New Search
CITY OF EUGENE <br /> INTER- DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM <br /> CITY ATTORNEY — CIVIL DEPARTMENT <br /> To: J.R. Medlin Date- 19, 1989 <br /> Public Works Maintenance Division <br /> Subject: Abatement Charges for Vegetation Management <br /> You have requested a response to your proposals to deal <br /> with the decision by Mr. Spickerman to impose a flat ten <br /> percent overhead charge on the vegetation abatement costs <br /> billed to the owner of 2460 Olive Street. Your proposal <br /> sets forth the average personnel costs for abatement on a <br /> developed lot and suggests that these charges be substi- <br /> tuted for the hourly surcharge on the contractors charge, <br /> to replace these charges found unreasonable by Mr. <br /> Spickerman. You also suggest that the current charges for <br /> abatement on undeveloped lots not be changed at the present <br /> time. <br /> Conclusion: Mr. Spickerman's decision casts as much <br /> doubt on the validity of the charges for undeveloped lot <br /> vegetation removal as it does on the charges for developed <br /> lots. Both types of charges are now easily subject to <br /> challenge and reduction by every property owner who <br /> objects. <br /> Your proposed alternative billing schedule provides the <br /> justification for the charges which Mr. Spickerman found <br /> lacking. As a short term solution it will serve to recover <br /> most of the City's expenses for each abatement. It may <br /> not, however, include all the administrative charges which <br /> should or could be levied on individual property owners. <br /> You may wish to consider imposing additional charges when <br /> you get down to the detailed work of considering the actual <br /> cost of the program. <br /> 1. The Range of the Spickerman Decision. As the March <br /> 1988 memorandum from Bob Hammitt of your office indicates, <br /> developed lot abatement is a relatively new operation, and <br /> your office simply carried over the undeveloped lot <br /> charges. Neither the March 1985 memorandum nor Mr. <br /> Spickerman's decision made any reference to developed or <br /> undeveloped lot activities. The hearings officer decision <br /> is as applicable to undeveloped lot charges as it is to <br /> developed lot charges. While there is an important <br /> distinction in the hearings process between an abatement <br /> assessed under Eugene Code section 6.100 and section 6.525, <br /> the charges are just as subject to attack, and if a charge <br /> is contested by a person assessed under section 6.525, the <br /> official considering the challenge should acknowledge its <br /> validity and reduce the charges. Beyond that, there is <br /> 1-- MEMORANDUM <br />