2 $1060.00/each3 $0.025/square foot of total lot $305.00/EDU The method of assessment described above is consistent to that used since 1990 in the River Raad -Santa Clara area and with procedures used within the City. The proposed distribution is consistent with Eugene Code 7.1752}fib}5 and the special circumstances outlined in the LID formation hearing findings. 1 Includes costs associated with the lateral and service line components of the "dryline" system. ~ The lateral rate for properties served by previously installed "dryline" sewers was estimated at $0.1 t per square foot of assessable area. 3 The service cost for each property with a usable "dryline" service but not a usable "dryline" lateral was estimated at $720.00. SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L" "M" AND "V" Page 3 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROPERTY OWNER CORRE PONDEN E Eugene Public Works Department staff received four letters from property owners within the LID by the March 22, 1995, deadline far written submittals for the March 29 hearing regarding the proposed assessments. The letters were from Eldon and Sallie Walker regarding the development status of property they own, Donald and Beulah Harrington regarding the financial impact of their proposed assessment, School District 4J about multiple assessments for Spring Creek Elementary School, and from James Seaberry regarding pending litigation. Staff also provided the Hearings Official with a staff Memorandum which outlined information concerning the proposed assessment, provided a response to the letters received from the public, contained copies of the property owner's letters and provided background information regarding the formation of the LID. After the deadline for written comments the Hearings Of~~cial received a letter from Mr. Robert Trivelpiece concerning the application of the regional SDC to his property. These issues raised by the written public comments, as well as others brought to the attention of staff and discussed in the staff Memorandum, are addressed below in connection with the public comments raised at the hearing. PUBLIC HEARIN A public hearing cancerni.ng the final assessment was held on March 29,1995, at b:~0 p.m. in the McNutt Room of the Eugene City Hall, 777 Pearl Street. Hearings Gfficial Milo Mecham presided. A copy of the Minutes of that hearing are attached as Exhibit A, and a copy of the Memorandum provided by City Staff is attached as Exhibit B. A copy of the letter from Robert Trivelpiece is attached as Exhibit C. As described in the Minutes, ten members of the public spoke at the hearing. Their comments concerned the fairness of the method of assessment of their property as well as raising questions concerning speciftc matters relating to their properties. Since most of the written and oral comments relate to the application of the assessment, they are described within the findings and recommendations below. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The Hearings Gff~cia1 finds that notice of the public hearing was provided and the public hearing was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Eugene Code. . ., ~1~ r~ Several persons, including Donald and Beulah Harrington, Rudy Ebenbeck, Jean Wycoff, David Coan, Jan Balogh, Danny Dexter, W.E. Schumacher and Gary Carlile, expressed concerns about the amount of the proposed assessment far their property and the fairness of distributing a portion of the construction costs on a square footage basis. In addition, several SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L~ "M" AND "'~" Page 4 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECGMMENDATIGNS of these members of the public expressed concern about collecting those costs when construction is completed, rather than at some time in the future, such as when property is sold or further divided. This is an assessable project, which means there is no significant source of funds other than assessments paid by benefiting property owners to pay the actual costs of constructing the sewers. In order to meet its financial obligations, the City must levy and collect assessments in a timely manner. There are a number of financial options designed to make assessments affordable for individual property owners. These options include 10-year financing and special programs for property owners with limited incomes that allow them to defer a portion or all of their assessment. Property owners are informed well in advance of the final assessment about the method of assessment and the practice of not assessing undeveloped vacant} lots that meet specific criteria at this time. Property owners who have the option of dividing their lots and thereby delaying the assessment and who choose not to divide their lots have, in effect, decided that the benefit of a single lot outweighs the cost of an immediate assessment for the entire property. The method of assessment by square footage is set forth in Eugene Cade 7.I75. The City Council has previously reviewed this method of assessment. The Council's decisions have reaffirmed that no other method would be more a unable than the one historical) used b the q Y Y City. The alternative of assessing properties according to the potential sewer usage plumbing fixtures} suggested by several members of the public appears to be significantly more expensive to implement and subject to a great deal more dispute. This alternative also apparently would lead to nearly the same result as the present method. One