Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20046ORDINANCE NO. c~`Z~ AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FflR SANITARY SEWERS IN THE SANTA CLARA AREA FOR BASINS ~~N"- "P","Q" and "R"~ AND DECLARING AN EMER- GENCY. ~C4NTRACT #95-06,95-07.95-541, 95-08} MASTER #1995-10.08} FINDINGS: In~ the exercise of its discretion to determine what is necessary or essential, the City Council has previously authorized the construction of a sanitary sewer system in the Santa Clara Area. In Resolution No. 4449 adopted by the City Council on May 8, 1995, the Council directed that sanitary sewers be constructed to serve certain property that would be benefited thereby. Cn February 17, 1995, the City Engineer called for bids on the proposed improvement and based thereon has determined the f final cost to construct the proposed improvement including local and regional Systems Development Charges ~SDC} to be $6,654,413.42 of which $5,754,114.45 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 NPQR 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. At the time and place specified therein, a Hearings official received the report of the City Engineer and Finance 4f f icer as required by E . C . 7 . l S 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 "N", "P", and "R", 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 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 1995 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 1995 construction. The extra capacity constructed in existing sanitary sewer interceptor lines in the River Road and Santa Clara areas was done NPQR 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 foot 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 $0.425 local SDC will be used for projects to be constructed autside 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. 7.705 to pay a development charge for regional sewerage facilities prior to Connection to the sanitary sewer regional development charge}. 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. NPQR ORDINANCE - Page 3 The totals 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 improve- meat 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 OF 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 7.194, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorpo- rated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section z. The costs of construction of the improvements, including the overhead costs specified in E. C. 7.170 and whatever NPQR 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 opposite, respectively. Notwithstanding that the improvements in Basins "N", "P", and "R" 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 Cauncil 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 NPQR 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.l 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 install- ments, including principal and interest at the rate set by the City manager as provided in E. C. 2.422 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 NPQR aRDINANCE - Page ~ lien against the property to be paid along with the assessment as provided in this Ordinance. Section ~. 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 benefitted by the local improvement; ~.2 The name of the owner or reputed owner thereof or that the name of the awner is unknown; and ~.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 OARS zz4.o9o. 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. 7.194 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 NPQR ORDINANCE - Page 7 may also include information regarding programs that allow the deferral of payment of the assessments far 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 or foreclosure of assessments levied by this ordinance shall be deposited to the City funds as follows 9.l The determination to use a rate of $0.025/square foot of total lot for the local system development charge under E. C. 7.75 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 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 NPQR ORDINANCE - Page S constructing said sanitary sewer system or to retire any indebtedness incurred by the City for that purpose. Section 10. 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 o f /Y`~ 19 9 6 . ~~ City Recorder Approved by the Mayor this ~ 3~day of ~. 1996. Mayor NPQR ORDINANCE - Page 9 ~ ~a r. c-> 0 0 -~ ~L7 0 m n N W U1 V V {n N D ~ ~ ~ J. -I c~' CD ~ ~ ~ r- cn z cn -~ a~ n o ~- o o~ ~ --~ -.~ ~ n~ y m ..~ ~,. ~a ~- . . ~--r . . ~ ~ n = cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C7 ~"' fTl V m ~ cn cn v~ ~ ~ fD 3 t~ T~ m -~ -~ ~ z oO n -~ ~o -o n mm o ~ -~ -~ ~ O ct c-r ~ ~ ~. ~. ~ r~ m ~ ~~ sw o~ a~ a -~. ~~ -P m oa c+ J, o~ -o m o n ~ ~ ro ~ -s ~ ~ ~ r~ 1M a r~ 0 n a ra n N W cn o .~ w N -P V lp N W © Q© ~ N lD N W (J`I V V (J1 © N o N --E O J. }""- (~ o. ~~ V cn n ~ N ~ m o -~ cn ~ "3 ~ D 4D C ~+ [-.,. y lD n a n N n c-~' H Z a z ~ .. c ~ ~ ~ ~ .. rv N rs (.!? ~o ~o D N ~ z ~ ~ ~ k ~] 0 o n a ~ rn ~ D D z m m '-.3 z n a z m n -o AN cn n -~ (n J. "`~ (n J ~n coo ~~ ~ r~ ~ ©~ ..a. ~ ~r~m ~~ -s ~ c ...~. ~~~ c~ r+ ~ m J. oraz m ~n ~m ~~ N "C7 VI N o U1 V) o ..D {!} ~ "L7 ~ N G7 cn m 0 o~ ~D J. ~ © ~ ~• V n --i ~ C/~ C~ Z) N ~ ~, ~ ---~ (7 cn ~ O ~ ~ ~ -! ^ -~• U1 ~ ~ O CD y --~ c'+' fn C ct v, y ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ m ~rn ~, r cn n w n ~ n z cn -~ ~ ~ n r-r ~ o n us o ~ ~+ ~ cn w a~ -{ ~ ~ z ~ --~ -i n -~ ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~. ~ r .. .. c ~ ~ = cn r~ -v D cn cn W -~ -... o m ~ to to ~ 0 c~ -~ cn ~* m ~ 3 "v -v tv ~ cn ~ n m -~ -~ va ~ ~ ~ ~ ~U Z O O N t0 Z o n ~ -o -v cn cn ~ ~ O m ~ ~s O w ~ ~ .~..~. o r W rt ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ w N ~~ p ~U c-~ iI} O --~ ~ .d a rr z ~ ? ~ a .~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ W ~R ~ (D N c-t -C ~ Q ~ U? v m m ~ ~ n ~ o n m cn ~.. -v c ~ ~ ~ m ~ nm ~ m ~, .