Resolution No. 4526 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Mike Jensen asked why the cost of the stub line that provides connection to the individual properties was so expensive. Mr. Lyle explained that the major factor that made these lines unusually expensive was the depth of the line. At Beltline, the collection line was approximately 20 feet deep. Connections in his area had to have a riser put in to get them up to a reasonable depth so that they could run to the property line. Mr. Lyle also explained that the depth of the trench that needed to be dug, and the nature of the soil meant that most of the street would be affected by the construction. This led to a series of questions from several persons in the audience, including Mike Gent, concerning the phasing of the project and the potential problems with interrupting access to the private property. Mr. Lyle and Mr. Behney explained that the project would start north of Irving first, and would probably only interrupt one lane of traffic. The second phase would be under the Beltline overpass, and the third phase would involve work between Beltline and Irving. Mr. Lankston explained that it was City practice to discuss disruption issues with the property owners as the project construction proceeds to lessen the amount of disruption. A question was asked concerning the expected timing of construction. Mr. Lyle explained that, if the Council approved the proposed project, the city expected the contractor to begin work in July and finish in October. Mr. Lyle also explained that the actual date when the sewers would be available also depended on completion of the pump station at Beltline, which was a separate project. Mr. Lyle said that the City hoped to have that project completed at the same time. A question was asked concerning when the final assessment amounts would be known. Mr. Lyle explained that it took some time after completion of the project before this would be known because there were always some final cleanup and cost negotiation and other delays associated with careful preparation of the assessment. Mr. Lyle indicated that it might be sometime in February or March before the actual assessment amounts were known. Mr. Chamness wondered whether that estimate was accurate. Mr. Chamness indicated that he had not yet received any information concerning the cost of construction of the Irving Road street improvements. Mr. Lyle explained that the Irving Road project was a Lane County project, and that the City was not responsible for the delays in making known the assessment amounts for that project. Mr. Chamness expressed concern about the cost that such delays had for the property owners, because of the interest costs that accumulated during the delay. Mr. Lyle indicated that one of the reasons that the City wants to complete the assessment process as quickly s possible after completion of the project was to avoid making the property owners pay any more than the minimum necessary. The discussion turned briefly to the question of the best time for levying the SDC. There was a general agreement that it made sense to the public members of the audience to include the SDC with the assessment. Several persons, including Mr. Chamness pointed out that, as landlords, they would need to consult with their tenants before they took a position on that issue. p.m. There being no further matters to be discussed, the hearing ended at approximately 7 :20 Minutes - June 12, 1997 Public Hearing Page 4