property owner, Rudy Ebenbeck, expressed concern about what he felt had been increased costs for the project over time. According to Mr. Ebenbeck, the Public V~orks Department had provided him with different cost estimates during the time the project was under development. Subsequent investigation showed that Mr. Ebenbeck was correct; some of the estimates given Mr. Ebenbeck were lower than some later estimates and cower than the final cost. The change in estimates was due largely to changes in the scope of the project being discussed with Mr. Ebenbeck. Previous estimates of work similar to the work that was actually done to benef ~t Mr. Ebenbeck's subdivision were very similar to the final costs of the project. A copy of the Public Works Department's letter of explanation to Mr. Ebenbeck is attached as Exhibit F. Several property owners questioned the City's authority to levy assessments in the Santa Clara area outside the City limits. ~regan Revised Statutes, Oregon case law, the adapted Metropolitan Area General Plan, and the findings and recommendations of rior hearin s P g ofl~icials have consistently upheld the City's authority to construct sewers in the River Road- Santa Clara area and recover the costs of construction through assessments. State law clearly establishes the City's authority to construct sewers outside the city limits, particularly when the conditions of EPAIDE~ directives require timely sewer construction to resolve a groundwater contamination problem. The financial support of the sewer construction project SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L" "M" AND "V" Page 5 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Federal, County and City governments serves to reduce the actual cost to the property owners in the area. The City has the authority to levy assessments to pay the cost of the sewer construction such that a portion of the overall cost of the construction project is paid by the property owners who most directly benefit from the project. The City's authority does not depend on whether ar not the persons assessed have voted for the City Council that imposes the assessment. The City's authority derives from laws which were passed by elected representatives serving in the state legislature. With annexation to the City as an option for nearly every property owner in the River Road and Santa Clara area, members of the public who wish for the opportunity to vote for members of the City Council have the ability to place themselves in such a position. Parcels Previously Assessed or Assessed for Multiple Sewer Lines Some parcels are adjacent to sewers built and made available in earlier construction years, and have been previously assessed far the area within 16o feet of a previously constructed sewer. For these lots, area not previously assessed and within 16o feet of the 1994 construction is included in the current assessment calculations. School District 4J has submitted a letter of concern regarding the multiple assessments for Spring Creek Elementary School, Sdo Irvington Drive. This property was assessed in 1992 for the sewer installed in Irvington Drive adjacent to the school. It also is proposed to be assessed for the sewers installed in 1994 in Blackfoot and Crocker Road. The I994 assessment was calculated for those areas not previously assessed. The additional assessment for the sewers installed in 1994 is in accordance with the method of assessment calculation in Eugene Code 7.175, and several other 4J properties have been assessed in an identical manner in previous LIDS. Several property owners, including Danny Dexter and David Coan, expressed similar concerns arising from the construction of sewers along two sides of their property during the 1994 construction. Mr. Coon questioned the engineering Iogic that led to the particular construction pattern in his neighborhood. The engineering choices that led to installation of multiple sewer lines close to the particular properties 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. the 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 service area 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. No change is recommended with regard to this policy. SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L" "M ~ AND "V" Page 6 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECGMMENDATIGNS Parcels Added to the LID After Formation At the request of propert~r owners during the course of construction, several sanitary sewers were extended beyond the boundaries anticipated when the 1994 LID was formed. In Basin L, sewers were extended to serve three properties on Blackfoot between Dahlia to Palace, and west of Stark Street to accommodate further development of two tax lots. In Basin M, sewers were extended to serve three properties on Carthage Court, one propert~r on River Road north of Carthage Avenue, and two properties adjacent to Calumet Street west of Herman Street. In Basin V, sewer service was extended to serve two properties on Hyacinth north of Kingsbury Avenue. Owners of each affected property signed a waiver of notification regarding the formation of the LID. The properties and the costs of the extensions are included in the proposed assessment calculations. system Development Charges For large lots the local SDC was calculated using the lateral area. The standard for this differential calculation is that the lot be more than one acre in size and that the lot be capable of further development, This standard is not codified but has been