New Search
r <br />CITY OF EUGENE <br />INTER - DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM <br />CITY ATTORNEY — CIVIL DEPARTMENT <br />To: J.R. Medlin D Sgptember 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 64100 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 />