04/23/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. and Mrs. G. E. Albertson, 5S0 Taney Street; Also, reports from ,the Active Bethel Citizens requesting delay and investigation of alternative modes of financing the project, and a report from Public Works Department. Letters opposed to the project werBreceived from Muriel E. Roberts, 4021 Roy?l Avenue; B. H. Momtgomery, 1120 Echo Hollow Road. . Manager responded to statemBnts and commented on possibility of spreading Bancroft payments over a 20-year periqd rather than the standard 10-year period, City policy on paving streets, effect of inflationary trend on paving costs, and City's assuming expense of that width beyond the standard 3D-foot pavinm. He, noted that the street came into the City through annexation and it is not known whether additional right-of-way was purchased or dedicated when adjacent properties subdivided.._ Assessment deferral program now being explored was mentioned, with the added ,comment that there is no knowledge of anyone ever having been dispossessed because of assessment foreclosure. Manager said that the design to accommodate bike paths had been under study by the engineering , and traffic engineering staffs and researched extensively with the result that they feel the recommended design is the safest overall which can be applied to this type arterial. He said that aside from addition of bike lanes the proposed improvement is not any more extravagaDt than other arterials, although somewhat different with the provision for the center turn lane. With regard to need for this improvement in view of other traffic routes planned in the area Manager said that traffic projections appear to indicate Echo Hollow probably will be ari integral part of the traffic system ~ith or without ,other facilities. Public Works Director said he knew of no other major improvements which would divert traffic from Echo Hollow, and that Echo Hollow is one of three major projects included in the rece~tly approved bond issue. It is hoped to construct Echo Hollow this year, Barger 'and Royal in the next two years, to minimize con~~ fusion and inconveni:ence to the r;teighb:<2):h::gl:0ds. ,He cited traffic counts and said there are not many designs which would De desirable al ternat'i vesA~o the 44-foot or 40-foot paving proposed. It was noted that temporary sidewalk: construction was p!,eviously vetoed by. the CouJl~c:tl.}tpic.h led-:"to requ'est \ for bond issue to provide funds' for' s'tandar'd construction' wifli-'the CIty's 'p'aying- IO':['" 'storm sewers, intersections, .additional width and thickness. . In answer to Councilman Keller, Public Works Director explained assessments now being collected on previous sewer installation. Councilman Hershner asked whether the proposed assessment deferral program, if it became a reality, wouln apply to Echo Hollow proj ect. Manager said it~wou-ld 'sinc e. assessments are made after a project is completed. The deferral would be on collection of the assess- ment, not on the actual recording of, the assessment. Public Works Director detailed for Councilman Hershner the basis on which street widths are determined - - 36-foot under normal circumstances, lesser width for short streets or cul-de- sacs. Manag~r, in answer to Councilman Murray"said wopk is now in progress on two methods for deferring collection of assessments, these to be ready f.or Council discussion within three or four months; And that the E~ho'Hollow projec~ waS one '0T thes~ listed prior to the bond election~., However, there is :mothing which compels its construction Slnce the language of the measure provided for no specific projects. ' Public Works Director described for Councilman McDonald'the present width and surface of Echo Hollow Road and estimated assessment per'fT2ptfoot for the improvement. . . Discussion continued between Council and staff with regard to parking provlslons, the project's effect on adjacent property values, concerns of the Active Bethel Citizens group. Mrs. Munn, secretary of the group, in answer to'Councilman Murray' said they were thinking in terms of a five-year delay and were working on something more than a ttpatch plantt to present as an alternative to the'project as bid. . Councilma~ McDonald commented on the increasing cost of construction over the past years a~d said delay wQuld:no doubt make the project even more costly than' now. He said adjacent properties would probably not be developed until upgrading of streets in the area is accomplished. He also commented on the length of time this improvement has been in planning stages. . .. Councilwoman Campbell asked Mr. Montgomery whether. spreading Bancrofting over a 20-y~ar perio~, .~o~l,sI~,_P~t theproj ect in a more f<;1vorable' light . Mr. Montgomery replled that lt would lncr,ease the overall costs because of added interest. He didn't feel he could meet the cost of the improvement regardless ,of the repayment method. . 115 4/23/73 - 2