used in numerous previous LIDS and has been accepted by the City Council when imposing the SDC in other LIDS in the River Road -Santa Clara area. Mr. Robert Trivelpiece requested that the requirement that the lot be more than one acre be lowered in his case because his lot is slightly less than I acre, According to the figures supplied by Mr. Trivelpiece, his lot is now approximately .9SS acres. Mr. Trivelpiece argued that he was especially deserving of consideration because his lot had recently been reduced in size when the section of River Road in front of his property was widened. The reason for the reduction in the size of Mr. Trivelpiece's property does not seem to be a cause for special consideration. Mr. Trivelpiece was compensated for the reduction and whether it was voluntary or not, it was not done by the City so that Mr. Trivelpiece would no longer qualify for the large lot exemption. While one acre is an arbitrary standard, so is the argument that the standard should be reduced to .98 acres. It is unfortunate for Mr. Trivelpiece that he does not qualify for the large lot treatment, but it is no more unfortunate for him than for any other member of the public who owns a lot that is nearly but not quite an acre in size, or nearly but not quite .9S of an acre. The one acre standard has been an acceptable working standard for the Eugene Public Works Department and for the City Council and Mr. Trivelpiece did not offer any general policy reasons why that standard should not be maintained. The decision concerning the SDC on each parcel is entirely up to the Council. According to the Eugene Code, the recommendations of the Hearings Officer concern only the assessment far the LID. This response to Mr. Trivelpiece is offered to the Council because Mr. Trivelpiece requested such a recommendation. Based on the information provided, the Hearings Official cannot recommend that the Council grant Mr. Trivelpiece special consideration far calculation of the local SDC. SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L" "M» AND "V" Page 7 FINAL ASSESSMENT ~ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Drainage Channels The assessments for approximately 96 accounts in the 1994 LID were potentially affected by the existence of a drainage channel or natural drainage course on the property. Staff evaluated each of these drainage areas, using the three criteria established when the LID was formed: 1}the drainageway provides community-wide benefit; 2} the drainageway is recognized as an open channel drainage corridor in the City's storm drainage master plan or is a logical extension of the stormwater system in the master plan; and 3}the property within the drainageway is dedicated to the City ar County, or there is an easement giving the public perpetual use of the drainageway for drainage purposes. These criteria have consistently been used for prior LIDS. Based on the evaluations, staff determined that 59 properties qualified to have the drainage areas deducted from the total area of the property. Gne of the properties qualifying for such a deduction is the property of Ms. Caroline Fisher, who appeared at the hearing and who testified through her daughter-in-law, Carol Fisher. Other properties in the area did not meet all of the criteria. Under these criteria, it is appropriate to exclude the area of the drainage channels far the 59 qualifying properties from the assessment calculations for the respective lots. The 1994 LID included usable, previously constructed "dryline" sewers in Stark cul-de-sac, Blackfoot cul-de-sac, Saville Avenue, Saville cul-de-sac, and Ryan cul-de-sac. Typically, these sewers were installed in the public rights-of way by private subdivision developers in the 1970s. These sewers are called "drylines" because they could not function until they were connected to a working sewer system.. In order to make these "drylines" functional, the City incurred certain costs, including costs for engineering research and design, inspection, cleaning, connection to the sewers to be installed in 1994, administration services, and short- term financing. A separate cast per square foot is calculated for these system elements. This approach is consistent with prior LID practices and is appropriate due to the prior investment incurred by the abutting properties. ~d~yisions and Partitions The issue of land divisions was addressed at the time of formation of the LID. A December 1, 1994, deadline for all divisions to be finalized was recommended and accepted. Incases where the land division process has been substantially completed but lots have not been legally established, staff made provisions in the assessment distribution such as creating multiple accounts for a single tax lot in anticipation of future tax lot numbering by Lane County Assessment and Taxation. Newly created vacant, unannexed parcels were placed in the City account far vacant properties . Deductions for rights-of-way in new subdivisions were granted only in those cases where final plat approval had been granted. SANTA CLAR.A SEWER BASINS "L" "M" AND "V" ~ Page S FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECGMMENDATIC~NS MWMC Charge Several property owners raised concerns about the regional SDC, also known as the MWMC charge. The legality of the MWMC charge was discussed in depth in the hearings off'icial's Findings and Recommendations for the formation of the I994 LID. These findings upheld the legality of the charge. an another MWMC issue, a property owner has asked