New Search
<br /> i . <br /> ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-96-24-F <br /> of the <br /> City Manager of the City of Eugene <br /> ESTABLISHING STREET TREE PROGRAM FEES, AMENDING THE TREE <br /> ',PRESERVATION FEE SCHEDULE ESTABLISHED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER <br /> j ' NO. 58-93-20-F, AND REPEALING ADMINISTRATIVE <br /> ~ ~ ORDER NO. 58-93-20-F. <br /> The City Manager of the City of Eugene finds as follows: <br /> f A. Sections 2.020, 6.300 to 6.330, and 7.280 of the Eugene Code, 1971, authorize <br /> e City Manager to establish tree preservation permit and appeal fees and fees for implementation <br /> f the City's Street Tree Program. <br /> B. In accordance with the procedures set forth therein, on December 5, 1996, the City <br /> anager Pro Tem issued Administrative Order No. 58-96-24 proposing a reduction in the tree <br /> reservation appeal fee as previously established on February 25, 1994, by Administrative Order <br /> o. 58-93-20-F, and the establishment of fees for implementation of the City's Street Tree <br /> ro~ram, as set forth in Exhibit A thereto. <br /> C. Notice was provided to the Mayor and City Councilors, posted at two locations at <br /> ~rr ~ City Hall and published in the Register Guard on December 9, 1996, and made available for <br /> inspection by interested persons at the office of the City Manager, 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, <br /> Oregon 97401 during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, <br /> xclusive of holidays). <br /> D. The notice provided that interested persons could submit written comments thereon <br /> fpr a period of 30 days from the first date of publication and posting. Five written comments <br /> ere received, to which I make the following findings: <br /> f Comment 1: The tree preservation appeal fee, even reduced from $750 to $500 <br /> is still too high. <br /> •ndin~: This appeal fee relates to recovery of the cost incurred by the City due <br /> to appeal of the issuance or denial of a permit to remove a tree(s). The fee is based on the <br /> consultant costs incurred by the City for the Hearings Official (estimated to be $250) and <br /> for staff cost to prepare presentation material and attend the hearing (estimated to be <br /> $250). The change proposed in these administrative rules is due to a reduction in costs <br /> through use of a contracted Hearings Official through Lane Council of Governments <br /> (LCOG) and should be implemented as proposed. <br /> i Comment 2: The conclusion or replacement fee should be eliminated and actual <br /> conclusion should be addressed within the third annual maintenance inspection fee. <br /> j administrative Order - 1 <br /> <br />