New Search
3. The City billed the appellant in the amount of $455.00, <br />based upon a charge of $75.00 for the initial hour spent, and <br />$45.00 for each additional hour of work by the contractor. <br />4. In 1985, a memorandum was prepared within the City <br />assessing the Eugene grass and weed mowing program. <br />FINDINGS <br />Eugene Section 6.090(3) states: <br />" (3) The finance officer shall keep an accurate record <br />of the expense incurred by the City in physically abating <br />the nuisance and shall include therein a reasonable <br />charge for administrative overhead." <br />There is no doubt that the $208.32 billed by Tucker Family <br />Enterprise to the City is a charge "incurred" by the City and the <br />property owner is responsible for that charge. It has previously <br />been ruled, and is established law in the context of a similar sort <br />of procedure pertaining to assessments against properties for <br />improvements, that the reasonableness of the expense incurred by <br />the City is not subject to collateral attack in a hearing of this <br />type. Furthermore, the issue of necessity of the abatement is not <br />open to question, as the code provides that in order to have a <br />determination of that issue, the property owner must protest that <br />no nuisance exists after receiving notice of intent to abate (see <br />EC 6.085). <br />The sole issue here is what is a "reasonable charge for <br />administrative overhead." <br />The amount billed by the City, computed by the means above <br />set forth, amounts to 218.4% of the amount of the expense incurred <br />by the City. First, it is clear that the ordinance is not intended <br />to be a punitive measure, particularly since if the City seeks to <br />penalize a person, there is provision for fines for violation of <br />the nuisance ordinance and these penalties can be imposed, in <br />addition to assessing the cost of the abatement against the person <br />(see EC 6.105). The question is strictly one of what is the <br />reasonable amount of the administrative cost. <br />Administrative notice is taken of the fact that, with respect <br />to abatement of a dangerous building, the Public Works Department <br />assesses for administrative cost the amount of 10% of the cost <br />incurred by the City (see Abatement of Nuisance at 938 Jefferson <br />Street). There is case law authority for such incidental fees as <br />high as 10 %. <br />The 1985 study done by the City approaches the weed abatement <br />program cost issue from the standpoint of costs to the City of the <br />program, rather than an analysis of cost of an average or <br />2 - FINDINGS <br />