~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~' a - ~~o ~ u- ~s ~ ~ ~ m m ~ ra - cn ~, o u~ ~ ~ p cnrUm ~ Z rt ~ ~ n cn -s c-f c W O ~ J. ~~yy m ;o ct ~ m n m -~~ ~-+ ~ n omz ~~ m ~rn ~rn rn~ c,n ~D N ~ N O W ~D O lD Dl 1-i N W ~ 0 0 v ~ rn rn N N v v W O W U1 d CJ7 ~n ~rn -~ cn . N '[~ U~tV O U7 {If O 1 ~/} "~ -~ a N G} U1 I~"1 C7 w 0 n r n 0 a -,~ L m -~ I-i V V W lD -~ a J. N .. V ~ cn n -v N . --~ c~ ~ r~ v ~ ~o ~ C7 ~• yr -~ ~ Q ~D ~ ~+ m ~ r+ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~• -s rv 3 rn r- ~ n ~ n z cn --~ w ~ n rr n o ~ o ~r ~+ ~--+ a --~ -~ --+ z ~ n~ ~ ~ a z ~ ~•• ~ m cn ~ ~ ~ . • = cn r~ D cn ~ ~ ~ ~ m rn .. m a cn ~--~ o ~ ~ N 3 ~ b N ~ i/] m -s -s ~ ~ D a z oo N w z n --~ ~ -v rn cn ~ n ra v ~ ~ o m ~ -x ~ C7 c+ rt Cn n c+ N C~ N ~ ~ ~~ ~ A ~~ r~ ~ ~ -~ D n. rr z S ~ a -~• -a ~~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ N rr ~, o ~ cn ~ m m -~ ~ n v n m cn ~ ~ ~ ~~ v ~ nm ~ ~ ~ cnC7~ c-r ~ ~ a. 1 , ~ ~ ~ +~ ~ ~ n r~~a ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ c~ ~ p to v n -~• ~ ~ o ~mm z ~t ~ n cn ~s ~ c Q ~ J, Q n m ~' ,-r ` + ~ Q {~ m V ~ N I--+ N N V R] Oa © V N D N V h-+ V V W lD D l0 D l0 ~n ~m ~~ N ~ U1 N • ~ O CTl [n D TJ i ~~ -v D N ~ cn m a o r~+ --i O ---I r n D if- a 0 m n rn w a w N 0 .~. p~ ~ ~ f© N ~-' C17 o~ ., V D L/] f`? "C7 N ~ ---I C~ ~ N O ~ Ct~ t--+ ~ _,.,. cn ~ ~ D to ~ t-t~ (D C ct v. D c.0 y c[ cn .,~. ~ rD 3 rn r cn n ~ n z ~n ---; ~ r~ n rf n o ~- o v- ~-+~ r-~ pi ~ -~ r-~ z --I n~ D r~ a z a ~•. ~ r~ cn ~ ~ Q' .. = cn ~ y cn cn W ~ ~ ~- m rv .. m ~ cn ~ o0 ~ ~ N 3 ~Z7 N ~' (I1 m ~ -~ w co ~ w z o o ~v ~ z n ~ -v ~ v cn --~ n fA rD ~ A o ~ ~~ C o ct r+ o n ~ N N Oa D ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~D r-r c!1 ---+ A a~ z a -~• -i ~~ ~ w rv ~ N t-f -~C lD c1' -'. o~ ~ .o ra m ~ ~ n o n rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ro -s D m ~ r~ ~ ~. a. ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a r~~o a - ~~ ~ ~ ~+ m -~ ~ ~ o~ o n ~, ~ ~ o cn~t~ z ~~ n cn -s ~ c o --~ ~. ~ CT V) G'7 ~ D c~ cD 7a ~' cn m n m •~• ~ ~ ~ a~pz ~~ m rn N ~~ ~~ W lD ~ V o N V 0 cn rn a~ w 0 w 0 0 © -p ~n -v m --~ cn N ~ U7 N o {.T1 in O ~] [!~ ~ 'L7 ~ N r~ CF1 R7 o~ EXHIBIT B ~ FINDINGS AND RECUMMENDATIQNS SUBJECT: BASINS "N" "P" "Q"AND "R" SANITARY SEWERS IN THE SANTA CLARA AREA, LEVYING FINAL ASSESSMENT FQR LUCAL IMPRQVEMENT (JABS 2924, 2925, 292G AND 2927} BACKGRQUND C]n May 5,1995, City Council formed the local improvement district for sanitary sewers in the Santa Clara area for basins "N," "P," "Q" and "R". This district encompasses those parcels served by the sanitary sewers constructed by the City of Eugene in 1995 in the Santa Clara area, properties served by sewers built in 1995 by Lane County far the City, and properties served by previously constructed sewers (dry lines which became functional when they were connected to the sewer system built in 1995. The sanitary sewer projects were constructed under four separate contracts: Basins "N," "P" and "R" were constructed by the City. Basin "Q" was constructed by Lane County. These projects complete the sixth year of a seven-year construction effort to provide sewers to the River RoadlSanta Clara Area. A final assessment informational session was held April 10,1996 at the Santa Clara Fire Station #2 at 3939 River Raad for property owners in this LID. Approximately 65 property owners attended. Information was provided on financing, methodology, and calculation of assessments. City engineering department staff addressed the comments expressed at the information session in a memorandum to the Hearings Official. ASSESSMENTS The total assessable cost for the sewers built through the three contracts administered by the City for Basins "N", "P" and "R" was $5,932,157.49. The total assessable cost includes contractor payments, professional staff charges, finance administration fee, short-term financing interest charges, costs for preconstruction video documentation, jab advertisements, DEQ plan review, right-of way geotechnical exploration, field testing, and other associated costs. A portion of the total assessable cost includes approximately $83S,37S.5S of street repair costs which will be paid for by Lane County under an intergovernmental agreement. $28,077.01 of the cost of the street repairs billed by Lane County were used for materials and associated costs that were not used in this year's construction. These costs will be paid by the City and were not been included within the costs distributed against properties in the LID. The remainder of the costs SANTA CLARA AREA SEWER BASINS "N" "P" "Q"AND "R" Page 1 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are divided into lateral and service Tine and dry line portions of the assessment and spread among all developed properties or portions thereof within the LID which have not previously been assessed or which were previously only partially assessed. Vacant properties outside the City will not 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 when the property is annexed and developed.} Vacant property within the City will 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. Approximately nine properties have adjacent sewers from previous construction. An eight inch equivalent assessment for those sewers are included in this assessment. 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 costs for the three basins constructed by the City. This method of assessment is the same as that used since 1990 in the River RoadlSanta Clara area and is the same as procedures used within the City. Parcels Deleted From The LID after Formation Approximately 71 properties that were included in this years Local Improvement District at the time of formation were deleted from the LID. Delays in construction, desire to complete construction prior to winter and concern for extended disruption to property owners were considerations in deleting work from the construction contract and the associated properties from the LID. Letters were sent out October 30,1995, informing the property owners. These properties will be in the 1996 LID. Draina e Channels and Other Natural Features The assessments for approximately 11 b accounts in the 1995 LID were potentially affected by the existence of a drainage channel or natural;.drainage course on the property. City staff evaluated each of these drainage areas, using the three criteria established when the LID was formed: 1) the drainage way provides community-wide benefit; 2} the drainage way is recognized as an open channel drainage corridor in the City's storm drainage master plan or is a logical extension of the starmwater system in the master plan; and 3} the property within the drainage way is dedicated to the City or County, or there is an easement giving the public perpetual use of the drainage way for drainage purposes. These criteria have consistently been used for prior LIDS. Based on the evaluations, staff and the SANTA CLARA AREA SEWER BASINS "N" "P" "Q" AND "R" Page 2 FINAL ASSESSMENT - FIlVDTNGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS hearings official recommend that the drainage area be deducted in the calculation of assessment for the 43 properties where drainage areas meet all three criteria. The other properties considered are not recommended for inclusion because the drainage channels on these properties do not meet one or more of the criteria listed above. D lines The 1995 LID Included usable, previously constructed "dryline" sewers in Basin N on Blackfoot Cul~de-sac, Travis Avenue, Hyacinth Street, and Maranta Street. 