for a reduction in the MWMC charge because of a 25-centwper-month sewer charge collected in the 1950s and early 'bos through the River Road and Santa Clara water districts. In response to a similar request made by a property owner at an assessment hearing in I99~, the hearings official did not support or recommend any changes in the proposed assessments in his findings and recom- mendations. Furthermore, the appropriateness of the MWMC charge is not an issue under the purview of the hearings official since it is not part of the assessment calculation. Staff recom- mends the MWMC charge be collected in conjunction with the assessments by the City of Eugene on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission to facilitate the ability of property owners to finance the charge with their assessments. This recommendation should be accepted. Pending Litigation In written testimony Jim Seaberry objects to levying of the assessments at this time, based on the fact that litigation remains unresolved in two cases stemnv.ng from the sewering of River Road and Santa Clara. The cases he cites are Lake et al v. Lane County ~Gregon Supreme Court, Case S4I912~ and Neely v. Goss et al Oregon Court of Appeals, Case A85754}. The City is not a party in either case. Lake v. Lane County challenges a Lane County ordinance established an in-lieu-of--tax charge on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. Neely v. Goss is an appeal of acourt-ordered eviction. Eugene Public Works Staff contacted the City Attorneys Of~~ce in response to Mr. Seaberry's letter. Mr. Lyle reported that the City Attorney assured Mr. Lyle that the pending litigation would have na effect on the recommended assessments. A memorandum from the City Attorney regarding this issue was later received and is attached as Exhibit D, After stating his objections in his letter and his testimony, Mr. Seaberry indicates that he is reserving his rights to challenge the assessments when the cases are resolved. Since Mr. Seaberry's rights to challenge these assessments do not depend on when these cases are resolved, no change in the proposed assessments is recommended in response to Mr. Seaberry's statements. Aetermination of Vacant Properties In their letter to the hearings official, Eldon and Sallie Walker question the initial staff characterization of their property as being "developed. " They believe the property is "vacant. " Staff has further reviewed the two barns located on the property and found no plumbing futures located in the barns. Based on the "RRISC Vacant Lot Determination for Purposes of Levying Assessments" staff has revised its recommendation and recommends that the property be considered vacant for purposes of assessment. Assessment of this property SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L" "M" AND "V" Page 9 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECCMMENDATI4NS should be delayed until it is developed, when the cost of the sewers can be recovered through an eight-inch equivalent assessment. Sewers Installed in River Road by Lane CountX Lane County installed sanitary sewers in River Road from River Loop ~ to Carthage Avenue in I994 in conjunction with other improvements being made to that section of River Road. Through an intergovernmental agreement with Lane County, the City agreed to pay for the sewer construction, including engineering and surveying services provided by Lane County, The City will recover its costs by levying a special benefit assessment, based on the equivalent cost per square foot and service cost derived for the construction of sewers in the 1994 basins, against those properties served by these sewers. The City has consistently used this method in ail LIDS since the work performed by Lane County's contractor is consistent with that performed by the City's contractors for which there is no differentiation of costs for properties in those basins . At the information session, a property owner whose property is affected by these equivalent assessment calculations inquired if he would pay twice for certain services such as engineering and surveying, Lane County will assess properties adjacent to the recently improved section of River Road for curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The charges for these improvements include a percentage of the construction cost added to the contract costs for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to compensate for engineering and surveying expenses. Lane County will not charge property owners for engineering and surveying associated with construction of sanitary sewers or paving. Reimbursement of SDC Offsite Credit Several properties on Hyacinth Street north of Kingsbury Avenue are proposed to each pay a $b0 reimbursement to the City of Eugene for an offsite SDC credit given by the City to a property owner who extended the Hyacinth line at personal cost. The City does not propose to collect a lateral assessment from these property owners because the lateral sewer that serves their properties was not constructed at public expense. Finn All properties to be assessed will be eligible for I~-year assessment financing. Low income deferral programs are also available for those property owners that qualify. Qualifications will be determined at the time the financing application is processed.. RECOMMENDATION The final assessment costs are comparable to the estimates given when the bids were opened and presented at the hearings for the formation of the LID. The Hearings Gff~cial SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L" "M" AND "V" Page 1 ~ FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECflMMENDATIDNS recommends approval of the proposed calculation of the price per unit for the sanitary sewer lateral and service lines. The Hearings 4ff~cial also recommends approval of the calculation of proposed assessments as set forth in the Notice of Proposed Final Assessment, except for the modifications set forth above and summarized below: 1. Delay the proposed assessment of tax lot 17-04-42-12-00102, owned by Eldon and Sallie Walker until such time as the property is developed vacant property, not annexed} . The Hearings Official also finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local improvement as set forth in qRS 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 o the project; and 4, The assessments allow the property owners to elect to pay the assessment with interest aver at least ten Flo} years. Therefore, the Hearings Gfficial recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance for assessment as set forth by the City Engineer, including the modifications indicated above. Respect lly sub ' ed, r Milo Mecham Hearings official Dated: April 14, 1995 SANTA CLARA SEWER BASINS "L" "M" AND "V" Page 11 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND REC4MMENDATIGNS Exhibit A MINUTES Local Improvement District Basins "L, " "M" and "V" Sanitary Sewers in the Santa Clara Area Levying Final Assessment for Local Improvement Job Nos. 2922, 2923 and 3074 Contract Nos . 9408, 94-07 and 94-Ob March 29, 1995 Public Hearing Hearings Official Milo Mecham convened the hearing at 6:02 p.m. He described the subject matter of the hearing and the procedures which would be followed at the hearing, and then introduced City Engineer Les Lyle. Mr. Lyle began by introducing Public Works staff members Michelle Cahill, Project Manager, Eric Jones, Jerry Behney and Jim McLaughlin of the Eugene Public VL~orks staff and Terry Grondona of the Eugene Financial Operations Services . He then explained that this assessment was the final assessment for Basins L, M and V for sewers constructed in 1994. Mr. Lyle explained that the assessments included the costs for the City of Eugene's construction of sewers in the three basins as well as the costs associated with sewers constructed by Lane County during the widening of River Road within these same basins. Mr. Lyle explained that in all of the fugal costs, the City has deducted the cost of street repair from the final assessment cost because this cast was being paid by Lane County under an agreement in effect at the time. Mr. Lyle then explained that this assessment has two components: a lateral component for main lines in streets and service points which connect properties with the main lines. Assessments costs include all direct costs of the construction and allocated costs of engineering staff time, and the like. The lateral costs per square foot are based on the division of the total costs by the total assessable area within the basin. For these basins that cost was approximately $0.30 per square foot. Mr. Lyle stated that the costs were allocated to all properties within the district, but assessments were made only to improved or annexed properties, and that assessments for. properties deemed vacant were delayed until annexation. For the second component charges were based on the total cost of all service connections, divided by the number of service connections actually installed. For this district these charges equaled $1100.74. Mr. Lyle then discussed the special circumstances of existing "dryline" or unused sewers that are connected to some, but not all, homes in the area. Mr. Lyle explained that, wherever passible, the City's construction made use of the existing sewers, called "dry lines. ~ The costs of incorporation of these dry lines were, for existing lateral lines $0.10 per foot; for existing service lines that were unusable the cost was approximately $530 per service line. The billing to property owners also includes system development charges ~"SDCs "}, a local charge based on propert~r area and a regional charge based on dwelling units. These costs are not part of the assessment calculation. The costs for these service charges, based on City of Eugene Codes and MWMC policies was; for local SDCs $0.025 per square foot of the total lot, and for the regional SDC, a total of $305 per dwelling unit. Mr. Lyle then addressed specific matters raised by property owners prior to the hearing. He addressed the concerns of property owners with drainage ways or drainage easements on their property. These property owners axe concerned that the drainageway is not available for use to them, and thus should not be assessed. The Public works Department has developed standards to determine if the area of the drainage channel can be subtracted from the total area of the property subject to assessment. To qualify for such a deduction the drainage must: ~ . provide acommunity-wide benefit; 2, be recognized as an open channel drainage corridor in the City's storm sewer master plan or be a logical extension of the stormwater system ~. the master plan; and 3. be dedicated to the City or to Lane County, or be subject to an easement giving the public perpetual use of the drainageway for drainage purposes. Consistent with prior practices, if these standards are met, the area of the drainageway is deducted from the assessable area of the property. Mr. Lyle then addressed a letter from Mr. Jim Seaberry. Mr. Lyle described the letter as objecting to the assessments based on pending litigation. Mr. Lyle indicated that the Eugene City Attorney had advised the Public works department that the pending litigation had no bearing on the decision to levy the assessment. The first member of the public to speak was Mr. Jim Seaberry. Mr. Seaberry stated that he believed that Mr. Lyle had mischaracterized the nature of his letter. Mr. Seaberry then read his letter, which stated that he objected to the notice of proposed assessment, based an pending litigation, and that he intended to reserve that objection whether he paid the assessment or not. After reading his letter Mr. Seaberry went on to state that he further objected to remarks which he described as being made by a City employee on the sanitary sewer project to Mr. Seaberry's neighbor. Mr. Seaberry characterized these remarks as being to the effect that everyone working on the project knew of Mr. Seaberry as a troublemaker. Mr. Seaberry also stated that he wished that the City of Eugene had provided more information concerning deferring the connection to the sewer. Mr. Seaberry stated that he had only found one small reference to the possibility of deferring connection. Mr. Seaberry described the deferral available to senior citizens and stated that it would have been more fair to have provided more information about the possibility of deferral. The next person to speak was Rudy Ebenbeck. Mr. Ebenbeck stated that he had received an assessment for property on Calumet Avenue. He understood that the City would only assess properties fironting on the streets where sewers were installed. Mr. Ebenbeck described his concerns as arising because he had only four lots of a planned subdivision that fronted the street, but was assessed back 1 d0 feet, which resulted in an assessment on eight lots. Mr. Ebenbeck also stated that he had installed the sewers for this area, which he described as being a subdivision, for a cost of around $50 a foot. He could not understand why the City's costs were so much higher, and were also higher than the original estimate. Mr. Lyle explained that according to the property records, the property was under common Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing March 29, 1995 Page 2 ownership and thus was assessed as a single unit, rather than by individual lots. Mr. Lyle also explained that the area within the proposed subdivision dedicated to streets and other rights of way had not been assessed. After some discussion concerning ownership, Mr. Ebenbeck conceded that the property was owned by a partnership. Ms. Cahill explained to Mr. Ebenbeck that this did constitute common ownership and thus warranted a single assessment for the entire area. Mr. Ebenbeck stated that he was concerned that, despite the absence of an of~~cial plat, the partnership had taken reservations for the sale of the property, and that these reservations might be canceled when the prospective owners learned of the assessment. In response to Mr. Ebenbeck's statements regarding earlier estimates of the cast, Ms. Cahill indicated that the City's estimate of the cast of the sewers has changed over time since the costs have changed each year. Ms. Cahill indicated that it was passible that Mr. Ebenbeck had received estimates which were accurate at the time even though they had been revised upward later because of the passage of time and the refinement of the City's estimates. The next person to address the hearing was Jean ~V"ycoff. Ms. Wycoff indicated that while she did not object to sewers and to fair costs, she did abject to being gouged. Ms. Wycoff indicated that she objected because, while she felt that the cost of bringing the sewer to her property was no greater than the cast far others, she was being charged mare than was fair because of the size and shape of her lot. She rejected the idea that larger lots could be developed further as far as that idea applied to her lot. Ms. Wycoff described her lot as being narrow enough at the street so that it could not be divided. Ms. Wycoff objected to what she characterized as taxation without representation because she felt that the arbitrary standards in the Eugene Code should not apply to areas outside the City. Ms. Wycoff also objected to having to pay the regional SDC charge because she felt that it was based on the prior fourteen years of usage which had been of no benefit to her. Mr. Lyle explained to Ms. Wycoff that the method of calculating casts set dawn in the Eugene Code required that the costs be apportioned according to the area of the lot within X64 feet of the street where the sewer was installed. Ms. Wycoff objected that this method had no relationship to doe cost of the sewer or to the beneftt Ms. 'Wycoff might derive from the sewers. Mr. Lyle described the efforts previously made by the City of Eugene to determine the fairest method of assessing the costs of local improvements. While the method selected is not satisfactory to all persons, no other method was discovered that was a more fair distribution of the costs. The relative fairness of this method of assessment was supported by the fact that it is used by a number of other cities in the Northwest. Mr. Lyle stated that this method had been made a part of the Eugene City Code and was therefore binding on the Public works Department. 4n every occasion when the City Council has had reason to examine the question, the Council has again affirmed the current method of assessment as the proper method. Mr. Lyle also explained the regional SDC as a reimbursement for treatment plant capacity necessary to serve the area. The level of the charges was set by the MWMC board anticipating that the sewers would be made available to persons in the River RoadlSanta Clara area. ~n response to a question by the Hearings officer, Mr. Lyle explained that the SDC charges were being levied concurrently with the assessment to allow persons who wished to Minutes ~ LSD Final Assessment Hearing March 29, 1995 Page 3 take advantage of the financing options available through the local improvement district assessment. The next person to speak was David Coon. Mr. Coon read a letter addressed to the Hearings Df~icer and the Eugene City Council, attached as Exhibit E. Mr. Coon objected to the engineering of the project, which he felt led to unnecessary costs, and to what Mr. Coon described as inequitable assessment because the project was spread out aver several years. Mr. Coon's primary objections were to what he described as the 160 foot rule. Mr. Coon stated that when this rule is applied to irregularly shaped lots it leads to inequities with some lots with smaller areas having to pay higher costs than adjacent lots with larger areas and potentially larger use of the sewers ~e.g. future development}. Mr. Coon also objected to the imposition of charges on residents in the River RoadlSanta Clara area who had no opportunity to vote for the Eugene City Council or influence the decisions of the elected representatives who set the standards in the Code applied to the River RoadlSanta Clara area. Mr. Coon also objected to the process of reviewing the proposed assessment where the concerns of the public were reviewed by a Hearings Cfficial who was hired by and paid by the City of Eugene, Mr. Lyle explained to Mr. Coon the method of assessment, as it applied to Mr. Coon's property. The assessment on Mr. Coon's property came about because his lot is the equivalent of a corner lot with sewers on two sides, which means that a larger portion of Mr. Coon's property is subject to assessment. The Hearings Officer responded to Mr. Coon's remarks by explaining the hearings process as set by the Eugene Code. The next person to speak with regard to the assessment was Jan Balogh. Ms. Balogh objects to being subject to some City charges despite living in the County. Ms. Balogh objected to being assessed based on the square footage of the property rather than an assessment based on linear footage to get access to the property. Ms. Balogh indicated that she objected to the use of the 160 foot standard when her property could not be further developed. Finally Ms. Balogh asked if any of the assessment included a profit for the City. Mr. Lyle explained that the 160 foot assessment area was not based on the potential for development, but on the extent of service area possible from a service line. The cost of the assessment was based oncost to the City and did not include any profit. The next person to speak was Danny Dexter. Mr. Dexter objected to the assessment on his property being in excess of $10,000. Mr. Dexter objected to the fact that even though his sewer access was from River Road his property was being assessed for a sewer that ran along Brotherton Street on the side of his property. Mr. Lyle explained that, according to established policy, properties that had access to sewers along two sides of the lot were assessed for both sewers in a way that did not assess the lot twice for the same portions of the property but did assess portions of the property for the second line that were beyond the 160 foot limit of the first sewer. Mr. Dexter objected to what he characterized as the injustice of the assessment based on the fact that other properties which might make greater use of the sewers had a smaller charge than did his property. Mr. Lyle explained to Mr. Dexter that part of the reason that his property was subject to higher assessments was because of its size. As a large lot which could be but had not been divided, Mr. Dexter's property was subject to an assessment that could have been reduced or Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing March 29, 1995 Page 4 delayed- if the single lot had been divided, because the vacant lots would not have been assessed at this time. Mr. Dexter responded that he did not feel that this was an acceptable solution because of the cost associated with creating separate lots. The next person to testify was w. E, Schumacher. Mr. Schumacher agreed with the remarks made by Mr. Coon. Mr. Schumacher owns two lots in the area, one behind the other. Mr. Schumacher objected to being assessed for the portion of the back lot that was within the 1G~ foot limit. Mr. Schumacher objected to the regional SDC, which he regarded as being a charge for previous services, from which he derived no benefit. Mr. Schumacher also objected to Lane County transferring administrative authority to the City based on an expectation that the area would soon be in the City. Mr. Schumacher indicated that he did not wish to be in the City and that he did not expect that if he were ever brought within the City he would support the City's requests for approval of bond measures. Mr. Lyle responded to Mr. Schumacher's comments by describing Lane County's participation in the decisions regarding the MWMC charges, which were developed to pay the bonds used to construct a regional treatment plant designed to serve the area within