02/26/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II "-. ~ -.^ Questions ft-om Councilmen Hershner an'ci Wood brought out that normal procedures wer'e followed in giving notice of hearing on award of contract for the improvement, the actual cost was less than that estimated for both the paving and sewer stubs, costs were higher than average because it w.as a small project and therefore did not attract favorable bids, and that legal procedures were followed in completion of the project and giving notice of assessment. Mr. Schmaedick pres~nted a copy of the letter addressed to property owners showing the, estimated cost of the project to be $15.58 per front foot. He repeated that at no time were they advised an additional cost would be charged for sewer stubs.' He said that if a 10% engineering tharge is levied for work petitioned by property owners, then any costs of which the property owners are not aware should be taken f;rom that fee. Councilmen Hershner and Wood agreed that established policy of the City could not be waived when notification procedures had been properly followed. The City did fulfill its responsibility in notifying the property own~rs that there was a public hearing. Information with regard to total cost of the project was available at that time. . Recommendation: Levy assessments as Ir>oposed. ,Ap:l='rove . 3. C.B.180 - Levying assessments for sidewalk on west side of CoburgRoad from Club Road to Oakway Road (72-27) Written protest was received from Roy E. Adkins, 825 East Park Street, attorney repre- senting Ed Pape', owner of property along which the sidewalk was constructed. Mr. Adkins presented his client's objections that (1) the assessment is ab,out double'th_e $1,700 cost estimated for Mr. Pape' at the time installation of tbe sidewalk was proposed (2) a four-foot sidewalk was proposed, whereas an eight-foot sidewalk was actually con- structed, and (3) all information given Mr. Pape' with regard to this improvement in- volved only sidewalk construction. Now he is being assessed also for curbs, and curbs were in existence along his property prior to the sidewalk construction. Mr. Adkins said that his client did not receive notice of proposed construction in front ,of the property leased to Shell Oil'Company, rather his information was that contact was made with Shell. Had he received notice of the additional cost for that pontion or that it was intended to construct curbs, he would have objected. Not until he received notice of assessment from'Shell Oil Company did he know the project would cost more than the estimated $1,700. . . Mr. Teitzel explained that when this project started it was intended that the sidewalk would' be installed along the Volkswagon property and through the interchange, connect- , ing to the existing asphalt along the property occupied by Shell Oil Company. Subse- quently, legislation was approved providing funds from the State for bicycle paths so . with State approval the sidewalk was redesigned to provide width to accomm0date bicycles. Redesign created problems in trying 'to include the existing construction-adjacent to the property occupied by Shell. Public Works records show Ed Pape' as owner of the property occupied by Shell Oil Company, rut for some reason that was changed to show contact with Shell. Consequently, all dealing on the construction on that portion of the property was conducted with Shell; they agreed to the proposed improvements apd were informed, at'their request, of costs of the project. Public Works had no explanation of why Shell did not pass notices they received with regard to the public hearing and proposed construction to the property owner, Ed Pape'. They did forward to Mr. Pape' the notice of assessment for the property which they lease. Recommendation: Hold until opinion received from City Attorney with regard to property owner's failure to receive proper notices. Approve i 4. C.B.18I - Levying assessme.nts for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Robins Glen Subdivision and area within 160 feet of boundaries of said s~division (72-28) No written protests on file. No objections presented at hearing. ,j 'j ,I I I , 5. C.B.182 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within .' to Southridge ~ndVine Ma~le ~treet from Spring Bo~evard to 300, No wrl tten protests on flle. No Ob]ectlons presented at hearlng. [n answer to Councilman Hershner,. Mr. Gilman said that this subdivision is located near Agate Street south of 30th and is not that in south hills .on which a plclllned unit develop- ment WaS recently approved. , 1 1st Addition '.'.II feet south (72-35).. Approve Resommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. :J '., - :\ Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. Approve 6. C.IL183 - Le in assessments for No written protests on flle. No 0 ;/ . Recommendatlon:' Levy asses;srnents. as proposed. - ,.---.--' ---. ~-,.- ~ ...:..:_-~.">- Gilham Road to 442 feet west (72-40) at hearlng. , ,....' ; \ ~:\;j . . -., ~ ~PP~l;~Qve _ _ ,_ _ __ __ _ ____ __'--:--:W__ ____......_..-....:-._....--~_.---:... ".'. 63 2/26/73 - 15 ~