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 connec~d 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 1995, administration services, and short-term financing, A separate cost 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. Assessment Amounts The proposed assessment costs and billings were calculated using the following figures: Total lateral cost: Total lateral area: $ 3,426,047.92 12,290,162 square feet Total service line cost: Total connection points: $ 1,318,864.30 1,033 Unit costs are: Sanitary sewer lateral: for area wlin 160' $ 0.3038/square foot Sanitary sewer service: for each connection point Local SDC Regional SDC (EDU =equivalent dwelling unit) $1,231.431each $0.025/square foot of total lot $332.00/EDU Properties served by the sewer installed by Lane County through an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Eugene and properties not previously assess for adjacent sewers constructed in SANTA CLARA AREA SEWER BASINS "N" "P" "Q" AND "R" Page 3 FINAL ASSESSMENT W FIl`IDINGS AND RECCMMENDATtflNS previously years are proposed to be assessed in accordance with the equivalent method of assessment 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: $12,740.44 Total lateral area: 260,650 square feet Unit cost per square foot: $0.04S91square foot 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 foot $1,060.OOleach $0.025/square foot of total lot $350.00/EDU All properties to be assessed will be eligible for 10Wyear assessment financing. Low~income deferral programs are also available for those property owners that qualify. Qualification will be determined at the time the financing application is processed. PRUPERTY UV~NER C~RRESPUNDENCE Eugene Public Works Department staff received two letters by the April 10,1996, deadline for written submittals for the April 17 public hearing regarding the proposed assessments. The letters were from Willard C. and Vena B. Dickerson regarding their proposed assessment and from Jahn D. Kjosness regarding the methods used to calculate the proposed assessment. The staff also provided the Hearings Official with a staff memorandum, which outlined information concerning the proposed assessment, provided staff response to the letters received from the public and comments from the public at information sessions conducted by the staff, contained copies of the property owner's letters and provided background information concerning the formation of the LID. These issues raised by the public comments, are addressed below in connection with the public comments raised at the hearing. SANTA CLARA AREA SEWER BASINS "N" "P" "Q" AND "R" Page 4 FINAL ASSESSMENT - FIlVD]NGS AND RECGMMENDATI4NS PUBLIC :NEARING A public hearing concerning the final assessment was held on April ~ 7, ~ 996, at 6:OO p.m. in the McNutt Room of the Eugene City Hall, 777 Pearl Street. Hearings Official Milo Mecham presided. A copy of the minutes of that hearing are attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the Memorandum provided by City Staff is attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit C. As described in the minutes, eight members of the public spoke at the hearing. Their comments focused primarily on the appropriateness of assessment of their individual property. Since these comments require a particular response, they can be addressed in the findings section below. FINDINGS AND RECGMMENDATIGNS Prn~Pr~~~rP The Hearings official 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. Method of Assessment Several property owners ~Kjosness and Santacroce~, in letters and by testimony at the hearing, challenged the method of assessing property by area, rather than by usage. The method of assessment by square footage is set forth in Eugene Code 7.175. The City has on numerous occasions reviewed this method of assessment. The Council's decision has always been that no other method would be more equitable than the one historically used by the City. The alternative of assessing properties according to the potential sewer usage suggested by several members of the public appears to be significantly more expensive to implement and subject to a great deal more dispute. Assessment by area is, to a certain extent assessment by usage, because larger lots can be more intensively used. Even the discrepancy that is claimed to exist because some persons lots are nearly the same size, but have more or less area within 160 feet of the sewer line reflects the potential usefulness of the sewer hookup to that portion of the property that can be more intensively developed with the availability of sewers. The Hearings Official does not recommend any change is the method of assessment. Assessment of Parcels in Common Ownership Several persons expressed concern about the City's policy of assessing parcels in common ownership where one parcel abuts the street where the sewer is being installed and the other parcel is behind the first parcel Whittle, Roderick. Where a parcel is within 160 feet of the street where sewers are being installed, but is separated from the street by different ownership, the city does not assess the property because it will be difficult for the property to gain access to the sewer. This is not true when the two parcels are in common ownership, and therefore the SANTA CLARA AREA SEWER BASINS "N" "P" "Q" AND "R" Page 5 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS city's policy is to assess these parcels as if they were the same parcel. This is an appropriate policy since it recognizes the actual benefit provided to the second, nonadj acent parcel, one party, the Whittles, also asked to have a portion of their second lot evaluated for possible inclusion in the drainage exemption. Having considered this request, staff reports that the property does not qualify. Although the ditch on the Whittle property meets the two criteria of providing a community wide benefit, and appearing on the City's storm drainage master plan, the Whittles have not taken the necessary steps to dedicate the ditch as a drainage way to either the City or the County. This program's stringent requirements are designed to make certain that if the drainageway is exempted, it is no longer available for development and thus will not impose a later charge on the sewer system. Because the ditch does not meet the city's requirements, the Hearings official does not recommend that this portion of the Whittle property be exempted, but does recommend that the property be assessed as originally proposed. The Whittles argued that the second lot was not really developable because of its size. ~f this is the case, then the distinction between the parcels is a matter of appearance rather than reality. The Whittles own one developed area, which on paper is divided into two parcels. Under these conditions it is appropriate to subject the Whittles to the same assessment policy as is applied to other property owners who own properties of the same size. Mr. Roderick's situation is slightly different, in that the two properties are legally and practically distinct, and both are developed. Mr. Roderick's property does illustrate the logic behind the policy of assessing "land locked" properties in common ownership, because the second property already has a sewer system in place that crosses the intervening land and attaches to a system down Wilkes Road. Providing closer sewers certainly benefits Mr. Roderick's property. Mr, Roderick also raised the question of an agreement between himself and the city, which he feels should exempt his second property from assessment. 7n response to Mr. Roderick's claim, Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston supplied a memorandum of additional information setting forth the chronology of contacts between the City and Mr. Roderick. Exhibit C} Relevant contacts between the City and Mr. Roderick began in 1992. At that time the City was beginning to plan the construction of sewers in the area during the 1993 season. The City had tentative plans to construct sewers on East Anchor Street. Anchor Street ends at the western edge of the Roderick property. At that time, the Roderick property was not officially divided, so that the area now occupied by tax lots 1300 and 1302 was referred to as tax lot 1300. Mr. Roderick negotiated an understanding that, instead of the city constructing a public sewer on the eastern portion of Anchor Street, Mr, Roderick would himself install the sewers. The understanding was memorialized in a letter from Michelle Cahill, Project Manager of the 1993 sewer construction project for the City of Eugene. Ms. Cahill stated: "Cne effect of this particular alignment of sewers will be to delay assessment on the southwesterly portion of tax lot 1300 until such time as a line is extended publicly. If you build the public extension from Tempa east to your property using private engineering and construction services, there would not be an assessment from the Cit~r." SANTA CLARA AREA SEWER BASINS "N" "P" "Q"AND "R" Page 6 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND REC~MMENDATIDNS Mr. Roderick did eventually construct the sewer line. From his action and the language of the Cahill letter, Mr. Roderick expects that all of what is now tax lot 1302 to be exempted from assessment. That is not what the Cahill letter indicates, either in language or in context. The context of the letter was based on a discussion of sewer construction along East Anchor Street. The language of the Cahill letter expressly limits the promise not to assess to "the southwesterly portion" of the Roderick property. The present,1996, assessment concerns the northern portion of the Roderick property. Mr. Roderick's claims do not justify an exemption from the proposed assessment. Parcels Previousl Assessed or Assessed for Multi le Sewer Lines Some .parcels are ad j acent to sewers built and made available in earlier construction years, and have been previously assessed for the area within 160 feet of a previously constructed sewer. For these lots, the area not previously assessed and within 160 feet of the 1995 construction is included in the current assessment calculations. Several property owners, including Willard and Verna Dickerson, and Don Leslie, ob jected to having to pay for different sewers on different portions of a single property. The engineering choices that led to installation of multiple sewer lines close to the particular projects were dictated by the overall needs of the sewage system. Several of the parcels in question could be and may at some time actually be divided. At that time the full effect of the present benefit from several adjacent sewer lines will be realized. While it may seem unfair when the cost of the sewer construction falls with particular force on some individuals, it would be no more fair to create special exemptions for some and thereby create other situations of unfairness. The method of assessing all property within the scope of one or more sewers is consistent with previous assessment practices against properties owned by public agencies and individuals inside the City and in the River RoadlSanta Clara area and is done according to the requirements of the Eugene City Code. No change is recommended in this policy. Assessment of a Flagpole Lot Dan and Michelle Bellah objected to the assessment of a portion of their property because the portion sub ject to an assessment is primarily the pole of a flagpole lot. The Bellahs felt that their lot should not be assessed because the portion subject to assessment is not developable. While the distance of 160 feet from the lateral line, which is the distance usually subject to assessment, is based on a measure of practicality in connecting to the sewer system, it is possible to connect to the sewer system from a distance greater than 160 feet. Therefore, the benefit to the entire Bellah property exists, even though it is more difficult to connect with the sewers. The limited benefit is reflected in the smaller amount of the property subject to assessment. The City cannot be expected to make individual policies for each parcel. The cost of such an undertaking would probably lead to more extensive charges for all properties, including such special circumstances SANTA CLARA AREA SEWER BASINS "N" "P" "Q" AND "R" Page 7 FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS as the Bellah's praperty. The Bellah's property can be served by the newly installed sewers and is therefore benefited by the sewer installation. It is appropriate that the standard portion of the Bellah property should be assessed. Lever of the Systems Development Charge As with all previous sewer assessments in the River Road Santa Clara area, the proposed assessments are combined with the standard systems development charges ~SDCs}. Properties of less than an acre are assessed for the entire area of the parcel for the local pardon of the SDC. Properties larger than one acre are assessed for only a portion of the property. The only objections to the SDC in this round that appeared at the hearing were the objections stated by the witnesses representing the Eagles Aerie. The SDC are levied at this time so as to afford the property owners the opportunity to take advantage of the financing system attached to sewer assessments. The Eugene Code does not provide the Hearings Official any authority to recommend a change in the SDC. The base of the Eagles' concern is not just with their primary focus, the SDC. The Eagles argued that as a charitable fraternal organization they should be exempted from the assessment, or that the assessment and the SDC should be restructured in recognition of their special circumstances. The nonprofit character of the organization is not itself reason to exempt the organization from assessment. For profit and not for profit organizations alike have been assessed. The Eagles are concerned that this assessment process is the start of some larger pattern to make the organization subject to taxation. That is apparently not the case, because assessment is not taxation, and is regarded as different under the law. In the same way, the Eagles internal structure does not alter the fact that the organization itself is the owner of the property and is responsible for payment of the assessment. The members may chose to each pay a part of the assessment, but the city should not assess them individually. Apart from the effect that this might have on the validity of their legal claim to be a fraternal organization, it is impractical and unrealistic to expect that the City should create a special procedure such as they suggest. It would mean that the City would never collect the assessments, because new members would constantly be replacing the old members who had gained a deferral, The Eagles also argued that their golf course should be considered undeveloped and therefore not assessed. Undeveloped property is property that is presently available for development, without a change in use. The golf course is, i~n this sense, developed, and is not eligible for deferral. The Eagles argued that their only recourse will be to sell the property, thus forcing development of the property. It does not appear to be the intent of the city to force development on any property owner. The motive force for construction of the sewers is the existing contamination of groundwater caused by past development. The City has chosen to require the property owners to pay most of the cost of the sewer construction. If this leads to further development it is an incidental side effect of the sewer canstruction. The city of Eugene is not forcing development, but the city has not forborne the sewer projects because of the side effect of further development, SANTA CLARA AREA SEWER BASINS "N" "P" "Q" AND "R" Page S FINAL ASSESSMENT -FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIQNS and the fact that the Eagles may also be forced to allow development, does not serve as a reason to avert the assessment of the property. Nature of the Assessment The Hearings Officer finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local improvements as set forth in DRS 310.41 o 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 a problem caused by a specific property 3. The assessments are imposed in a single assessment upon completion of the project; and 4. The assessments allow the property owners to elect to pay the assessment with interest over at least ten ~ 10} years. Recommendation The final assessment costs are comparable to the estimates given when the bids were opened. The Hearings official recommends approval of the assessment distribution. The Hearings official also recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance for assessment as set forth by the City Engineer. Respectfully su 'tted, Milo Mecham Hearings Official Dated: May 2,1996 SANTA CLARA AREA SEWER BASIlVS "N" "P" "Q"AND "R" Page 9 FrNAL ASSESSMENT - FIl~DtNGS AND RECOMMENDATt4NS ~ Exhibit A MINUTES Basins "N," "P," "Q" and "R" Sanitary Sewers in the Santa Clara Area, Levying Final Assessment for Local improvement Jobs 2924, 2925, 2926 and 2927 April 17,1995 Public Hearing Hearings official Milo Mecham convened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. He described the subject matter of the hearing and the procedures to be followed at the hearing. Present at the hearing representing the City of Eugene were Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston, Michelle Cahill, Sue Malone, Jerry Behney and Terry Grondona. The Acting City Engineer, Jeff Lankston, began by providing a brief description of the project and its history. The local improvement district SLID} composed of basins "N," "P," "Q" and "R" encompasses the parcels to be served by the sanitary sewers constructed in 1995 in the Santa Clara area. The local improvement district involved the construction of sanitary sewers by the city of Eugene, the construction of sewers by Lane County pursuant to an agreement with the city, and the connection of previously constructed sewers that have now become available through the construction of connecting lateral lines by the city. Mr. Lankston explained that the proposed assessment was composed of two components. Dne component represents the cost of construction of the sewer lateral lines. Lateral lines are the collector sewer lines placed in appropriate streets to deliver collected sewage to the treatment facility. The assessed cost for lateral lines is established by dividing the total cost for construction of lateral lines by the total amount of assessable square feet in the district. The individual cost for each assessed parcel is then determined by multiplying this dividend by the assessable area of the individual parcel. The assessed cost for each parcel has been calculated to be $.3038 per square foot Mr. Lankston explained that the second component of the local improvement assessment is the assessment far the cost of the service lines, which connect the individual properties to the lateral lines. The cost of the service lines is calculated to be $1231.43 per connection. The System Development Charges ~SDCs} for connections are also levied at the same time as the assessment, but are not a part of the LID assessment. Mr. Lankston explained that the City had received two letters concerning the final assessment. Willard C. Dickerson and Verna B. Dickerson submitted a letter of concern. The Dickersons are concerned because their property is served by sewers on Stark Street, for which they have been assessed, but is now being assessed for the new sewers constructed on Mercer Street. In response, staff reviewed the proposed assessment. Mr. Lankston explained that the property is being assessed for the portion of the property Minutes - LID,Finai Assessment Hearing April t7, Z996 Page 1 within 1 b0 feet of Mercer Street that had not been previously assessed. Staff recommended that the property be assessed according to the provisions of the Eugene Code. A second letter of concern was received from John ~. Kjosness. Mr. Kjosness objected to the distribution of costs, believing that the costs should be assessed by usage rather than by square footage of the assessed property. Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston explained that the Eugene Code called for assessment by square footage. He also explained that this method had been examined on several occasions by the Eugene City Council and had been determined to be the best method. At the conclusion of the Acting City Engineer's remarks, the members of the public attending the hearing were invited to speak. Mr. Bill Whittle was the first member of the attending public to speak. Mr. Whittle owns two parcels; the second parcel is a small "landlocked" parcel behind the first parcel and is undeveloped, Mr. Whittle wondered why the second parcel is subject to assessment because it is not adjacent to the street, and is undeveloped. Mr. Whittle also wondered whether the second parcel would qualify far the City's program of deducting the area of drainage channels from the area of property to be assessed. Mr. Whittle explained that a pardon of the second lot is a canal that drains several parcels in the area. In response to Mr. Whittle's questions, Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston explained that established city policy was to assess undeveloped lots that were in common ownership with developed, assessed lots. Mr. Lankston also responded that the canal discussed by Mr. Whittle had not be identified as a drainage way eligible for exemption by the City, but that it would be reviewed to see if it qualified. Mr. Lankston described the criteria established by the City, The next member of the public to address the hearing was Robert Santacroce. Mr. Santacroce challenged the city's method of assessment. Mr. Santacroce owns a lot an the corner of a cul-de-sac. His property is narrow in the back, but has a larger frontage on the street than do other lots in the area. Because of his lot's configuration, Mr. Santacroce is being assessed a greater amount than his neighbors. Mr. Santacroce felt that it would be more equitable if each lot was assessed for its use, rather than by area. Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston explained that the policy adopted by the city was based on the recognition that larger lots have greater development potential, and thus are benefited mare than are smaller lots. The assessment on these lots must take the potential for greater development into account when calculating the assessment. Mr. Santacroce felt that the method of assessment used by the city was not logical or fair, and that explaining it as the means that had been used in the past did not make it more logical. Leon fveans of the Fraternal Order of the Eagles testified next. The Eagles are concerned about the assessment of the entire area of their golf course for a systems development charge. The information supplied by the city of Eugene indicates that the entire property will be subject to the SDC because it is considered fully developed. The Eagles are a charitable organization, that does not operate the golf course for profit. They feel that the charges for the golf course should be deferred until it is under different Minutes - LrD Final Assessment Hearing April 17,199b page 2 ownership, subject to property tax and available for development. The Eagles are concerned that if the property is subject to the SDC now, it will soon be subject to property tax, at which time it would be necessary to sell the property, which would lead to further development of the property. Mr. Phil Rose, also of the Eagles, joined the hearing. Mr. Rose wondered whether their drainage ditch would be exempted. Mr. Rose also pointed out that na water from the golf course went into the sewage system. Mr. Rose's main question concerned the question of ownership of the property. Mr. Rose pointed out that the Eagles are a fraternal order, where each member is considered to be an owner of the facility, Mr. Rose wondered if the city could assess the members individually. This would allow the members to defer the assessment because mast members are on Social Security. Mr. William Petrovic of the Eagles also appeared and testified at the hearing. Mr. Petrovic felt that the members of the local Aerie of the Eagles should be considered the individual owners and should be billed separately. Mr. Petrovic also testified that he considers the golf course to be undeveloped property. He is concerned that greater development would require additional sewer lines, and thus additional cast. Mr. Petrovic expressed concern that the costs will farce further development of the property and a loss of the facility as a golf course. The members from the Eagles described the operation of the golf course. It is not open to the public. Non-members can come and play if they are a guest, but only for three times. Women, who are not eligible to join the Eagles, can play as guests as often as they are invited. The organization is limited in the amount of revenue it can generate from non-members. Zf the income framnon-members exceeds a certain percentage, the Eagles will lose their nonprofit status. The Eagles do not have a method for assessing their members far the costs associated with operation of the golf course, including the proposed SDC. The costs of operation are paid from the restaurant and bar located at the facility. At several points during the testimony offered by the Eagles, Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston responded to specific comments of the Eagle members. Mr. Lankston explained that the golf course is considered to be fully developed under the Eugene Code, and thus is not eligible for an SDC deferral. Mr. Lankston also explained that like other properties, the property is only assessed for the sewer installation back 1b0 feet from the lateral. The primary concern of the Eagles Aerie is with the systems development charge, which, while it is being charged at the same time as the sewer assessment, is not subject to the same modifications. Mr. Lankston explained that the deductibility is for an area that cannot be developed, it is not determined by the number of buildings that may exist on the property. Mr. Lankston explained that the SDC does not pay for the sewer lines constructed during this local improvement construction phase. The SDC is composed of two charges levied to pay for the cost of the sewer system already constructed, one for the collection system and the other for the sewer treatment plant. The next member of the public to speak was Michelle Bellah. Ms. Bellah objected to the size of the assessment proposed for her property. Ms. Bellah was Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing April I7, 1996 Page 3 concerned that in addition to the approximately 13 thousand dollars in the proposed assessment for her three acre parcel it will cost as much as 8 thousand dollars to connect to the sewers. Ms. Bellah doubted that her property would actually be able to connect to the sewers, and therefore Ms. Bellah felt that her property should be considered undevelopable. The property in question is a flagpole lot. The sewer has been extended adjacent to the Bellah parcel down most of the flagpole to serve other property. Only a small portion of the lot past the pale portion of the flagpole lot is within 160 feet of the end of the sewer line. Ms. Bellah wondered why her property should be subject to an assessment, when the construction does not bring the sewers close enough to the residence to allow an easy hookup and the portion of the property being assessed can not be developed because it is so narrow X63 feet wide. In response Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston explained that, while not all of the property can easily be connected to the sewers, the portion of the Bellah property within 160 feet of the sewer lateral is benefited by the sewers. Mr. Lankston assured the Bellah that their residence, even though it was more than 160 feet from the end of the lateral line, could be connected to the sewer. Because of the distance to the sewers, the house will not be required to connect, but it is possible to do so. Ms. Bellah questioned the logic of allowing a delay in connections to the sewer while also arguing that the property is benefited by the sewer development. Ms. Bellah voiced her suspicion that the sewer project is designed to force property into the city to allow for more development. Ms. Bellah also questioned an earlier notice form the city that had suggested that the property would not be assessed, Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston explained that sometimes the City's first review of lots suggests that they are undeveloped. The city constantly reviews all of its determinations, and when it discovers an error, it takes steps to notify the property owner of the correction. 1f there was a correction in the case of the Bellah property, it was because of this review of preliminary determinations, and not because of any change in policy. The next member of the public to speak was Chad Roderick. Mr. Roderick asserted that he had an agreement with the City of Eugene concerning sewer development and further assessments. Mr, Roderick owns two parcels, numbered 1300 and 1302. During a previous sewer construction phase in the area, Mr. Roderick entered into an agreement to construct a sewer line along Anchor Street up to the property line of tax lot 1302. Anchor Street currently ends at this property line. Mr. Roderick understood that agreement between himself and the city to guarantee that, as a result of his construction, no part of tax lot 1302 would be assessed. Now the city has constructed a sewer line along Wilkes Street, which serves as the northern border of tax lot 1300. The city is proposing to assess all of tax lot 1300 and the small portion of tax lot 1302 that lies within 160 feet of Wilkes. The residence located on tax lot 1302 is within this portion of the tax lot. Currently is it served by a sewer that runs north to Wilkes and then west to an existing sewer. The tentative subdivision plan for tax lot 1302 plans that this sewer line will be redirected south to the sewers already constructed by Mr. Roderick. Mr. Roderick insisted that the agreement should be honored and that no portion of tax lot 1300 should be assessed. Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing April 17,199b Page 4 Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston explained that the portion of tax lot 1302 that was proposed for assessment was proposed because it was under common ownership with tax lot 1300 and was within 160 feet of the newly constructed sewer. Mr. Lankston said that the city would examine the agreement between the city and Mr. Roderick, and would deliver a response to the Hearings Official. Mr. Roderick also pointed out that the city had erred in the calculation of the area of lot 1300, since they had deducted the area of lot 1302 being assessed from the area of lot 1340. City staff member Michelle Cahill acknowledged the error, but explained that the error had been discovered after the notice of the final assessment The cost of correcting the error through renotification was greater than the cost of overlooking the miscalculation. The next member of the public to speak was Don Leslie. Mr. Leslie was concerned because two of his neighbors have large rectangular lots that extend the entire distance between two streets. A portion of both lots were assessed for previously constructed sewers. The lots are now being assessed for the sewers constructed this year. Mr. Lankston explained that different portions of the lots are being assessed. The property owners could have divided the lots after the previous assessment if they wished, which would have caused the city to defer the present assessment on the newly created undeveloped lot. The property owners chose not to divide the property and therefore the properties are subject to this second assessment. No other attendees wished to address the hearing. Therefore, the hearing concluded at 5:35 p.m. Minutes -LID Finai Assessment Hearing Apri117,1996 Page 5 April 19,1996 To; Milo Mecham, Hearings Cff vial FROM: Jeff Lankston, Acting City Engineer SUBJECT: Additional Information following public hearing for final assessments Santa Clara Basins 95N, 95P, 95C~ & 95R; Service ID 2924, 2925, 2926 and 292?