New Search
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO: 58-97-09-F <br />of the - <br />City Manager of the City of Eugene - <br />ESTABLISHING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN AND USE OF <br />.THE PUBLIC WAY PERMIT FEES, AMENDMENT.OF <br />RIGHT-OF-WAY .USE .PERMIT FEE' SCHEDULE, AND REPEALING <br />ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-96-13=F. <br />The City Manager of the City of Eugene finds as follows:. <br />A. Sections 2.020 and 7.300 of he Eugene. Code, 1971 authorize the City Manager <br />to determine and setfees and charges to be .imposed by the Ciry for services, goods,. use of <br />municipal property, licenses and permits. Section 7.300 of the Eugene Code, 1971, which was <br />recently amended, specifically authorizes the City Manager to establish fees for implementation <br />of the City's program for construction within and use of the public way: <br />B. Pursuant. to those. provisions,. on June 5, 1997 I issued Administrative Order No. <br />58-97-09 proposing an amendment to the schedule of fees. attached as Exhibit A to Administrative <br />..:Order No. 58-96-13-F to increase excavation permit fees and add new right-of-way cut permit fees <br />for construction within and use of the public way; as set forth in. Exhibit A thereto. <br />C. Copies of the Notice were provided to the Mayor and Ciry Councilors, posted at <br />two locations at City Hall on June 9, 1997, published in the Register Guard, a newspaper of <br />general circulation within the City on June 9 and 11, 1997, and made available for inspection by <br />interested persons at the offices of the -City Manager, 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401, <br />during normal business .hours .(8.:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,. exclusive of <br />holidays). <br />D. The Notice provided that written comments could be submitted thereon for a period. <br />of .1S days from the date of posting and publication. Only one comment was received within the <br />time or in the manner required by the Notice, to which I make the following finding: <br />Comment: One comment was received during the public comment period from <br />EWEB. The basic question EWEB had on the fee schedule concerns the definition of <br />"facility". It is not unusual for EWEB to install two electric conduits in the same trench. <br />In those cases, lines in both conduits effectively tie our system together: Would each <br />conduit constitute a "facility, " in which case EWEB would have to pay the `fee twice? Or, <br />would both conduits be considered one "facility" for purposes of fee assessment? <br />Administrative Order - 1 <br />