|
<br /> .
<br /> H'/~ssessment Panel Hearing Report - November 4, 1974
<br /> I Councilmen McDonald and Keller; City Engineer Bert Teitzel
<br /> ,Present:
<br /> .
<br />e 'Council bills levying assessments to be considered by the Council on November 12, 1974:
<br /> I
<br /> 'C.B.670 - