Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19757.E "t ORDINANCE No. ~~~`~ AN oRDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS F4R SANITARY SEATERS IN THE RIVER ROAD AREA FoR BASINS "A, ~' '~B ~ " AND "C'~; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY ~F EUGENE FINDS: In the exercise of its discretion to determine what is necessary or essential, the City Council has previously authorized the construction of sanitary sewer system in the River Road Area. In Resolution No, 4150 adopted by the City Council vn Ma 29 1990 Y - the Council directed that sanitary sewers be constructed to serve certain property that would be benefitted thereb Since ado tiara Y p of Resolution No. 418D, the City Engineer reports that the owners of certain improved parcels outside the local improvement district have requested their property be included within the district assessed and connected to the sanitary sewers. Such propert alon y g with the property originally in the local im rovement district ' p is more particularly described in Exhibit C attached hereto and b Y this reference incorporated therein, In 1990 the City Engineer called for bids vn the ro ased p p improvement and based thereon has determined the cost to co nstruct the proposed improvement to be $5,508,964.26 of whit h $4,513,382.54 is to be assessed, to and borne b the s ' y peclally benefitted property described in Exhibit C hereto as rovided ' p in Section 7.17Q of the Eugene Code, 1971 ~E,C. and E.C. 7.175. 7 A notice containing the information required b E.C. 7,185 has Y been posted on a bulletin board at City Hall and iven b certif i g y ed mail to the owners of the parcels of real ro ert sub'ec p p y ~ t to the assessment at least ten days prier to the public hearin before the g hearing official. At the time and place specified therein, a hearings official received the report of the city engineer and finance officer as required by E.C. 7.187 ~ 1} , heard all evidence and argument presented fully considered the same and has reported his adopted findings to the City Council. Because of the general proximity of the sanitary sewers constructed in Basins "A," "B" and "C", 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 1990 be combined when calculating the assessments for the individual specially beneffitted properties. Parcels for which sanitary sewers were constructed earlier but which were not assessed until being included in this local improvement are to be assessed based on the same unit values as the 1990 construction. The extra capacity constructed in existing sanitary sewer trunk lines and laterals in the River Road and Santa Clara areas was done with the intention and determination that the casts of that extra capacity beneffitted the property to be served by such trunks and laterals and that the costs therefor would be equitably spread to all properties served within the River Road and Santa Clara areas. The $.025 per square foot included in the assessment calculation under subpart 7.1752}fib}5d of Eugene Code, 1971 ordinance _ 2 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 $.025 portion of the assessment calculation will be used for projects to be constructed outside the River Road and Santa Clara areas nor to reimburse the City for projects it has constructed for other areas. The affected property is also obligated under E . C . 7.2 7 7 ~ 6 } to pay a development charge for regional sewerage facilities prior to connecting tv the sanitary sewer regional development char e . g} 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 regional development charge. The total cost for this capital construction pro'ect are as J set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. In these proceedings for the formation of the local improvement district and the. levying of special benefit assessments, the City has afforded the owners of the affected property the same notice, opportunity to be heard and all other Ordinance - 3 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 FoLLQWS: 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 incorporated 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 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 improvements, as declared in the hearings official's findings are hereby assessed against the parcels of land and lots hereinafter described in the amounts set opposite, respectively. Notwithstanding that the improvements in Basins "A," "B," and ++C+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 far engineering and Ordinance - 4 ~; 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 benef fitted to the extent of the assessment set forth. The Finance officer shall give notice of the assessments to the owners of the assessed parcels and lots advising them the assessment may be paid in full, without interest, within ten days of the effective date of this ordinance. Assessments that remain unpaid after the ten da eriod Yp are declared to be liens upon the respective lots or parcels of land against which said several amounts are assessed, and ma be Y paid, with interest on the unpaid principal amount cammencin ten g days after the adoption of this ordinance: 4.1 in up to twenty semi-annual installments, includin g principal and interest at the rate set by the Cit Mana er as Y g provided in E.C. 2.022 through 2.024; or 4.2 if the property owner so elects, in 120 monthl Y installments, including principal and interest at the.rate set b Y the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.022 throw h 2.024 lus a g p service charge to be determined b the Cit Mana er as r ' Y Y g p ovlded in E.c. 2.020. ordinance - 5 Section 5. The parcels and lots herein assessed are also obligated to pay a development charge for regional sewerage facilities under E.C. 7.277 ~6~ . If the regional development charge is unpaid at the time the notice required by Section 4 of this Ordinance is sent the regional development charge shall be included in the notice and shall be a lien against the property to be paid along with the assessment as provided in this ordinance. Section 6. The City Recorder is directed to enter in the docket of City Liens a statement in connection with each unpaid assessment and regional development charge containing the following: 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 and charged to 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 and regional development charges as required by CRS 224.090. Section 7. Upon enactment of this ordinance, the Finance Officer shall send notice of the assessments 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 ordinance - 6 application for paying the assessment and charge in installments according to the terms set forth in Section 4 of this ordinance. Such notice may also include information regarding programs that allow the deferral of payment of the assessments and charges for qualified property owners. Section 8. The unpaid assessments and regional development charges and any assessment and charge 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 and regional development charges shall be deposited tv the city funds as follows: 9.1 The determination to use the Trunk Sewer Levy portion of each assessment in lieu of a system development charge under E.C. 7.277~1~ through 7.277~5~ 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 tv serve properties within the River Raad and Santa Clara areas; 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 cast of the construction of the sanitary sewer system serving the properties assessed herein and may be used to reimburse the city for its costs in constructing said sanitary Ordinance ~- 7 sewer system or to retire any indebtedness incurred by the city for that purpose. Section 10. That the matters contained herein affect the public welfare and safety and therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council and approval b y the Mayor, retention by the Mayor for more than ten days, or readoption over a mayoral veto by two-thirds of all members of the Council. Passed by the City Council this day of G , 1991 ~"'r ~ /~ City Recorde Approved by the Mayor this day of , i9 91 yor ~~ Ordinance ~ 8 ATTACHMENT ~~;~ - ASSESSMENT ~~ORKSHEET 4ia interest on this assessmer~~ wiEi bec~;n .. In the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, an ordnance levying assessments far: Sanitary sewers in the River Road area for Basins "A," "B," and "C" ITEM X. Amount paid to Contractor: Contract # ,90~09,~10 & 11 ~ 3 716 014.13 Job # 2514 2515 & 2516 Cap Praj. # _945075, 905035, 905 095 ordinance # ITEM 2. Liquidated damages: $ 1,540.00 ITEM 3. Other costs: Due back *C eord r # Date Descri Lion to Fund: Materials and services $ See Attachment '{A-1" $ 65,901.11 8't ~_ 168 , OOS . 00.,,___ Lateral sewer e of trk sewer $ ITEM 4. Subtotal: Items 1 through 3 $~ 3 954 ,463.24..,,,,,,.,_ ITEM 5. Basis far 5% Finance Administration fee calculation. Subto#al -Item ~: ~, 3.9 54_,_4~~~ 24 Total not subject to 5% Finance Fee item # icy ~ -- $ 56~ ,~L~S$ } ITEM 5a. Finance costs subject to 5% fee: $ 3,394,55_.66 ITEM 6, Engineering charge a A B,C actual ~ $ 807 345.00 b' S equ i va1 ent 21 / $ . ITEM 1. 5% Finance Administrative fee ~5°lo x Item 5a}: $ 169,707.78 ITEM 8. Interest on short-term construction fina ncing: $~ 144 2178.27 ITEM 9. Other charges: Li uidated llama es ~ ~ $ - 1 540.00 a. Extraordinary Finance os s ~ b. Extraordinary Legal costs ~ ~ 5 ~ 6 ~ ~ . 3 ~ _ ITEM I0. Due to sewer fund for 2_I/2 cent levy: $ 328_ ,_448_._4.2_... ITEM li. MWMC Facility Equalization Fee $ 237 ,_034.5____ ITEM I2. TOTAL ASSESSMENT per ordinance $_ 5,.745 .494 ~~ . . ITEM I3. City's share of cost for completed contract Work ACK Direct Costs Eng.Fee Interest Total Oversize i e 532--9332--61893-905075 $ 13 ~ 54fi, fi7. ~ 494.75$ $ 3 192.99$ 17_, X34._44__ Road re air 532-9332--61593--905075 $ 54,764_._9.1 _ $43 740.87$1 970.12$ 610,471.9D_ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total: Not subject to 5°lo Finance Fee $ 560 307.58 $46,933.86$20,464.90$ 627,706.34 ~ceordr # Intersections ~ $ $ $ ~ ITEM 14. Deferred Assessments included in Item I2. Eugene Code 7.I97}. Advanced from Fund , AJE # $ ITEM 15. Casts nat lienable Included in Item I2 Funded by City accounts. Extra territorial. ACK: $ Vacant outside city limits ACK: 532-9332-64100-905095 $ 360,567.26 Bankrupt accounts ACK: 532-9332--64100-905095 ~ 7,005.12 ATTACHMENT ENE TO EXHTBTT C LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT #90-1002 ASSESSMENT ROLL EXHIBIT CESPA ACCOUNT # TAXLOT NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION A 90-1002-00405 11042341 01900 B247P485, Para 1, & also beg at the SW cor of the desc. parcel running thence N01°15'E 197.5', thence S88°45'W 12', thence S01° 15'W 197.5', thence N88°45'E 12' to the pt of beg., All in Lane Co. B 90-1002-00820 17042423 02100 B135P558, that portion lyg S of Hilliard, E of Alexander's Subdivision & W of 80122/49404, B153P299 & 300 C 90-1002-01235 17042431 03000 Beg at apt 476.3'W of apt in the center of Pac. Hwy River Rd} & 4724.5'E of the SW cor of DLC 45 in T17S, R04W of the Will. Mer., thence N2o3', thence W70', thence 5203', thence E70' to the pt of beg. in Lane County. D 90-1002-01735 17042424 08300 B135P558, that portion lyg N of 81428/86-44881 & S of W Hilliard & E of 80122/49404 less B359P083 & 80182/48858 E 90-1002-01190 17042431 01800 80350/88177 less that portion lyg E of aline beg at apt 547.73'E of the NW corner, thence running S to the S line of the described parcel & l ess 81595/89-43193 F 90-1002-05945 1704143200400 Beg at apt SO°11'W 926.5' & N89°53'W 2310.5' from NE cor of DLC 46 in T17S, R04W of the Will. Mer., thence N89°53'W 160', thence NO°11'E 100', thence S89°53'E 160' thence SO°11'W 100' to the pt of beg, in Lane County. U) cn ~ o ~ ~~ ~ to ~ o ~ ~ ?! ~ ~ :~:: ~ ~ ~~::: ~ ~. -o r.. Vin: ~ .. ~ ...CA~~ ' n~ ,... ,., ~ n ~ n ~ ci ~ -~ n ~~:~: n w -~ n ~~~ .~ ~:o :~o: '' .~o: ~ o; ::c~: ~t: :ur ::cn:. cn ca 0 ca o co o 0o cn co o m 0 c~ o co o 0o c~ c~ o co 0 co o co o 00 co co : ~::~:::~:~ v~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~' t N ! N I N I N I O ~ I N I N E N I N t O I N N ~ N y N ~ ' ' O~ •~~~~~"~ ;.Q..~. o: :o~:~: N N W O N N W O o N N w o to '.~'.:.,,. C~ 0 0 0 ~ -~ o o ~ n n v n ~ v v 'v C7 ~ '~ C} ~ c7 (n v 0 'o C7 n '~ {~ c. s~m ~ a~ ,~ 3 ~ ~ cn v ~, ~ ~ 3 > >. N ~ N ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -n D ~ ~ _ ~ o ~ a m a ~ ~ m .~ m ~ ~ _ ~- ~ ~ a cn a ~ ~ vm, ° m m rn ~ _ -" ~ a i a m n ~ c ~ N 'TE ~ o ~ o . ,~ ~ " Q cn - Us ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ o S1° ~ ~ ~ Z o -~ ca ~ ~ ? ~ ~ o m ~ o N o ~ cn ~, ~ ? ~ m o ~ m ~ o ~ (~ ca ~v ~ ~ ~ m o ~ ``c~ ~ ~~ ~ ro o ~ (~ N ~ ~ ~ o I ~; m N S a ~ o I m I N m ui ~ ~ o I m ...~ -~ ::.~: m N m ~ m o ~ ~ ~ C ~ 7 ~, ~° ,~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~° v _ C ~ ~ n ~~~~ ~ o< ~ Z ~ ~ o ~ r ` ° cn -" Q co r N o' co m r. y -. o .. o : _.,. ro r, r~ .~ Qa n ~ ~~ ~ ~° o VJ r m ~ o ~~ w ~° V! o m {a T~ ~ ? ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~° tifJ m ~ m~ ~ ~m~~ ?•p;• (~ ?.+ m I' i 1 o c~ ~ . ~ o ~ n m ~' 0 2 ~ . T C Z m ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 p~ o _ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ c~ rr ~ ~ ~ ' ~ _ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ o ~, ~ ~ z -~ ~ .~ co n co co co co ` m co n co c~ c~ m ~ o n co ca n co co uo o ~ ...:. co N ~ („) w '~ ~ I m i 0 I I o I O O I I m l 1 1 ~ O I m l I m i i I I o ~ f ~ 0 W Q) (~1t ~ ", 0) v 1 ~ N 0 O 00 0 ~- ~P O N O O N N Q} y I .~, O N O O o C7 - W + N v I O p W 0? N 07 , ..a O N o o O 0 00 N 0 •_•:. o :3:;3:: ~ ~" rn - N oa W 0) o cry oo as co - w ~ on ~, •~ ul p 00 v0 W co -• w - •~ ~ w rn ~ o y vl o o o~ W cD ,~ w -; 00 N cn :m: ~` cn :~~:: w: ~ n D oco W V .p y w cn ao cn a~ Qy ~. y w cn oo cn w w c~ w cn •,t w ul oa cn uo ~, c~ ~ D cWn° w o ° ~ n ~ y ~ ~ a} ~ ~ ~ ~' -~ ~ .~ ~ .~ ~ m ~ m o~ .~ o o rn z o ~ ~. O ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~0 1 ~ C ., ~ C ~:~:. ~ ~ _C ~~: ~ ~ o ~ o ~r' o <~Q1: m ~ o :~"~ ~ ~ 't~ m rn o o ~~~ . CAS m Z m ? co ~ ~ m ~ `~~ ~ o `° --1 ~ ; ~ gin:: ~ z ~ ~' ~ -i ~ . ~ n ~~: m `~ ~ m cO ~, ~. m m m n ~ m ~ ~, ~ , m m m c~ ~m~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ m m n ; ~:: c~:::> z p ~ ^ , ~ m , '. ^ m cn ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ u? " ~ ~ ~ > > ~ cl~ ~ ~~ ^ @ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ m N m m c ~ ro m ~ co ~ a ~' ro ~~ m ~ m m c ~' ~ ~ > o m m ~' ~ ca ~ ~' ~ ~ m ~ m ~ @ m c ~ `-- C ~ ~ ca ~ o > > o ~" ~' ~n ~ o > > o ~ ~ ~ ~ ca ~ o > > o U? co ro co ~ co ta ~ co ~ m ~ ~ co ~ ~ co ~. co .~ o co ~ rn ~ ~ o ~:4:~ . t ~~ ~ ;~. :~L;: :~.i? : ~: ~~ N N :.~: //~ N ~ ~~~ N W ~o: ~~~: ~::~? N Ut -+ OD W ... ..r /•:.; N W -~+ ~1 ~ ~ W M' ~•"~ ED N N W -+ Ut O V 00 ~"•::: :::~. =~ v o w w o o ca N rn 00 cn rn w ~ ;~~ : ~- v ~oa : y ~ iu ~ w v o cn it0 -~ .s -~ -~- o ao ~::~~~ ~~ cn ~. •p:: w ~ ~* ~. w iN v w o o co ca rn ~ a~ cn N ~. ~:r.-:: w :~:~: vl . 0 cn . 0 o o co . . o in ~.~ o . rn ~ . N rn . a1 ~.'::: ~ cn :~ g o a o o t] 0 0~ in rn w . o N . ~ w ~•.:::: ~ •~ . . -~ ~. ~~ N ov . w cn . ~ a . a o . o v cn w . co cn . W o . N o •:~~~: . N :: W 0 0 o co cn vn o as :~ ~ o 0 o w o a 1 0 .c~. ~ ~~ w ~ o 0 0 00 -~ w ca o 1 w, ~., N ~ i __~ ~ ~~ , ~_ ~ ~ s:a- r ~ ~ II ~ r 1f 11 1 N31~H~~11~ ~,.~ ~ .. ~ SUBJECT: BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS IN THE RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IlVIPRDVEMENT DISTRICT On May 29, 1990, the City Council initiated the local improvement district for sanitary sewers in the River Road area for basins A, B and C. This district encompasses those parcels served by the sanitary sewer construction in 1990 in the River Road area. The majority of the properties taking sewer access from these facilities will be assessed based on a distribution of the cumulative construction and staff service costs for the three basins and for the sanitary sewer trunk levy of $0.025 per square foot of the total lot area. In Ordinance na. 19725 adopted October 22,1990} the council determined the Trunk Sewer Levy ~$0, 025 per sq. ft. }portion of sanitary sewer assessments in River Road area is to be used to reimburse the City far the cost of the extra capacity required in the sewer interceptor and lateral lines to serve properties within the River Road area. That determination applies to these assessments. In addition, on January 14,1991, the City Council adopted an ordinance which allowed for the collection of a Metropolitan Waste Management Commission ~MWMC} treatment plant reimbursement fee as a part of the assessments. The fee is $212 for a single family dwelling or duplex or for the first 16 fixture units in a new development. The $212 includes $202 base rate plus a $10 administration fee, all of which goes directly to MWMC. The City has included this charge in the assessment so that people will be able to finance that cost with their assessment if they so desire. No additional administration fee is collected by the City. A public hearing regarding assessments for these construction projects was held on February 1$, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. Hearings Official Jack A. Billings presided, The Hearings Official opened the public hearing by noting that the projects have now been constructed. and the costs are known. The remaining task is to assess these costs to benef~tting properties. The Hearings Official pointed out that a number of factors concerning assessments are already known, since they are governed by City Code and Ordinances. Since the Hearings Official was aware from sign up sheets that several persons appeared unhappy about the MWMC charge, the Hearings Official specifically noted the City Council's action of January 14, 1991. Because of the large number of people wishing to be heard, the Hearings Official also asked that persons commenting limit their remarks to five minutes. The He~.ngs Official then called upon Les Lyle, City Engineer, to present a staff report. Mr. Lyle f rst introduced Michelle Cahill, Project Manager, Keith Martin, Assistant City Attarne . Y and Dave B~edermann, Finance Director for the City. Mr. Lyle noted that City Council action last year had permitted. the construction of the basins A, B and C sewer projects, He noted that the City worked with Lane County while the Count Y Page 2 Minutes was in the midst of the River Road widening project. He noted that the method used for assessing costs was divided into three pieces: ~l~ the lateral sewer fee which paid for an S" equivalent lateral sewer across the front of the effected property. This is to be reimbursed on a square foot basis, according to City Code. The Code prescribes that the assessment shall be based upon the front footage of the property times its depth, to a maximum of 160 feet, whichever is smaller; ~2~ the individual service hook-up fee for each property; ~3} the trunk sewer reimbursement fee, which is $ 0.025 per square foot. He then noted that the City had combined the costs of the three sewer basin projects and included engineering services averaged over the three areas, rather than each basin on its own. This had the effect of leveling the costs among the three basins. Also included were the contractors' costs, engineering and contract service costs, field testing, video recording of the project, aerial photographs to aid plan documentation, information signs and materials, the costs for a Geotechnical exploration to test subsurface conditions, engineering consultant services, a 5 % administrative fee, short-term f Wanting fees and legal fees. The total charges for the project were $4, 962, 945.46. Of the total charges attributed to these projects, the City expects that Lane County will pay $610, 471.94 for street repair costs incurred as a part of the River Road widening project. The balance of the total cost is to be assessed to benefitting properties. After the total costs were determined, the City staff determined the total area to be applied to such costs. The total assessable area was included, except for certain areas which are not going to be assessed because they are covered by ponds or have drainage facilities constructed on them. He noted that four other properties have asked to be brought within the local improvement district, after the district's formation, He noted that vacant properties, including those which will not be assessed at this time, were included in the area computations, Next, Mr. Lyle described the method for calculating the cost of the service hook-up, He said that the costs for extending the service to the individual properties was separately calculated and then totaled. The total cost was divided by the number of service lines to produce cost per service line, The costs as now computed will be $.30 per square foot for the lateral sewer cost, $727.86 per individual service line and $ 0.025 per square foot for the trunk sewer fee. The lateral service fee and the trunk sewer fee are essentially identical with what had been estimated earlier. The service fee to be assessed is lower than had been previously assessed. He noted that before Lane County agreed to participate in some of the costs, the es~.mates had been higher in all categories. He then noted that the M~w"MC fee is a separate charge. The City is merely using the Page 3 Minutes assessment process as a collection tool. He observed that this sort of fee is ordinarily imposed at the time a building permit is obtained. As noted above, the City Council has determined the amount of $212 for a single family dwelling or duplex. The original estimate the City had been using was higher. The amount is higher for anon-single family dwelling. He further noted that vacant properties were used in the computations of area, However, he said that the City had determined Hat to assess at this time "vacant" properties which are outside the City. The determination of what is a "vacant" property has evolved during the course of determining assessments. He also noted that financing is available to property owners in a variety of ways. Cif course, the amount assessed can be paid in full. fir, property owners may elect to finance the costs over 1D years with either monthly ar semi-annual payments. Some property owners may qualify for deferral programs, for example, based on financial hardship. Finally, he noted that a number of written comments have been received by City staff which have been mostly concerned with the definition of a vacant property or the number of services provided to a property, Keith Martin, Assistant City Attorney, then spoke briefly. He noted that the Hearings Official had just received an amended memorandum regarding this project. He noted that this memorandum had amplified the original report in a couple of respects. He noted that the trunk sewer levy fee goes to the City offset the extra size capacity that was originally built into the system in order to accommodate the River Raad area. That amount was imposed by the City Council in the October 22, 1990, Ordinance. He also noted that more information was provided in the report regarding legal fees. He also pointed out that the court had ruled in the City's favor on all issues. He further Hated that vacant properties not assessed at this time will be assessed when they connect to the sewer system. Finally, he noted that same property owners had Hat received a required, certified notice regarding assessments. He asked that the Hearings Official keep the retard open unril 5:~ P.M., on February 26, 1991, to allow receipt of written comments from those who had not yet received the necessary communication. The first speaker was Tom Zorn, Mr, and Mrs. Zvrn have a larger property on North Park which contains more than one and a half acres. Because this property will probably be developed in the future, staff is recommending that the levy area be lowered to match the lateral area which would lower the assessment accordingly. Mr. Zorn said that he fully expects to develop this property in the future. At that time additional assessments would be made against the properties then developed. Mr. Zorn spoke favorably of the reduction proposed Page 4 Minutes by staff. The next speaker was Sal Douglas. He wanted to know when the assessment comes due and why he should have to pay a user fee, even if he had not yet hooked up to the sewer. Mr. Lyle responded that the assessments wi111ikely be levied by the City Council on March 4, 1991. Each property owner will then have a choice of payment possibilities. He noted that the City is required by Cade to impose the assessment when the sewer becomes available for hookup. Mr. Biedermann added additional detail in that the first payment will be due within two or three months, if paid monthly and within six months if payments are to be semi-annual. Mr. Martin further responded that when the property owner receives the notice of assessment, there will be 10 days to pay in full or to sign an application to pay by installments. However, the final assessment will be set by the City Council on March 4, 1991. The next speaker was Stara Waller. Mr. Waller stated that he lives outside the City, and could not understand how the City of Eugene could extend something outside of its boundaries in order to influence people who do not live within the City. He said that the purpose of the sewers is merely to force annexation. Keith Martin responded that under State law a City may extend sanitary sewers outside its boundaries when it is subject to Local Boundary Commission jurisdiction, as is true of Eugene. Such an extension may occur with the approval of the Boundary Commission. When Lane County and the Cities developed the County Comprehensive Plan, urban services were identified which would be provided by cities. It was determined that Eugene would provide sewer services to River RoadlSanta Clara. This was determined to be appropriate because of ground water conditions, based upon governmental conclusions that a sanitation problem existed. He further stated that the City received financial assistance from the federal government. The Boundary Commission determined to extend sewers into the River Road area, to be constructed by the City of Eugene. This action was consistent with State law. Mr. Waller then stated that there was collusion to put through the sewers. He said he is a retired military man and has social security. He does not have enough money. He asked how he was to pay for these assessments, contending that he could not do so. Dave Biedermann began to describe the deferral programs. At that time, Mr. Waller left the hearing, without waiting to receive answers to his questions. Mr Biedermann continued that the deferral programs are available for these projects. There is a sliding scale depending on what is needed for subsistence. The assessable amount could be deferred until sale of the property, or a change of income. The whole point is to avoid dislocation. Page 5 Minutes Steve Thompson then spoke. He has a property with two homes, A single service line was extended to his property with a "Wye" to serve each of the homes. He has been charged with an extra service line which he thinks is inappropriate. He did not receive consistent answers to his inquiries at first. He has now received an answer that two service lines are necessary because of the plumbing code, He noted that there are other properties which he believes also have two homes but only one connection. Michelle Cahill responded that all property should be treated the same. As far as she is aware, all properties are being treated similarly. By extending only one service line to his property, there was some slight reduction in the aver-all cost for everyone, since the total number of service lines was thus reduced. Mr. Lyle also added that the City is obliged to follow the building codes. The next speaker was Sam Konnie. He noted that he and his wife are the owners of the Smith Center at 900 River Road. This is a sma11 shopping center with six small shops in one building. He has 125 feet of front footage and the maximum depth. When the County undertook to widen River Road, that took his parking in front of his buildings, The shops could not operate without parking, He agreed to take Lots to the North as a part of the compensation for the taking of his front property. Buildings have been removed and the Lots patched, He believes this land is separate and should not be assessed, since he believes it is "vacant" . Mr, Lyle advised the Hearings Official after the public hearing was concluded that staff will probably want to investigate further the circumstances under which Mr, Konnie received the Lots in connection with the taking of the front of his property. Jessie Waldstein was the next speaker. She asked whether she had correctly understood the Hearings Official's opening remarks that the MWMC charge has been imposed by the City Council and is not subject to the Hearings Official's review or recommendation. The Hearings Official advised her that her understanding was correct. She then asked what the purpose of the hearing was. The Hearings Official replied that this was the public's opportunity to comment or question the manner in which assessments for this project have been determined in general and the specific application of these assessments to any individual property, Ms. Waldstein had no further remarks. The next speaker was vora Heintz. She began by saying she had lots of background with the issue of sewers in the River RoadlSanta Clara area. She says she has watched the maneuvering of the City of Eugene since 1976, She lamented that information was not available to the public even yet. She further noted that Eugene had previously tried to restrict services to City properties only, as a means to compel annexation. Proper~es now should not be required to pay a catch-up fee. Page ~ Minutes She is also against assessment by those who are not elected. She said she hasn't been given a vote. The sewers were built under federal law, and should be governed by federal law. She contended that there had been no declared health hazard by any board or agency charged with that responsibility. She also said that she had asked for information about assessments before the hearing. what she had been given was inadequate. She said she wanted it a week ago. She had been called at 4:15 on Friday and advised to pick up what was available. She complained that this information was also not good enough, She was charged nearly $5.~3 for the information and believes it should have been free under the Freedom of Information Act. At this point the Hearings Official reminded her that the hearing was about assessments for work already completed. It was not helpful far the Hearings Official to hear further complaints about the need for sewers in the first instance. After considerable debate with Ms. Heintz, she agreed to address the issue of assessments. She complained that the final draft of the Engineer's report was received just before the hearing. She believed there was sufficient time to send it to citizens who could have more thoroughly understood it. Even contractors were given 3o days, she said. Citizens ought to get more than three or five minutes. Few will be allowed to make deferrals. The next speaker was Tom Heintz, vora Heintz' husband. He said that bond information is not available and wanted to know the rates that were charged for bands. He wanted to know where this information would be, He wanted to know how much time citizens might have after being notified of the final assessment, He contended that the Hearings Official had a conflict of interest because he is paid by the City of Eugene. The Hearings Official replied that he did not believe he had any connict of interest, was not going to terminate the hearing and intended to go forward with the hearing. Mr. Biedermann then advised that at the paint the levy is finally assessed, the property owner can sign an application for defen~al ar payment in installments. At that time the property owner wi11 know the exact total. He said that he has planned the calendar as best he could to try to maximize the best bond rates. He has had discussions with bond counsel. He has been looking at the market to determine the best time to sell bonds. He noted that he could obtain a good rate today. When bonds were last sold in August, 199D, the interest rate was 8 U2 % for property owners. Keith Martin noted that by state law the City of Eugene must afford the same benefits for deferral and installment payments as would be available to those within the City. Page 7 Minutes Mr. Heintz complained that it still means that if you missed two payments you lose your house. He also wants his wife's money back for the materials which she had requested. Ray Trent then spoke. He says he lives on a cul-de-sac and contends that he received no notice abaut where the sewer line would be placed. He eventually discovered that a single service line was built along the property line between he and his neighbor and a "T" put in place. This is in the wrong place for him and he now has to dig 133 feet of connecting line fram his house to the "T" , instead of about 65 feet. This will cost him about $1, 400 instead of somewhere between $750 - $900. He also wanted to know whether the property owners were having to pay three times for their water. He observed that an amount appears on his EWEB bill for sewer collection. Mr. Lyle said that EwEB is a collection service only and there is a small administrative fee collected by EwEB for that purpose. Otherwise, it would be necessary for the City to send out an entirely separate bill at tremendous cost. He said citizens only pay once for their water. Then Mr. Trent complained about a manhole which is about 70 feet from his front door. He wandered whether he is going to have air pollution in the summer and whether the placement of the manhole was legal. Mr. Lyle responded that the manhole is within the right-of way and is located in a way to best serve the lateral sewers. He stated that the City has not gotten similar complaints in other parts of the City. Mr. Trent then stated that he can smell sewers in front of North Eugene High School. He thinks the City costs have been quite high, as opposed to Portland. Mr. Lyle responded that the amounts charged for this construction project are less than other parts of the state. He also noted that some property owners are quite pleased that the actual amounts of assessment have been less than earlier estimates. The next speaker was John Morrison. He believes that the total acreage of vacant and developed property should have been used in the assessment process. He believes that would have reduced the amount to be assessed to about 19 cents per square foot, He had calculated the total cost of the project as $12, 500,1140. He owns an undeveloped lot which is much smaller than a nearby property which contains about 20 acres. Because of the 160 foot maximum assessable area, he will pay the same far the sewer for his parcel as will the owner of the parcel with 20 acres. He noted that the value of that person's property will go up dramatically now that the sewers are available making residential development possible. Page $ Minutes Mr. Lyle pointed out that the bulk of the large parcel will not be assessed now but would be charged an $ inch equivalent cost when lots are developed and annexed into the City, There was further discussion regarding extra capacity and in the system and a contention that properties currently being assessed ought to be reimbursed when future properties come into the system. Mr. Lyle responded that the treatment plant was for the urban growth boundary and was prudent given the metropolitan area. The MwMC and sewer trunk levy charge are based on what local property owners have paid. Mr. Martin also noted that every property wild pay its share for the larger sizing to accommodate the total area. Mr, Lyle again stated that he thinks the Portland figures are higher than the projects conducted in Eugene, The Hearings official also received a map from City Staff identifying certain properties which were the subject of individual consideration. The Hearings official stated that the official records will remain open for written comment until 5:00 P. M. , on February 26,1991. There being no further testimony to come before the hearing, it was adjourned. Because of questions raised concerning several specific properties, either in written comments, or during the public hearing, the Hearings official personally viewed the following properties: 1. Sam Konnie. The Konnie property is a small shopping center on the east side of River Road. In the Summer of 1990, the River Road widening project took a portion of the Konnie parking area for the shopping center. Property was purchased immediately to the north to provide additional parking for the shopping center. Mr. Konnie testified at the public hearin g and 1t appears that structures were removed and the parking area, patched. tither than si na e . gg for the shopping center, there are no structures on the parking area at this time, 2. River Road Ba tist Church. This situation is quite similar to the Konnie Shoppin Center g matter. There are no structures on the parking area at the present time. 3. Steve and Roberta Thom son Pro e . It appears that two separate homes are constructed on the same lot. Given the nature of this development, it would appear that it occurred man .. y years ago, probably before any zoning or m~n~mum lot size requirements were in place In the County. As noted above, Mr. Thompson testified at the public hearing that there are a number of other similar situations in the area, which have not been required to have double connections from the sewer. Michelle Cahill has conf rmed for the Hearings official that Mr, Thom son's . P ~nformat~on ~s correct. Page 9 Minutes 4. Charlie Newberry. The property in question is immediately behind Mr. Newberry's home. It has no access to the street. The lot contains a pump house and garden shed and a large garage-type building. This property appears to be very thoroughly integrated with the balance of Mr. Newberry's property. 5. Shine R~ ae Bo,~d. This small lot is immediately adjacent and thoroughly integrated into the balance of Ms. Boyd's property. The two properties are surrounded by a single fence and the landscaping is completely unbroken. In the absence of other information, this appears to be only one property. 6. Tom and Carol Zorn. This is a large property which panhandles onto Park Drive. This property does appear to be easily developed in the future. 7. Alice Philli sand Lauderdale. These properties front on Bushnell. Both have single- family dwellings. Both properties abut a cul-de-sac bulb for Berwin, which is immediately behind these properties. The Hearings ~ff~cial has been advised by Michelle Cahill of City Staff that these properties are approximately 20o-feet deep. Both were previously assessed to the depth of I60-feet when sewers were installed on Bushnell. A lateral sewer has been installed on Kerwin and access to the rear of these properties could be taken from the end of that lateral sewer. Upon further inquiry from the Hearings ~ff~cial, Michelle Cahill has advised that there is sufficient area within each of these two lots far further development. Respectfully submitted, f~ . Jack A. Billings Hearings ~ff~cial FINDINGS AND RECD ATIaNS SUBJECT: BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS IN THE RIVER RUAD AREA L(ICAL IlVIPRC~VENIENT DISTRICT BACKGR[IUND Dn May 29,1990 City Council initiated the local improvement district for sanitary sewers in the River Road area for basins A, B and C. This district encompasses those parcels served by the sanitary sewer construction in 1990 in the River Road area. The majority of the properties taking sewer access from these facilities will be assessed based on a distribution of the cumulative construction and staff service costs for the three basins and far the sanitary sewer trunk levy of $0.425 per square foot of the total. lot area. In Ordinance No. 19725 adopted October 22,1990} the council determined the Trunk Sewer Levy x$0.025 per sq. ft. }portion of sanitary sewer assessments in River Road area is to be used to reimburse the City for the cost of the extra capacity required in the sewer interceptor and lateral lines to serve properties within the River Road area, That determination applies to these assessments. Some of the properties in basin A are served by sewers constructed under a Lane County construction contract. The assessment for these properties is based on the eight-inch equivalent assessment method unit costs are identical to the 1990 basin assessment unit costs} as per EC 7.055. Prior to the hearing regarding the initiation of the local improvement district on May 29, 1990 property awners who will bear the costs were notified on May 4, well in advance of the minimum 10-days' notice stipulated in the code. Additionally, on May 21, a newsletter was sent out to all River Road property owners and residents which provided information on the estimated assessment costs. Four properties were added to the district by their owners signing a waiver of notification rights. The properties were included after staff field investigation determined that providing service with this year's construction was logical and cost effective, These properties and their owners are: 17-04-23-42-6601 Robert and Carol Dick 17-04-23-44-3900 Michael and Leslie Boggs 17-04-23-42-6100 Gale and Maxine Piquet 17-04-14-24-43x0 Derek Swezey The sanitary sewers are projects constructed under three separate City contracts; 1}Basin A, 90- 09; 2} Basin B, 90-10; and 3} Basin C, 90-11. The previously mentioned segment within River Page 2 Findings & Recommendations Road roadway was under a Lane County contract for the widening of River Road. ASSESSMENTS CALCULATIQNS The cost to construct the sewers under the three contracts administered by the city for Basins A, B and C was $4,962,945.46. This is itemized below: 1. Payment to contractors totaled $3, 716, ~ 14.13. 2. Professional staff charges of $547, 345. ~~ 1 which includes $784, 792.78 of actual charges through December 1990 and an estimate of $22,552.22 of Staff charges from.lanuary through completion of the project including the final assessment and as-construct documentation. 3. Preconstructian video documentation of properties costs of $21,549.96. 4. Aerial Photo development to include aerials view of the project to include in the drawings for contractors to bid on the project cost $3, 271, 75. 5. Informational signs placed during construction cost $900. 6. Geotechnical exploration tv determine underground conditions for bidders cast $6,785.40. 7, outside Engineering Consultant work was $11, 625 and allowed independent review of the bids, and estimates of the work. 8. Field testing to conf rm construction was in accordance with specifications cost $24, 769.00, 9. The 5 % Administration fee pays for Finance division expenses including the certified notifications of proposed assessments, information about financing programs and staff time to determine eligibility of individuals for the five deferral programs, process financing agreements, establish payments, bill final assessments and monitor the payments of the assessments over the course of the bond period. For this assessment, $161, 307.39 was Included in the assessment calculation. Page 3 Findings & Recommendations 10. Short term financing to pay for project charges mentioned above cost $138,298.00. 11. Legal fees to address suits brought against the city relating to the construction project totaling $41,643.50. This litigation affected the sanitary sewer projects to be constructed in all eight basins in the River Road area. Three of these basins are involved in these assessments, Therefore three-eights of that cost of $15, 616.31 is included in the assessment calculations for this year. Future year assessments in River Road will include the remainder of the charges. 12. Additional costs to obtain short-term financing far the 1990 construction were $55, 463.52. These costs were a result of a Bond Anticipation Note sale which failed due to legal questions raised in a lawsuit. The circuit court ruled in the City's favor on all issues and no appeal has been taken. The total cost of $4, 962, 945.46 includes all the above costs. A pardon of the total cost includes $610,471.90 of street repair costs which the City anticipates will be paid by Lane County and have not been included within the assessment distribution, A segment of the system in basin "A" was greater than eight-inches in diameter; the City will pay the incremental cost over the eight-inch diameter. The remainder of the costs were divided into the lateral and service line portions of the assessment and spread among all properties or portions of properties in the basins which have not previously been assessed. All developed properties within the boundaries of the local improvement district that have not previously paid for the sewers will be assessed. Vacant properties outside the city will not be assessed but were included in the unit cost calculations. The city will carry these costs in anticipation of future collection through the eight-inch equivalent process.} Vacant properties annexed and within the city limits, ar anticipated to be within the City by March 4 will be assessed. The determination of vacant properties has resulted in some controversy which is addressed in a later section. In addition to the vacant properties not being included in the LID's there are two features within the LID boundaries that were not included in the assessable area for calculating unit costs or assessments: 1} area covered by the existing ponds near Park Avenue and Park Terrace; 2~ property encumbered by developed drainage facilities within existing dedicated easements, The primary reason for these exceptions is that the land cannot be used far any other purpose ar developed further due to these physical encumbrances. Page 4 Findings & Recommendations CURRENT ISSUES -Vacant Properties Current issues included the definition of vacant lots. At the time of the formation of the district "vacant lots" were defined as lots with no plumbing f xtures, Vacant lots were excluded in the local improvement district by this definition "in order to avoid the premature development of vacant property in the River Road area" . Dwners of all lots regardless of the vacant or developed status were notified of the formation of the district. Throughout the life of the project staff noticed situations that did not support the intent for exclusion. For the purposes of identifying developed properties which would be assessed under this local Improvement district, staff has used the following criteria: A. Existence of a plumbing fixture on the property, or B. Existence of an improvement value listed as part of the assessed value as determined by the Lane County tax assessor, or C. The site when observed by the casual observer appears to be fully developed in conjunction with an adjacent developed lot and is owned by the owner of the adjacent lot, or D. The property is not buildable without a variance under the current code which identifies minimum lot size X4,500 square feet in residential districts and frontage t50 feet} and Is owned by the owner of an adjacent lot, or E. The lot has improvements on it deg. parking lot} such that an adjacent lost owned by the same person~s~ is usable only If the lot remains developed has a parking lot}. 1. A specific example of the last criterion ~E} is property located on the corner of flakleigh and River Road, owned by Sam Konnie, Tax lots 17-04-24-24-6600 and 6700 are adjacent to the small shopping center on tax lot 6900. Mr. Konnie has paved lots 6600 and 6700 to provide parking for lot 6900. Without the parking area the shopping center would not have adequate parking. An extenuating circumstance for Mr. Konnie is that with the widening of River Road he lost parking used far lot 6900 and so he built the parking on the adjacent lots, He contends that lots 6600 and 6700 should be treated as vacant because they have no plumbing f xture. Mr. Konnie attended the public hearing and testified as is set forth above. The Hearings official has also reviewed this property and finds that this site has been developed in conjunction with the adjacent developed property. Therefore, it could be assessed at this time. However, it also appears that the acquisition of these lots was made necessary by the widenin ro'ect. gp J Page 5 Findings & Recommendations Therefore, Hearings official recommends that Mr. Konnie be provided the option of signing a statement acknowledging further assessment of Lets X600 and b700 if the shopping center use is changed ar the parking lots are further developed. The Hearings Ufficial is advised that Mr. Konnie is agreeable to this approach. 2. Another example of a parking lot that staff proposes be treated as developed is lot 17-04- 24-21-7300. This lot is adjacent to a church building and is utilized by the River Road Baptist Church as a parking lot. Without the lot the church would not have adequate parking to meet code requirements. The church has not indicated disagreement with staff approach of levying the assessment at this time. However, the circumstances of the church parking lot are essentially the same as the Konnie property. Therefore, if the church desired to sign a similar agreement, that would be the recommendation of the Hearings Ufficial. 3. Shirley Rae Boyd owns tax Iot 17-04023-42-2801 adjacent to her home at 1315 Sunnyside Drive. Lot 2801 is fenced with the lot Ms. Boyd's house sits on ~TL2800} and is landscaped with a pond and well established plants. Ms. Boyd contends that lot 2801 is a separate vacant lot and should not be assessed at this time, The lot is too small to be developed without a variance and city planning staff cannot find a record indicating the lot was created through a legal process and therefore would not grant a variance. Ms, Boyd recently worked with the assessor's office so that 2801 and 2800 would be treated as one unit and the assessed value of 2801 would be lowered. Staff recommends lot 2801 be assessed at the present time. After viewing the Boyd property, the Hearings official agrees with the staff recommendation. This really is only one property and should be assessed as such. There is no other way this property could be developed and its landscaping and integration with the other property are complete. 4. Charlie Newberry owns lot 17-04-23-1200 Account 370}. This lot is behind lot 1100 where Mr. Newberry's home is located at 1250 Elkay Drive. The lot contains a pump house and garden shed. and a large garage type building. The assessed value for these improvements is $5100. Mr. Newberry says none of the improvements have plumbing fixtures and the land use will never change as long as he uses it and requests that the assessment be dropped. Staff recommends that the assessment be levied as it fits that criteria of having an improvement value, that the chances of the land being further developed and assessed for sewer are small and the City should not carry the cost for the sewer. The Newberry property is quite similar to the Boyd property, in that the properties appear to be essentially integrated. There is no access from the second property to the street. Because of its use by Mr. Newberry, it appears as all one property. The Hearings Official recommends that this lot be included within the assessment calculations. Page ~ Findings & Recommendations CURRENT ISSUES -Other 1. Tax lot 17-04-24-23-7200, owned by Steve and Roberta Thompson and Clyde B. & Beulah M. Webber has two separate dwelling units. Early in the project, staff indicated to the Thompsons that two service connection points would be installed so that the Thompsons could construct separate services to each building as is required by the current plumbing code and the Council of American Building Officials ~CABO} code. A "wye" was provided to their property and the proposed assessment includes two service line charges as per EC 7.175.5~b}. Mr. Thompson testified at the public hearing. He has also submitted additional information which is part of the attachments to these Findings and Recommendations. As noted in the Minutes, Mr. Thompsan's assertion about other, similar properties not having two sewer connections is correct. It is the recommendation of the Hearings Official that the Thompson property be assessed far only one service line. where it is now known to the City that some properties with two structures had only one connection, it is inappropriate to charge Mr. Thompson for two such connections. 2. Two properties adjacent to the existing sewer which was assessed last October are also adjacent to sewers built in 1990 along the back portion of their properties. Both Larry Lauderdale X17-04-14-32-700} and Alice Phillips (17-04-14-32-200} have expressed their opposition to the fact that they are now being assessed additional lateral costs for property that is within the 1G0 feet lateral area of the new construction but was beyond the 160 foot area for the existing sewer previously assessed. As Hated in the Minutes, the Lauderdale and Phillips properties face Bushnell. In response to inquiry from the Hearings Official, Michelle Cahill has reviewed the circumstances of these properties with other city officials. It appears that these properties are large enough that each could be subdivided, with access onto the Berwin cul-de- sac. Therefore, the Hearings Official recommends that these properties be assessed. 3. The Metropolitan Waste management Commission ~'.[WMC}Fee which is discussed later in this report is of concern to some property owners. This fee is Hat a portion of the assessment computation but we are using the assessment notification and collection process tv collect the fee for the MWMC. 4. One other item considered in the calculation of assessments was the proportion of the total lot to the levy area. In a few instances the lateral area and the levy area are the same because the size of the whole lot indicates it could be further developed and the remainder of the levy due charged at that time. Carol Zorn owns a panhandle lot on North Park X17-04-23-23-4101} which fits this criteria, Tom Zorn has indicated that lot 4101 would be joined with others for further development in the future. Even if this was not the case the Page 7 Findings & Recommendations 72,791 square foot lot could be developed beyond the current use of a single family dwelling and horse pasture. Staff did not include lot 4101 in the group where levy and lateral area were the same. After additional review Staff recommends the levy area be lowered to match the lateral area and the assessment be lowered accordingly. As noted in the Minutes, the Hearings Cfficial has viewed this property. Based upon its configuration and current development, the Hearings Official agrees with the staff recommendation. 5. Some people have misunderstood the Staff explanation that sharing a public service line ~i. e. a wye" placed at a property line so that two properties share the public service line} "will reduce your costs somewhat" . Service line costs are reduced project wide since fewer service lines are required overall but there is not a direct benefit to properties which share the "wye" . Cost distribution is based an EC 7.175 whereby we sum all the costs associated with constructing the services and divide by the number of connection points to compute a cost per connection point, commonly called the service. b. The Hearings official also received a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Don Kuehling, commenting that their assessment seemed too high. It appears that this property has been assessed in conformance with City Code, CURRENT ISSUES - MWMC fee In addition to the standard assessment costs the City is using this process to collect the Metropolitan V~astewater Management Commission ~I~WMC} treatment plant reimbursement fee. The fee is a "buy-in" ar equalization charge designed to bring the contribution of newly connected and newly developed properties to approximately the level paid over the past 12 years by city property owners. Property owners in the cites of Eugene and Springfield have been paying a property tax since 1978 to repay bonds which were sold to raise local funds necessary to build the treatment plant facilities. Dn January 14, 1991, the City Council adopted an ordinance which allowed for the collection of the fee at the following rates. The fee is $212 for a single family dwelling or duplex or for the first 16 fixture units in a new development, The $212 includes $202 base rate plus a $10 administrative fee, all of which goes directly to MWMC. The city has included this charge in the assessments so that people will be able to f nonce that cost with their assessment if they so desire. No additional administration fee is collected by the city. For properties other than the single-family dwelling or duplex, the base fee of $202 was multiplied by the number of equivalent dwelling units ~EDU's} . An EDU is equivalent to 6,000 gallons of water. For these properties the water usage is based on historical monthly average water usage obtained through EWEB records. Page S Findings & Recommendations UNIT CASTS AND ESTIMATES The proposed assessment costs were calculated using the fallowing figures: Sanitary Sewer lateral: Sanitary sewer service: Sewer Trunk Levy: MWMC fee: $0.301square foot of area wlin 160' $727.86/each $ 0.025/square foot of total lot azea $2121single family dwelling unit Prior to the opening of the bids for the 1990 sewer construction in River Road and the adoption of an agreement with Lane County to pay for road work, estimated assessments were based on the following; Sanitary sewer lateral: Sanitary sewer service: Sewer Trunk Levy: MWMC fee: $ 0.391square foot of area wlin 160' $10601each service available $ 0.025/square foot of total lot $ 0.04/square foot of total lot Once the bids were opened and there were indications that street repair costs would be paid b . Y Lane County, estimates were given which were based an the following costs: Sanitary sewer lateral: $ 0.301square foot of area wlin 160' Sanitary sewer service: $ 7501each Trunk Sewer Levy: $ 0.025/square foot of lot The MWMC fee was not established until January 14, 1991. The period between bid openin . g and late fall the fee proposal was being studied and a disclaimer made on the estimates indicated that the estimates did not include the fee. For an average 9200 square foot lot the fee would have been $368 using the $0.04 per square foot estimate. The $212 final. fee adopted in Janu is . ~'Y $156 less than estimated. Page 9 Findings & Recommendations FINANCING All properties to be assessed will be eligible for 10-year assessment financing. Law income deferral programs are also available for those property owners that qualify. Qualification will be determined. at the time the financing application is signed, STAFF RECOMMENDATIGN The assessment costs are approximately equal to the estimates given since the bids were opened and the participation of Lane County was identified; the MWMC fee is less. Staff recommends approval of the proposed calculation of equivalency of the cost of an eight-inch sewer (for the sewer constructed by Lane County} and proposed calculation of the price per unit for the sanitary sewer lateral and service lines. Staff also recommends approval of the calculation of proposed assessments on each parcel of land or lot as set forth on Attachment "A" hereto except for a reduction in the levy amount charged to the Zorn property at 17-04-23-24-4101. Approval of the assessments shown on Attachment "A" will incorporate Hearings Gff~cial's recommendation on the issues discussed above concerning vacant lots, services and the MWMC fee. FINDINGS AND REC4MMENDATI4N GF THE HEARINGS GFFICIAL In preparation for the public hearing held an February 1$,1991, the Hearings Gfficial received considerable information from the City, including a Staff Memorandum which contained much of the information set forth above. Accompanying the Staff Memorandum were a number of attachments, including comments from various property owners. Additional information was received by City Staff ar the Hearings Gfficial following the public hearing and before the close of testimony on February 2,1991 at 5:00 P.M, In response to questions posed by the Hearings Gff~cial, City Staff has provided further information. The letters of property owners and further remarks of staff are attached. A listing is provided as Attachment "B" . As noted, there have been a few circumstances in which the determination of the Hearings Ufficial and recommendation to the City Council is different than originally proposed by City Staff. If adopted by the City Council, the proposed assessments for several properties will need to be re-calculated. The Hearings Gfficial has been advised by staff that Exhibit "A" contains those adjustments. However, the assessments for all the rest of the properties would remain the same. It is the finding of the Hearings Gff~cial that the assessment process proposed and developed by City Staff is consistent with the Eugene City Cade and fairly and appropriately assesses properties in the three improvement districts for the sanitary sewers. Page ~~ Findings & Recommendations Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Hearings official that the City Council adopt an ordinance in conformance with the recommenda~ons contained herein and levy assessments against the benefitting properties accordingly, Respectfully submitted, ~~f/4t~f~'" ~~w~~u'~'YJ Jack A. Billings Hearings Official ATTAC i "B" 1. Letter from Charlie and Nellie Newberry dated February 11,1991. 2. Letters from Steve and Roberta Thompson dated February 5, February 13, and February 25,1991. 3. Letter from Alice Bradford Phillips dated December 29,1990. 4. Letter from Jack Stutz dated February 12,1991, with attachment. 5. Letter from Donald L. Moninger, received February 13,1991, with attachment. 6. Letter from Gerald Betts, dated February 14,1991. 7. Letter from John Morrison, dated February 19,1991. 6. Memorandum from Michelle Cahill, dated February 27,1991, addressing various issues raised by persons at the public hearing and responding to the letter of John Morrison. 7. Letter from Don & Joanne Kuehling, dated February 25,1991. ATTACHMENT "B" -Page 1 of 1 ~a~T~ qDl aa~- O3 ~~7 -------- - ~ Z.SU ~ 1 lcc~. .~_r-... . -~ ~ ~~ 4 ~ I _...~...~~~'..~r Wit? .,,~. ~ S~ ~ ~ ~'~ c~ C] Gam, ~, f 1 3 ---~. ~- _... _. .. ...~.a .~G~_.... ._._.. '~ ~ t' b~ .._. ~-- .__.. .__.~ ~~S_____ .._.__...~ ~ ~ ~^. - _.._._.._._. ~.._-_ .......... .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~._.._ ._.` _.. .... ___ ...~. ._. ................ ...____.~. 3 /~ ~ r/ ~ _ ~~ ...........__ .. E -- - - -------~~--`~ -,-i --`~ ~-~ - -. --- r-c.~; Q _ .._ -- - _ -- ---- .. --- ufpT . OF-Ply .. ----- CI RI ~r . ~ TY ~' R February 5 , 19 9 l To : City o f Eugene From: Steve and Roberta Thompson 4 6 81 Fuller dive . Eugene, aR 97442 Re: River Road Sewer Project Property - 15 3 Elkay Dr. ~~ We would 1~ike to get the .facts down on paper concerning the sewer service to 153 Elkay Dr. ~1e would 1 ike to sta ~e, too, that each time we communicate with your office we are gi~len a dif ferent reason as to why 2 service lines are needed . A brief sequence of events will show our perspective: - June 11 ~ S eve attended an information meeting at North Eugene High . A man representing the city stated in writing that our property ~rould require 2 service lines and gave a rough estimate of the costs. - We were sent a form requesting our preference of placement of tie access ~ i ne . We returned the f orrn showing ~he 1 i ne to be on the east side. - A woman came by and began marking the service access on the west side. Steve spoke with her and corrected the error. She remarked ~he access and proceeded to talk with Steve about the hook up. She stated that it would be necessary to run 2 lines since there are two houses on the property . During the summer, we contacted Eric Jones several times by phone. He first cited the rule which says hat twv dwellings not connected by one roof must have separate service lines . Steve argued that to him this was not a valid reason for the extra charge. - Steve went down to the office to talk with Eric in person. They talked at length and this time Eric brought up the subdividing issue. Sieve told him that we bought it wi~h the understanding that it could never be subdivided. Eric did not offer to research his or tell us where to find out . Steve wanted further explanation and Eric said he would get back to him. - Eric never d~.d contact us . Steve went down again . Basically tie same conversation resulted with Steve requesting to see his si~pe.rvisor. Er?e said that it would benefi. ~ Steve more to just go to the February 1~ meeting and that Michelle would be there to give a better explanation. - Roberta contacted the office and talked to i~ichel le the week of January 28th. The issue of wrether the property could be sub- divided was discussed. ~~ichelle would research it and get back to us. ~- Roberta contacted Michelle again February 5 rh . She stated that noW the issue is who requester the Y at the service line. She will discuss the matter with rer supervisor. We would like it to be understaoa that in the beginning we were ignorant of ~he ordinances and guidelines held by the city. We knew nothing abau~ sewers and therefore were not in a position to insist that we have 2 service lines . Rather, ire were told, both verbally and in writing, that this was the required procedure. It is not even logi.ca~l to think that we ~~oLld want or request 2 sewer hook ups. we were told from the beginning that we Mould be charged for 2. Why would we have asked to be charged and extra X750? Far us this is a large amount of money and trot is ~rhy we have pursued the matter. The fault lies with the assumption that since ~he lot contains 2 whouses, then 2 service lines ~ are required. No research was done initially as to the ability to subdivide. Na one identified this as being the real issue. It wasn't until We pressed the matter further and finally ~alked ~~ith Michelle that we discovered that two service lines are nog necessary. We do not feel that the city has "complied with the Municipal code" concerning the written directives issued for our property's sewer access , we realize that the city is in the first phase of the hook up process and that disputes of this nature are bound to arise. We hope that as this matter is settled, it will serve to identify lots with potential problem areas and allow for smoother transitions. Depending upon Michelle's decision on the 6th of February, we wil l appear before the hearing official on the 18th to testify on our outn behalf . Thank you for your time and consideration . Sincerely, `~ c~y,,~ s d ~_ Steve and Roberta. Thompson ~EC~~ii'~.~ G[[; 14. 1~J1 ~~~ ~~" wuu,~tVr February 13 , 1991 To: Hearing official -City of Eugene From: Ste~~e Thompson Re: River Road Sewer Project 153 Elkay Drive After much discussion and research with the sewer prof ect com- mittee, it was decided that the real reason ~ had to have two service lines, was to meet state plumbing code requirements . In a telephone conversation with Gary Keeble, I learned of a plumb- ing code dating back to the early 1950's which states that where two homes are located on one tax lot , separa ~e service lines must connect them with the rnair. sewer line. Although I feel that the plumbing code is outdated, due to more modern plumbing materials and ractices, I felt that I had finally been given a P reason as ~o the city's requirements . ~~ Since my discuss ion with Gary, I have observed other properties which have two homes on one lo~~. ~t appears ~ however, that they have only one service line connecting them to the sewer. This would be a violation of the plumbing code and would show an inconsistent application of the code by the city. The code should be enforced on all properties or not enforced at all. I would like to know the status of other properties with two homes before I am assessed the extra S75o charge for two service lines to my lot. I apprecia~e your fair consideration and the time taken to review my case. Thank you . Sincerely, Steve Thompson February 2 5 , 19 9l Dear Mr . B i 11 i ngs , we left the hearing on tre 18th of February feeling that the real issue of whether two service lines are needed was not throughly discussed. Unfortunately, the issue of similar surrounding properties took precedence. I'd like to back up and take a look at the city's reasoning again . Les, Lyle .responGed to Steve by saying that ,the city long ago decided that every dwelling ~~ould be charged for a service line. I have to believe that this was not very well trought out. They say it was to equalize ~he disbursement of cost to all affected by the project . But duplexes are not charged a double fee. How is our lot different than a duplex? I n regards to the similar properties , ~~e certainly don' t wish to increase anyone else's costs. We only wanted to bring to light a potential inequal.tty. we feel that this issue of two houses on one lot was over- looked in the planning of the sewer project, We can understand hoW that could happen, given the complexity and size of the work to be done . However, might we be akin to the proverbial guinea pig in the initial stages of this sewer "experiment?" Michelle Cahill recently said over the phone, in response to my question of what the next course of action would be, "We'll make sure that these situations aren't overlooked. " ; my interpretation~~ We don't feel that we should rave to absorb the cast of the city's oversights , we just want our assessment to be a fair one. one that has some logic and reason behind it. Having just spoken with Michelle aver she phone, it seems that now ~he issue is whether to establish new warding in the service line guidelines. Z realize that a precedent will be set with this case. My question is why, in our specific situation, where the lot cannot be divided, couldn't the property owner install his own Y . This would save money for everyone, including the ci~ The functionability of the service wouldn't be changed and the ~;~ owner of Mhe proper would be able to deal with an noble ~ tY y p ms between the two dwellings. Tn closing I would like to take the liberty to let our situation be known. According to some of the deferral information sheets , we sit ,around the poverty level financially . My husbanc makes ~ 11 ~a a month. and I am a homemaker raising our two children . Before my Grandfather died, he sold us the property at 153 Elkay Drive with the agreement that my Grandmother live there until she died . ~ My mother lives ir. the other house . Needless to say we lose money every month on the property, but we are bound by our agreement and want to do all we can to ::ake care of our "Grandma's." This sewer assessment is going to take a heavy toll on our ability to do that . We do not quality for any deferrals, since we do not reside there, and wouldn't want a lien to j eopordize our their living situations any~~ay . We will be taking all of our savings of X3800 to pay towards the assessment leaving us with $lODO to finance at B . 5 a . Frankly I don't knout haw we're going to manage that on a monthly basis. ~' m not complaining about our life's circumstances, I simply wanted to clari~y that we aren't big property owners who can just raise the rent on our tenants to cover the sewer costs . My mother has an income of $30D a month and my Grandmother odes us nothing for liv~.ng there . I don't kno~~r how one qualifies for the hardship clause that Miohel le Mentioned at the hearing -maybe we shoul~3 apply . I oniy hope that .now you understand why we are f igh~t~ ng so hard against something we believe is not fair. We would be happy to speak with you further. We appreciate your time and hope that you can help us. Sincerely, Steve and Roberta Thompson ~Q.~~. 29, i99a {~..e~ .~~'-ate ~ -~-- ~ 3 7 s~'',~<~~~~~-ems . ..-f/Y~i ~ ~(~L~-Gf~-G.rri. ~j(/-~i ~~.'~CL~- Ali i~`° G~""/`~~` 0 tiU~ ;- ~,,~ ~~ .~~~~~' ` a~ac~ 2~ assn ~~ O~~ . „~& DEPT.OFPUBLIG rtu~a~~ e~A/'"Q CITY OFEU6ENE 1" ~j ~ Lr~/- ~~U ~~ • ~ ~ "` T~ •W~' i7 ~'8b. ~ 2 f 199 !/r ~!Y a: ~~ - ": r~~, ~. ry~,o, ~ Jack Stutz ~~PT ~ flF ~~~ X81 Bushnell Ln, CITY u- ...~' Eugene, OR. 97~~~ City Engineer Dept Cf Public Works $58 Pearl St. Eugene, or. 97~0~ r'~aclosed is a copy of the letter that your dept, sent to me dated ~'ch ~~: ~99Q and underlined is a sentence that states 'Sharing public service lines will reduce your costs somewhat'. Naw when I contact your dept. I am told that the service is~~727.$6 if it is shared or not. It is higY~ly possible that I would have picked different locations for 3 of my properties if I had Y~nown that the charges for the service would have been the same, I believe that the charges should be adjusted for those propert~.es that shared the public service line as the letter stated, Sincerely Jack Stutz Public Works Engineering City a~ Eugene 858 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon 9744# ~503~ fi87 529 # ' March ~1, X994 SUBJECT: River Road Area Sanitar Sewer Line Installation Pro'ect #514 Dear Property Owner: The Eu ene Public Works Department is currently designing the sanitary sewer 9 tem ad'acent to our ro erty in the River Road area, and has scheduled the sys ~ y P P anstruction to be in this summer. We would Tike your help in locating the c 9 public service line stub at your property. Each ro ert will be assessed far a share of the cost of constructing the P •p y• service line. The ublic sewers lnclud~ng the cost of at least one public . P service line is the 6-inch sewer extending from the lateral sewer in the street to our ro erty line see attached diagram}. A single family Y P P residence enerall has one service line. A large lot, which may be parti- g y Additional. service lines tinned later, may need mare than one service line. ma be re uested• ro erty owners are assessed for each service line available Y q s P P to them. ' a ubl is service 1 i ne i fit i s installed near a Adjacent prapert~es can share p .common lot l ine.:_5harin u 1' a 'ce 'nes ill r d our costs some- °~what. Frorn the ublic service line each property must be served separately ~" • • P • he i es can share a common with an ~nd~v~dual private service line. However t p p ditch which may result in additional savings to you. us to cvm fete the en ineerin design, we need you to show us where you For p 9 9 . would refer your public service line stub installed. Attached ~s a drawing P of your parcel with the lateral sewer line shown in the street. Please mark on the drawing your preferred location far each service line that you want to connect to your property. Indicate the distance din feet} of the service lines from your property line, and mark the location and distance of nearby trees, shrubs, driveways, or other objects from the line. If you live on a corner lot and a sewer line is planned for both streets, you may run your service line from either street. Please com fete the lan sheet and return to us within IO da s. We will make ever effort to locate the service line where you wish. However, to place the Y line in a location that best meets your needs and minimizes the impacts to our ro erty, we must have the signed sheet. If we do not receive the sheet, Y P P we will locate your service line in the place we think is most lag~cal. ~ached6,~~t1~ ~e~-u ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ "r'X ~. f•~'~i'~ i a ~ ~~''~~ M' Y1 n ~a ~i6.fl M r.J WlG t~,.a.naJt+ . 1~ri.+~.teR~ V v~~Y~ a ~ a. ~r 1 c ~t. D,.,~.1. -:~„~ ~~ ~ ~ - C... J ~~ ~~ ~. r '--'-? .. ' ~' ~z - Vh~„5w P.I .~ !~ I1 t 2 5 c + ' c c • ~ J .~ ~~ 5 ,~ ~,~ ~~ ~ ~S o 7 ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ '~ . ~..~~ i f _~ r'16~~y~~ P~ • ' i p4 ~ a~ i m ~ a ~ b v ~ pZ Ka o o Z~~ F ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ m ' ~ N X p ~ a , • ~~ Q W XS ~ ~ N ' a ?~ a~ m K~ e a e ~ O ~ A ~ i (] 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ G v Z .~+ O ~ G 1 ;1m ~~ Ap 9 0 m ~~ ~~° Q q m ~ o `~ b ~ m i~ a ~ m~ ~ y ~" ~ a r m o°~ Cin~ -~ NLA~y~,' $~ ~ , p ~ y N p q 4~a~ N ~Li n f~ o.~ ~ ~ 9 • ~ ~ ~~p4+ ~~Qy~ ~i ~~ . ~~~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~ ~~~ ~~ . ~~ ~ ~ C ~ ,N ~~ ~ ~ Q O ~Y a~~ r p V ~ ~ ~i .~ ~ L • ~ ~ ~ Y .. 1 .~ > > ~ ~'. ~ ~ 3 -..t o ~ r s ~ o : mo o •.~ n n m c~ ' c :.~ri}~~}~ :`~r~~~\'~~~.~~+cf.,Z~~2~i~lr•~jy,!.•{tii~.1n~MM[•.'4i~..'a{~~ii;.~~4r ~•+~ ~ }~ ~ ~ ...F~ ~ !"~ 0 ~ ~•l~.' ~ ~~~•. ~ .~',• © o Q C~ o "n ~ W o -w W~ ~p •~•« C W? ~-+ N ~~'~ ~~ vN N ~ ~ iD = CO V3 ID ~ N ~ . G7 m ~r H ~ W ~ •p N [7 ~ m N•U] 0..... .~ as ~ C = ,~.}~ ~ C w ~ sv rn ~ W w. ~ ~ N Q: N or* ~={p p o ~ ' ~ ~ N N ~„~ ~ ~ -s o (b s ~ N r`T7 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q W Qf ~~ o (D ~~ , c m' m' °~ Q ca ~ c~ W r+~ a ,..: 7r ~' n n ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o H oom ~ Nn m N ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ -~.o ~' w ~ N o tU ~ N ~' > >~ N = ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ n. ~ ~ A n' ~ ~ w ~ q ..~. Man,~e~ Q3 February 14, 1991 Mr. Les Lyle, City Engineer City of Eugene 858 Pearl St, Eugene, 4R 974Q4 RECEIVED EEB_ i14719~]! DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS CIiYOFEUG6dE Re: Proposed sewer assessment -- Niap #1704151000904 Dear Mr. Lyle: Far the record, as I have commented previously I believe the method of apportioning costs,.associated with sewers is unfair. The sewer is a service and as such is as valuable to my family as it is to a neighbor on a lot with either less or more square footage. While my lot is relatively large, fortunately it is narrow. The proposed assessment for my lot at $6,446.76 is less than a neighbor who has less square footage, but more frontage within 160' of the sewer service. In either event, the proposed assessment is too high and unfair. I would like some clarification on the assessment process; I assume the expenses associated with the installation of the sewers in River Road Basins. A, B, and C„contractors costs, City of Eugene engineering, and other overhead casts3 will be apportioned based on same formula, with the result being each owner of developed property receiving a Notice of Proposed Assessment, as I have. Is it correct to assume that the total cost of the improvements will be borne by the owners of developed property who are presently being assessed? It is my understanding that undeveloped properties are not being assessed at this time; that they will be assessed when they are developed. How does the assessment formula allow for the city to accurately recover the costs for sewers when you are not assessing all of the properties, just the developed properties? If the developed properties are being assessed all of the costs, then the city will receive a windfall as each undeveloped parcel is improved. Mr. Terry Smith said one of the reasons assessments are based on square footage is 'so the sewer costs for the lot are paid...if future development occurs on my already developed} lot, the sewers services required will have been paid for.' If this is true, why are the undeveloped lots not being assessed now? when an unassessed lot is developed, haw will the costs be assessed? I would appreciate a response to my questions. Thank you. Sincerely, ~'~C ~~~" _ "_ Gerald Betts 535 Bushnell Lane Eugene, OR 9740.4 February 19, 1991 Mr. Tack Billings, Hearings Official 767 Willamette Street Suite 208 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Re: February 18, 1991 hearing River Road sewer assessments Dear Mr. Billings, In order to clarify the point I was attempting to make at last nights hearing, I would like to submit the following comments: Let's consider this 20 acre parcel of undeveloped land on N. Park that I mentioned as a potential 100 lot subdivision. Let's call it 'Parcel A'. On the opposite side of N. Park is another 20 acres. This one is already fully developed and consists of 100 single family homes. Let's call this 'Parcel B'. Let's say my home is located fn 'Parcel B' on a fairly typical 70' X 110' foot lot. The most recent estimate of my assessment is $2,376.08. If each of my neighbors in 'Parcel 8' each pay the same, we will contribute $237,608.40 towards the cost of sewering the River Road area. I have talked with the city a number of times and have not been able to nail down exactly what portion of the cost of sewering the area 'Parcel A' X17-04-14-32-~03800~ will pay but the figures I have received range from roughly $9,947.82 roughly what 3 lots or 1/2 acre would pays tv $23,760. roughly what the 10 lots lots on the parimiter would pay3. Beyond this figure the developer will only pay to bring the sewer in from N. Park to each lot. These other 90 to 97 lots will never contribute to the cost of trunk lines, engineering fees, legal costs, charges for staff time and the other related costs of sewering the River Road area as those of us in 'Parcel B' have. This is grossly unfair because it's 'Parcel A' that the city wants to get the sewer to in the first place and it violates the laws regarding equal distribution of taxes. The city's motives appear to be obvious. Reducing the cost of annexing and severing these undeveloped parcels will cause it happen quicker. As it happens parcels in between can be forced to annex and the city's goal of annexing all of River Road and Santa Clara will be hastened. Please let me know if any Clarification is necessary. Respectfully submitted. John Morriso MEMORANDUM February 18, 1991 T0: Hearings Official FROM: Les Lyle, City Engineer SUBJECT: BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS IN THE RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BACKGROUND On May 29, 1990 City Council initiated the local improvement district for sanitary sewers in the River Road area far basins A, B and C. This district encompasses those parcels served by the sanitary sewer construction in 1990 in the River Road area. The majority of the properties taking sewer access from these facilities will be assessed based on a distribution of the cumulative construction and staff service costs for the three basins and for the sanitary sewer trunk levy of $0.025 per square foot of the total lot area. In Ordinance No. 19725 adopted October Z2, 1990} the council determined the Trunk Sewer Levy x$.025 per sq. ft.} portion of sanitary sewer assessments in River Rvad area is to be used to reimburse the City for the cost of the extra capacity required in the sewer interceptor and lateral lines to serve properties within the River Road area. That determination applies to these assessments. Some of the properties in basin A are served by sewers constructed under a Lane County construction contract. The assessment for these properties is based on the eight-inch equivalent assessment method unit costs are identical to the 1990 basin assessment unit costs} as per EC 7.055. BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 1 Prior to the hearing regarding the initiation of the local improvement district on May 29, 1990 property owners who will bear the costs were notified on May 4, well in advance of the minimum 10-days notice stipulated in the code. Additionally, on May 21, a newsletter was sent out to all River Road property owners and residents which provided information on the estimated assessment casts. Four properties were added to the district by their owners signing a waiver of notification rights. The properties were included after staff field investigation determined that providing service with this year's construction was logical and cost effective. These properties and their owners are: 17-04-23-4Z-6601 Robert and Carol Dick 17-04-23-44-3900 Michael and Leslie Boggs 17-04-~3-42-6100 Gale and Maxine Piquet 17-04-14-24-4300 Derek Swezey The sanitary sewers are projects constructed under three separate City contracts: 1} Basin A, 90-09; 2} Basin B, 90-10; and 3} Basin C, 90-11. The previously mentioned segment within River Road roadway was under a Lane County contract for the widening of River Road, BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 2 ASSESSMENTS CALCULATIONS The cost to construct the sewers under the three contracts administered by the city for Basins A, B, and C was $4,962,945.46. This is itemized below: 1. Payment to contractors totaled $3,716,014.13. 2. Professional staff charges of $807,345.00 which includes $784,192.18 of actual charges through December 1990 and an estimate of $22,552.22 of Staff charges from January through completion of the project including the final assessment and as-construct documentation. 3. Preconstruction video documentation of properties costs of $21,549.96 4. Aerial Photo development to include aerial s view of the project to include in the drawings for contractors to bid on the project cost $3,271.75. 5. Informational signs placed during construction cost $900 6. Geotechnical exploration to determine underground conditions far bidders cost $6,785.40. 7. Outside Engineering Consultant work was $11,625 and allowed independ- ent review of the bids, and estimates of the work. 8. Field testing to confirm construction was i n accordance with speci f ~ - cations cost $24,169.00. 9. The 5/o Administration fee pays for Finance division expenses includ- ing the certified notifications of proposed assessments, information about financing programs and staff time to determine eligibility of individuals for the five deferral programs, process financing BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 3 agreements, establish payments, bill final assessments and monitor the payments of the assessments over the course of the bond period. For this assessment, $161,301.39 was included in the assessment calculation . 10. Short term financing to pay for project charges mentioned above cost $13s,29s.oo. 11. Legal fees to address suits brought against the city relating to the construction project totaled $41,643.50. This litigation affected the sanitary sewer projects to be constructed in all eight basins in the River Road area, Three of these basins are involved in these assessments therefore three-eighths of that cost or $15,616.31 is included in the assessment calculations far this year. Future year assessments in River Road will include the remainder of the charges. 12. Additional costs to obtain short-term financing for the 1990 con- struction were $55,463.52. These costs were a result of a Bond Anticipation Note sale which failed due to legal questions raised in a 1 awsui t. The circuit court ruled i n the Ci tys s favor an al 1 issues and no appeal has been taken. The total cost of $4,962,945.46 includes all the above costs. A portion of the total cost includes $610,471.90 of street repair costs which the City an- ticipates will be paid by Lane County and have not been included within the assessment distribution. A segment of the system in basin "A" was greater than eight-inches in diameter; the City will pay the incremental cost over the eight-inch diameter. The remainder of the costs were divided into the lateral BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 4 and service line portions of the assessment and spread among all properties or portions of properties in the basins which have not previously been assessed. All developed properties within the boundaries of the local improvement district that have not previously paid for the sewers will be assessed. Vacant properties outside the city will not be assessed but were included in the unit cast calculations. The city will carry these costs in anticipation of future collection through the eight-inch equivalent process.} Vacant properties annexed and within the city limits, or anticipated to be within the City by March 4 will be assessed. The determination of vacant properties has resulted in some controversy which is addressed in a later section. In addition to the vacant properties not being included in the LID's there are two features within the LID boundaries that were not included in the assess- able area for calculating unit costs or assessments: 1} area covered by the existing panels near Park Avenue and Park Terrace 2} property encumbered by developed drainage facilities within existing dedicated easements. The primary reason for these exceptions are that the land cannot be used for any other purpose or developed further due to these physical encumbrances. CURRENT ISSUES -Vacant Properties Current issues include the definition of vacant lots. At the time of the formation of the district "vacant lots" were defined as lots with no plumbing fixtures. Vacant lots were excluded in the local improvement district by this definition "in order to avoid the premature development of vacant property in BASINS Ay B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 5 the River Road area". Owners of all lats regardless of the vacant or develop- ed status were notified of the formation of the district. Throughout the life of the project staff noticed situations that did not support the intent for exclusion. Far the purposes of identifying developed properties which would be assessed under this local improvement district, staff has used the following criteria: A. Existence of a plumbing fixture on the property, or B. Existence of an improvement value listed as part of the assessed value as determined by the Lane County tax assessor, or C. The site when observed by the casual observer appears to be fully developed in conjunction with an adjacent developed lot and is owned by the owner of the adjacent lot, or D. The property is not buildable without a variance under the current code which identifies minimum lot size ~4,5D0 square feet in residen- tial districts} and frontage ~5o feet} and is owned by the owner of an adjacent lot, or E. The lot has improvements on it deg. parking lot} such that an adjacent lot owned by the same persan~s} is usable only if the lot remains developed has a parking lot}. I. A specific example of the last criterion ~E} is property located on the corner of Oakleigh and River Road, owned by Sam Konnie. Tax lots 17-D4- 24-~4-6600 and 67D0 are adjacent to the small shopping center on tax lot BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER RDAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 6 6900. Mr. Konnie has paved lots 6600 and 6700 to provide parking for lot 6900. Without the parking area the shapping center would not have adequate parking. An extenuating circumstance for Mr. Konnie is that with the widening of River Road he lost parking used for lot 6900 and so he built the parking on the adjacent lots. Ne contends that lots 6600 and 6100 should be treated as vacant because they have no plumbing fixture. Mr. Konnie agrees that the configuration of the existing shopping center would have to change before the use of the parking areas could change. While it is true that neither of the tax lots with the paved parking area have plumbing fixtures, staff feels that the lots are developed in such away so that the city should not carry the cost of the sewer until TL 6900 changes use significantly. It is anticipated that Mr. Konnie will attend the hearing to speak against levying assessments to lots 6600 and 6700. 2. Another example of a parking lot that staff proposes be treated as developed i s lot 17-a4-24-21-1300. Thi s l at i s adjacent to a church building and i s uti 1 i zed by the River Raad Baptist Church as an parking lot. Without the lot the church would not have adequate parking to meet code requirements. The church has not indicated disagreement with staff approach of levying the assessment at this time. 3. Shirlee Rae Boyd owns tax lot 17-04-23-42-2801 adjacent to her home at 1315 Sunnyside Drive, Lot 2801 is fenced with the lat Ms. Boyd's house sits on ~TL 2800} and ~s landscaped with a pond and well established BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 7 plants. Ms. Boyd contends that lot 2801 is a separate vacant lot and should not be assessed at this time. The lot is too small to be devel- oped without a variance and city planning staff cannot find a record indicating the lot was created through a legal process and therefore would not grant a variance. Ms. Boyd recently worked with the assessors office so that 2801 and 2800 would be treated as one unit and the assessed value of 2801 would be lowered. Staff recommends lot 2801 be assessed at the present time. 4. Charlie Newberry owns lot 11-04-23-41-1200 Account 3l0}. This lot is behind lot 1100 where Mr. Newberry's home is located at 1250 Elkay Drive. The lot contains a pump house and garden shed and a large garage type building. The assessed value for these improvements is $5100. Mr. Newberry says none of the improvements have plumbing fixtures and the land use will never change as long as he uses it and requests that the assessment be dropped. Staff recommends that the assessment be levied as i t fits that criteria of having an improvement value, that the chances of the 1 and being further developed and assessed for sewer are smal 1 and the City should not carry the cast for the sewer. A letter from Mr. Newberry is attached. CURRENT ISSUES -Other 1. Tax lot 17-04-24-23-T200, owned by Steve and Roberta Thompson and Clyde B. & Beulah M. Webber has two separate dwelling units. Early in the project, staff indicated to the Thompsons that two service connection BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 8 points would be installed so that the Thompsons could construct separate services to each building as is required by the current plumbing code and the Council of American Building Officials ~CABO} code. A "wye" was provide to their property and the proposed assessment includes two service line charges as per EC 1.115.5~b}. The Thompsons feel that their options were not fully explained to them and that they did not agree to the second service line charge. They have indicated they will likely attend the hearing, The Thompsons have submitted a summary of events relating to this issue and a letter both of which are attached. ~. Two properties adjacent to the existing sewer which was assessed last October are also adjacent to sewers built in 1990 along the back portion of their properties. Bath Larry Lauderdale X11-04-14-32-700} and Alice Phillips X11-04-14-3~-200} have expressed their opposition to the fact that they are now being assessed additional lateral costs for property that is within the 160 feet lateral area of the new construction but was beyond the 160 foot area far the existing sewer previously assessed. A letter from Ms. Phillips is attached. 3. The Metropolitan Waste Management Commission ~MWMC} Fee which is dis- cussed later in this report is of concern to some property owners. This fee is not a portion of the assessment computation but we are using the assessment notification and collection process to collect the fee for the MWMC. A letter from Donald L. Moniger of 2075 Berwin Lane is attached. BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 9 4. One other item considered in the calculation of assessments was the proportion of the total lot to the levy area. In a few instances the lateral area and the levy area are the same because the size of the whole lot indicates it could be further developed and the remainder of the levy due charged at that time, Carol Zorn awns a panhandle lot on North Park X17-04-23-23-4101 which fits this criteria. Tom zorn has indicated that lot 4101 would be joined with others for further development in the future. Even if this was not the case the 72,191 square foot lot could be developed beyond the current use of a single family dwelling and horse pasture. Staff did not include lot 4101 in the group where levy and lateral area were the same. After additional review Staff recommends the levy area be lowered to match the lateral area and the assessment be lowered accordingly. 5. Some people have misunderstood the Staff explanation that sharing a public service line ~i.e. a "wye" placed at a property line so that two properties share the public service lined "will reduce your costs somewhat" . Service line costs are reduced project wide since fewer service lines are required overall but there is not a direct benefit to properties which share the "wye". Cost distribution is based on EC 7.175 whereby we sum all the costs associated with constructing the services and divide by the number of connection points to compute a cost per connection point, commonly called the service. Mr. Jack Stutz has submitted a 1 etter which i s attached . BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 10 6. Several other people have indicated they plan to attend the hearing but have not indicated to staff what they may speak about if anything. CURRENT ISSUES - MWMC fee In addition to the standard assessment casts we are using this process to collect the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission MWMC} treatment plant reimbursement fee. The fee is a "buy-in" ar equalization charge designed to bring the contribution of newly connected and newly developed properties to approximately the level paid over the past 12 years by city property owners. Property owners in the cities of Eugene and Springfield have been paying a property tax since 1978 to repay bands which were sold to raise local funds necessary to build the treatment plant facilities. On January 14, 1991 the City Council adopted an ordinance which allowed for the collection of the fee at the fol]owing rates. The fee is $212 for a single family dwelling or duplex or for the first 16 fixture units in anew development. The $212 includes $202 base rate plus a $1a administration fee, all of which goes directly to MWMC. The city has included this charge i n the assessments sa that people will be able to finance that cost with their assessment if they so desire. No additional administration fee is collected by the city. For properties other than the single-family dwelling or duplex, the base fee of $242 was multiplied by the number of equivalent dwelling units ~EDU's}. An EDU is equivalent to 6,000 gallons of water. For these properties the water usage is based on historical monthly average water usage obtained through EWER records. BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 11 UNIT COSTS AND ESTIMATES The proposed assessment costs were calculated using the following figures: Sanitary sewer lateral: Sanitary sewer service: Sewer Trunk Levy; MWMC fee: $ 0.30/square foot of area w/in 160' $727.86/each $ 0.025/square foot of total lot area $212/single family dwelling unit Prior to the opening of the bids for the I990 sewer construction in River Road and the adoption of an agreement with Lane County to pay far road work, estimated assessments were based on the following: Sanitary sewer lateral: Sanitary sewer service: Sewer Trunk Levy: MWMC fee: $ 0.39/square foot of area w/in 160' $1060.00/each service available $ 0.025/square foot of total lot $ 0.04/square foot of total lot Once the bids were opened and there were indications that street repair costs would be paid by Lane County, estimates were given which were based on the fol 1 awi ng costs; Sanitary sewer lateral Sanitary sewer service: Trunk Sewer Levy: $ 0.30/square foot of area w/in 160' $ 750.00/each $ 0.025/square foot of total lot BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 12 The MWMC fee was not established until January 14, 1991. The period between bid opening and late fall the fee proposal was being studied and a disclaimer made on the estimates indicated that the estimates did nat include the fee. For an average 9200 square foot lot the fee would have been $368 using the $0.04 per square foot estimate. The $212 final fee adopted in January is $156 less than estimated. FINANCING All properties to be assessed will be eligible for 10-year assessment financ- ing. Low income deferral programs are also available for those praperty owners that qualify, Qualification will be determined at the time the financing application is signed. RECOMMENDATION The assessment costs are approximately equa] to the estimates given since the bids were opened and the participation of Lane County was identified; the MWMC fee i s 1 ess. Staff recommends approval of the proposed calculation of equivalency of the cost of an eight-inch sewer 4for the sewer constructed by lane County} and proposed calculation of the price per unit for the sanitary sewer lateral and service lines. Staff also recommends appraval of the calculatian of proposed assessments on each parcel of land or lot as set forth on Attachment "B" hereto except fora reduction in the levy amount charged to the Zorn property at 17-04-23-24-4101. Approval of the assessments shown on Attachment "B" will incorporate staff recommendations on the issues discussed above concerning vacant lots, services and the MWMC fee. BASINS A, B, AND C SANITARY SEWERS RIVER ROAD AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAGE 13 MEMORANDUM February ~7, 1991 T0: Jack Billings, Hearing Official FROM: Michelle Cahill, Project Engineer SUBJECT: Response to hearing testimony - River Road Sanitary Sewer Assess- ment Basins A, B and C Attached are three letters received by February 26 at 5 p.m. concerning the proposed assessments far Sanitary Sewers in River Road Basins A, B, and C. We did not receive a letter from vora Heintz who indicated at the hearing that she would submit additional testimony. I have checked with the City Manager's office as well as the main Public Works office and no other letters were received there. This memo includes some additional information about lots developed as park- ing lots; a revised recommendation for the proposed assessment where a "wye" was provided to a lot on Elkay Drive with two houses; and estimated develop- ment costs and assessment of a twenty acre lot compared to a similar size parcel of developed properties. PARKING LOTS In the summer of 1990, River Road widening project was under construction. As part of the widening project right-of -way was acquired from tax 1 of 17-04-24-24-6900 owned by Roberta Konnie. The acquisition included area that was used for parking for the shopping center located on the tax lot. Damages were paid to Ms. Konnie for the diminished earning capacity of the shopping center due to the lass of parking. Ms. Konnie then purchased the adjoining tax lots X6600 and 6700} and improved them with additional asphalt paving to provide parking for the shopping center. Lots 6600 and 6700 had been uti- lized by Gull Industries and apparently were partially paved.} If there is a change of use for the shopping center the parking requirements would be reviewed and either the adjoining lots would be required as parking or the existing shopping center would have a reduction in current use. If there is nOt a change in use for lot 6900 then there is no process for review of the parking and ensuring code requirements are met. The use of the ad- joining tax lots for parking is voluntary on the part of Konnies' at the current time. Staff has reviewed with Mr. Konnie an option of signing a statement acknowlW edging further assessment for lots 6604 and 6700 where the parking lots are currently located} based on the 8" equivalent if the shopping center use is changed or the parking lots are further developed. Mr. Konnie is agreeable to this approach. If the assessment i s not 1 evi ed at this time on tax 1 ots 6600 and 6100 staff recommends that the assessment for tax lot 11-04-24-21-7300 also not be lev- ied at this time as this is a similar situatian of only a parking lot on this lot. "WYE FOR TWO SERVICES" Roberta and Steve Thompson expressed concern at the hearing about being treated the same as other property owners on their street. The Thompsons' pointed out that they had two houses on their lot and would run separate services to each 1 of ~conformi ng to current code} during the construction of the sewer in front of their house last summer. Staff required a "wye" be provided far two connection points and proposed to assess them for two con- nection points. Upon further review staff agrees that there are lots on Elkay that have two separate houses and were not provided a "wye" and were assessed for one ser- vice. The second house in these cases was not obvious and was not brought to the attention of the staff determining service locations and numbers. Be- cause providing a "wye" for lots needing separate service lines was not done in a consistent manner staff recommends that the Thompsons be assessed for one service. LARGE DEVELOPABLE LOTS John Harrison is concerned that several developed lots pay more for the sewer than a vacant undivided large lot of similar size. He feels that the large lot gains much more benefit from the sewer because it can divide into smaller lots and the fats then have a higher value. Depending on the configuration, the assessment for a twenty acre undivided property, call it parcel "A", could be less or more than a twenty acre devel- oped1~~ property, parcel "B" . However, i f the assessment i s 1 ess today parcel "A" : ~wi 11 need addi ti anal sewers bui 1 t at additional cast i n order to subdi - v~de. Different configurations and related costs are described in the following p ragraphs. These examples use the $0.30 per square foot of area within 160' 1.teral cast only for the 199o assessment comparison. Only the lateral costs are used since 100 lots would require 100 connection points and each connection point will cost approximately the same. All property is assessed the $0.025 per total lot square foot levy regardless of configuration.} These examples also use the cost of $65 per lineal foot of sewer pipe far additional sewer lines needed for further development. This price includes construction, engineering, and administration and is approximately equal to the lineal foot cost of the lateral sewers built in 1990 in River Road. If parcel "A" ran the length of the new sewer and was 160' deep or less the parcel would be fully assessed over all the property including potential future right-af-way. The developed parcel "B" has the right-of-way deducted from the assessable area prior to the assessment calculation. In this situa- tion using Mr. Morrison's example of parcel "B" with 100 lots of dimensions 110' by 10', the lateral assessment would total $231,000, This is approxi- mately $30,000 less than the lateral assessment for parcel "A" which wauld total $261,360. If parcel "A" was in the form of a panhandle with approximately 200 feet abutting the sewer, the lateral assessment wauld be $9,600. However to fur- ther develop the lot with sewers would cost approximately $276,640. This figure is based on approximately 4,256 feet additional sewer at a cost of $65 per lineal foot. The total cost in this example would be $55,240 more for parcel "A" than far the developed parcel "B". If parcel "A" was square shaped, with approximately 933 feet abutting the 1990 sewer, the lateral assessment would be $44,184. To further develap the parcel into 100 lots an additianal 2650 to 2880 feet of sewer would be needed see the attachment with drawings #1 and #2}. At $65 per lineal foot this totals between $172,250 and $181,200. The combined 1990 lateral assessment and development costs range from $217,034 to $231,984 which is approximately $14,000 less to $1,000 more than parcel "B" for sewer costs. In summary, the configuration of the parcel effects the proposed assessment but the final costs of providing sewers to parcels of the same size at the same time are approximately equal. Whether the aggregate value of the small- er 1 ots would be higher than the value of the 1 arger 1 of i s not a subject that the Engineering staff has expertise and therefor we will have na re- sponse on that portion of Mr. Morrison's testimony. #' J~//~WI NC~____~ ~x~ 5~ ~~ ~-~ 5a ~ ~OPO~~ ~ ~~v~~ 2~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~/ ~ ~~ 1 I i ...~ ~. ...... i k6wMr i l I i E t s t, s f t F F f ~~~ ~~~. -fix ~STC ~Ic~ ~~. 5~~v~ ~ ~. ~ - - ~~ !', ~ . ~~ \. 1 p \\l,~ .` 1 ly 1\ ~1 ~ l '~ •,~ y~ t ~ ~ ~~ ,, =~~8'7,200.66 ~ N.rs. _._ I ~ `. `I DEV~L(~PM~NT'__ALTEkNATL~C~S F02' 20A~:__PAf~GET.~ _ 'I Uanald & Joanne Kuehling 111 West Hilliard Lane Eugene, Oregon 9?404 River Road Task Team Sb0 W. Park Eugene, Oregon 97401 February Z5, 1991 Dear River Road Task Tearn, We are writing this letter because we were unable to attend the February l8, 1991, meeting due to the critical illness of a family membero fur objections to our proposed assessment fora sewer are based upon what we feel is the unique circumstance of our lot shape, ~~ er In the Financial Options pamphlet sent out by the City of Eugene in June, 1990, under the sub title ~~'iguring Costs`' the writer states the followin `his with the g~ majority of Oregon cities and counties, Eugene uses the square footage of the lot, up to a maximum X160} lot depth, as the bas~.s far the lateral assessment, This method takes into account the fact that,, aver the 70-100 year life of the system, lar e lots have the otential for develo vent which wou~ e ~ ~ g ~ ~- P p ..d r quire more. sewer use, whale the us~. of ~ the syste~:~ by smaller lots will remain stable,~~ We can understand the rationale for figuri~~g cost this way. However, if you look at our.lat, the frontage is large X170 feet) narrowing in back to X86} feet. You ca~~ see it has a basic pie shape acid would not be able to be sub divided or developed for more value in the future. Our house is also located in the riddle of the lot. We feel the 170 foot width along .the road is causing our sewer assessment to be more than twice as much as many homeowners, we personally know, in this area with ap- proximately the same porperty tax assessed value We feel that paying the equivalent of lf6 of our total property value for the sewer, without passibility of future lot development; compared to others, previously mentioned, paying 1/13 of approximately the same property value is unfair. We would be glad to talk to the City Council or appropriate persons concerning this mattero e~~~closure : Figure Costs quote from parc~phlet Sincere y, RECEIl~ED fE8 25 1991 c ~ ~ r~~~~ GGc.d ~Glrl Lon & Joann Lon & Joann ~uehlinb 6E9-3063 ~~9-~06~ F~~NANC~ DEPART'M~NT ~~ ~ BELTLINE ~~ k~ .. ~~~ ~~$~ ~~~ . a~ A \\\A\M\YN\W.M4~4N\MN „t. N PADS Q~E :~. ~ :~ ~'~ ~ N~ EXP DESSI~AY ~~~ \ ~. ~~ ~ ~ *~ R ELKAY RIVER RD. :~: ~~.~~ ::r ::a::::::... T ~ 4 :~~~ ~ ~ ~f~