Item 4 - PH on River Ave.LID - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

before the Commissioners as being concerned primarily with the differences in philosophy toward street assessments. Ms. Cahill acknowledged that if the Commissioners chose to not allow the properties outside the City to be assessed, it would cause the City to re-examine the project as a whole. This might or might not delay .further work on the project. Ms. Cahill indicated that the City might still have options that would allow the project to move forward, such as a delayed assessment on the properties that are outside the City but will eventually be brought inside the City limits. One property owner announced that he was concerned because of what he perceived to be the excessive amounts of the City's estimated costs. He announced that he had gotten a contractor's 'estimate for the proposed first seven feet out f~om his property that was considerably less than the City's estimate. Ms; Cahill and the Hearings Official explained that the proposed assessment was not for the first seven feet of the City's right of way, but, for residentially zoned property, was for seven feet of the total pavement width of the major collector street. Other property owners insisted that it was inevitable that the City's costs would be higher than the cost of a private contractor. Ms. Cahill acknowledged that the City set high standardS for street construction, but also noted that the City had put the project out for bid and was using the low bid submitted. One property owner indicated his opinion that it was unfair to assess commercial property for ten feet of paving, but to also remove parking opportunities along the street. He indicated that he felt that arriving customers should be able to park on the street, and that the effect of the proposed design, with its curbs and gutters, would limit street parking in front of his business. Ms. Cahill responded by indicating the Project Engineer's willingness to meet with property owners on design refinements. The property owner responded that he did not feel that many of the design decisions that the City had made were appropriate. While he acknowledged such requirements as the Disability Act, he did not feel that the City needed such wide sidewalks as proposed because he felt no one ever used the sidewalk. Ms. Cahill indicated that the City was required to follow the design standards for a major collector street. The property owner disputed the assertion that it was a major collector. Ms. Cahill indicated that this was based on traffic counts along River Avenue. The next series of questions was sparked by a question fi'om Theresa Slocum concerning the perceived danger of making improvements now only to have them displaced by a decision by ODOT to close the River Avenue Beltline interchange. Ms. Cahill acknowledged that in the past here have been suggestions that ODOT would want to shut off the River Avenue Beltline interchange. Ms. Cahill pointed out that even though this has been talked about in the past,' the newest proposed study will not be started until 2008. Ms. Cahill noted that the proposed improvements to River Avenue had been delayed in the past by this same speculation, which had not proven valid. Ms. Cahill felt that it was unlikely that ODOT would decide to close the River Avenue entrance, because of the importance of the entrance for local businesses. Ms. Cahill also noted that the high rate of use of River Avenue, not only by vehicles but also by bicyclists and pedestrians, and the unsafe conditions of an unimproved River Avenue,