~ A. At the public hearing, held on April 17, 1995,1Nilliam G. And K.A. vlJhittle; owners of two tax lots X11-04-3-0413308 & 10991 } in common development asked for a reduced sanitary sewer assessment based on the existence of a drainage way on tax lot 10901. As mentioned in the Engineers Report under "Drainage Channels and other Natural Features" three criteria must be met to qualify a drainage for exception. City staff has reviewed this issue, with the following f ndings. 1. The drainage way appears to provide community wide benefit. 2. The drainage way is recognized in the City's storm drainage master plan. 3. Additional deed research of Lane County records failed too undercover any dedicated easement given to the City or County forthe drainage way. In addition to the above research, anon site inspection was made, with the following findings. 1. The existing drainage way appears to lie within the east one-third of tax lot 10901 and runs the full width of the property. The drainage ditch is approximately 4' wide at the bottom, 11' wide at the top and 2.8' deep. 2. The remaining area of t.1.10901 west of the ditch is accessed by a foot bridge. This area is being used as a garden. A small shed has been cons#ructed north of the garden area. The program initiated in 1993 by the City to acquire easements from property owners with undedicated drainage ways has resulted in not one .property owner interested in encumbering their property with the restrictions an easement would require. Based on the above information and the absence of a recorded easement or dedication, staff is still recommending the assessed in full as proposed. B. Chronology of staff contacts with Chad Roderick see attachments}: March 26,1991- Per the Planning and Development Dept., Mr. Roderick's property was recognized as two legal building lots when he applied for annexation, File AZ 91- 045. Two taxlots had been approved in 1981, but there is no evidence that they were ever recorded with Lane County. Additional Information SC Basins N, P Q & R Page 2 of 3 April 19,1996 October 12,1992 -Letter from Michelle Cahill to Chad Roderick regarding installation of sewers in Basin 93K in vicinity of taxlot 17-04-02-44 01300. June 17-23,1993 -Telephone Conversation Record. Attempts by Jerry Behney to contact Mr. Roderick by phone about installing sewer to the southwest side of his property. June 24,1993 - Mr. Roderick came into pra~ect office with a letter dated June 21,1993. August 9,1993 -File No. S 93-030 submitted to Planning Dept. for subdivision of taxlot 17-04-42-44 01302 into l parcels. At this time, still only one taxlot on tax map,17-04- 42-44 01300. Requirements by Mr. Roderick for approval of subdivision plat~never completed. August 26,1994 -Letter sent by Michelle Cahill regarding sewer service to Robert McElroy at 3389 Tempa Street. December 20,1994 -Telephone Conversation Record. Jerry Behney discussed with Chad Roderick the fetter of August 26. Jerry Behney conf rmed that the construction of this segment of line would be included in the 1995 contract if Mr. Roderick and his engineer did not complete construction of the line privately priorto the start of public sewer construction approximately May 15,1995. December 21,1994 -Letter sent from Jerry Behney to Mr, Roderick with a copy of August 26,1994 letter documenting phone conversation of December 20. April 6,1995 -Basin 95P square footage and public sewer cost postbid estimate sent to Mr. Roderick for installation of sanitary sewer scheduled on Uvilkes Drive in '1995. Cost estimate calculated on total area of taxlot 17-04-02-44 01300. September 25,1995 - Prn~ect staff conf rmed with City Inspector that service line was built and available to Robert McElroy's property by Chad Roderick Subdivision SID 3333 under Contact No. 95-528. September 26,1995 -Updated tax map reflects division of taxlot 17-04-02-44 01300 and 01302. April 2,1996 - Mr. Roderick is sent two notices of proposed assessment for taxlot 1300 and 1302 in the amounts of $7,578.35 and $2,160.83 respectively. .. ~ Additional Information SC Basins N, P Q & R Page3of3 April 19,1996 April 3,1996 - Mr. Roderick called public information staff claiming he was not subject to assessment for any area of property associated with 288 E. Anchor, taxlot 1302. Staff told Mr. Roderick the question would be researched. April 4 & 5,1996 -Staff attempted to call Mr. Roderick three times with answer to his question. There was no answer or recording machine to leave a message. April 5,1996 -Staff drafted a letter for review by Project Manager} responding to Mr. Roderick's question. April 8,1996 - Mr. Roderick came into RRISC sewer project offce, Staff explained that his two taxlots were subject to assessment in common ownership for sewer line installed in Uvilkes Drive. This included total area of taxlot 1300 which was calculated at 18,292 square feet correct total area is 25,404 square feet} and 7,112 square feet of taxlot 1302. Mr. Roderick objected. Staff gave him date of the Public Hearing. He said he would attend and present testimony. April 17, '1996 - Mr. Roderick called staff to confirm that he was scheduled to present testimony at Public Hearing. April 1?,1996 - Mr Roderick testifed before hearing offcial. April 19,1996 -Information from Planning Dept. shows File No. S 93-030 for subdivision of taxlot 1342 has expired. Summa Staff has worked in cooperation with Mr. Roderick in his plans for development of his property, Agreements made in 1993 were based on the property being one taxlot as reflected on the tax assessor maps. Staff has worked diligently to provide Mr. Roderick with the information he has requested or to refer him to the person or agencywho can respond to his questions. Staff will continue to respond to Mr. Roderick's questions and will provide Mr. Roderick with a copy of ail relevant portions of the Engineer's report, the assessment hearing minutes, and the hearing offcial's fndings and recommendations. EXHIBIT C, Special Assessment Register is not attached; it is on f le and available by written request to the City Recorder's Office.