Vegetation (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

individual abatement process. In a discussion of expenses of the program on the second page of the memorandum, the memorandum speaks of a report from the Department of Public Works setting out the number of work orders, and cutting, inspection, and transportation costs. It is indicated that the report does not reflect invoice and work order typing and information handling nor for the cost of time spent on follow up work in establishing ownership on problem accounts. The discussion pertaining to the expense of the program to the Finance Department is equally ambiguous. There is an indication that the receivable billing cost is $7.60 per bill, but that this cost does not include second and third notices nor does it include any collection efforts. The third page of the report would indicate for the 1984/85 year, that while cutting contracts were only in the amount of $14,142.00, total expense amounted to $26,343.60 in that year. Net billing only amounted to $31,498.55. Obviously, the operation of the program has to be subsidized by the City, but the information submitted does not yield the appropriate amount to charge in the individual situation. There is no information as to the total number of accounts pursued. Finally, although the information was submitted to substantiate the formula used by the City of $75.00 for the first hour and $45.00 for the remainder of hours used in computing the assessment, I am unable to see how those figures were generated. There is some question as to the reasonableness of the charge structure for the individual assessment. When determining what is a reasonable charge for administrative overhead" under the ordinance it is difficult to see why the amount charged per hour is more for the first hour, if it bears no correlation to the amount charged by the contractor. Additionally, if the cost to be added is to be "administrative" cost the formula suggested does not seem particularly appropriate. While perhaps arbitrary, I adopt in this case the 100 administrative overhead charge used elsewhere by the Public Works Division. Certainly, figures can be presented at a later time in other cases substantiating an average reasonable cost for administration of an abatement. It is just that in this instance, there is not such information available. CONCLUSION The amount of abatement cost to be assessed is $229.15. The property owner, Marshall Geller, is hereby advised that if the cost of this abatement is not paid within ten (10) days of the date of this decision, the cost shall be entered in the docket of the City liens and upon such entry shall constitute a lien upon the property at 2460 Olive Street, Eugene, Oregon. A lien shall be enforced in the same manner as liens for street improvements and will bear interest at the rate described in section 2.022 of the Eugene Code. The interest shall commence the date of the entry of the lien in the lien docket. 3 - FINDINGS