the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Lyle also explained the decisions made by Lane County concerning the City's administration of building permits and other services in the River RoadlSanta Clara area. The next person to testify was Gary Carlile. Mr. Carlile asked for an explanation of why he was being assessed for a landlocked lot that could not be developed. Mr. Carlile stated that he had not received a satisfactory answer in response to his previous questions to City of Eugene staff. Mr. Lyle explained that, according to the policies established by the Eugene Code, Mr. Carlile's lat~ was considered to be the same assessable parcel as the property that abutted the street because the properties were under common ownership and usage. Ms. Cahill responded to Mr. Carlile's comments by identifying herself as a member of the City staff that has discussed Mr. Carlile's concerns earlier. Ms. Cahill recalled that she and Mr. Carlile had discussed the requirements of the code concerning common ownership and the possibility of delaying or avoiding the assessment by transferring ownership of one parcel. Mr. Carlile felt that it should not be necessary to manipulate property ownership to qualify for the delayed assessment. The next person to testify was Carol Fisher, on behalf of her mother-in-law, Caroline Fisher. Ms. Fisher asked if the amount of the assessment represented in the letter received by her mother-in-law was the final amount or if it would be changed. Ms. Fisher also asked about the possibility of alternate methods of payment and about senior deferrals. Finally Ms. Fisher asked for a plat of her masher-in-law's property and if the drainage area on the property had been assessed. Ms. Cahill responded to Ms. Fisher's questions by checking the records and assuring her that the drainageway had been deducted and that the plat maps requested could be provided. Mr. Lyle assured Ms. Fisher that the amount of the proposed assessment was the Baal amount and would not change because of any further changes in costs, since these were the final project casts. Ms. Grandona provided Ms. Fisher with information concerning the posszble discounts and deferrals available to the elderly. Ms. Fisher indicated that she did not believe that her mother-in-law would seek to qualify for the elderly deferral Minutes - L1D Final Assessment fearing March 29, 1995 Page 5 because that would not be fair to anyone who acquired the property after her mother-in-law. Ms. Fisher did agree to examine the information she was provided concerning the deferral. Ms. Fisher also requested information on her own behalf. Ms. Fisher indicated that while she did not live in the area, she was concerned about what she felt was a common pattern of behavior by the City. Mr. Lyle and other members of the City staff assured Ms. Fisher that they would work with her to provide her with the information that she requested. The next person to speak was Robert Trivelpiece. Mr. Trivelpiece was concerned about the size of his property in relation to the local SDC. Mr. Trivelpiece's property is slightly less than 1 acre. Properties one acre or greater in size qualify for a charge of the SDC on only the first I6o feet of the depth of the property, while properties of less than one acre are charged for the entire area of the property. Mr. Trivelpiece's property was recently reduced in size when Lane County widened River Road. At that time Lane County acquired ten feet off the front of the property, which resulted in the property being reduced from just over one acre to just under one acre. Mr. Trivelpiece asked that he be allowed the 16o foot basis for the SDC charge rather than having his entire parcel subjected to the SDC charge. Mr. Trivelpiece said that his property met the other standards for the SDC imposed on larger properties. Mr,. Trivelpiece also stated that he felt that the charges were ten to twelve percent too high. In response to Mr. Trivelpiece's remarks, Mr. Lyle indicated that the decision an whether to recommend a change in the SDC would be left to the Hearings officer. Mr. Lyle also indicated that the charges for the sewers in front of Mr. Trivelpiece's property were based on the same units used for all other properties within the basins, not on the amount Lane County charged the City for the installation along River Road. There was some difference in costs in the different basins due to the different costs related to installation in the basin. All of these differences were removed by totaling the cost and spreading the cost across the entire local improvement district. This was done to remove any distinctions that would otherwise have been caused by the City's decision regarding implementation of the installation program indifferent basins. Mr. Lyle explained that it was decided that it would not be fair to differentiate the cost to same because of choices made by the City. Mr. Lyle explained that the one acre standard for the SDC is a long established standard that has been used inside the City and previously in the River Road and Santa Clara area. It has been applied by previous Council decisions when the Council approved assessments for the previous sewer projects in the river road area. There being no further testimony, the hearing was concluded at 7:35 p.m. Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing March 29, I995 Page 6 EXHIBIT C, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REGISTER, not attached; it is on file and available by Written request to the City Recorder's Office,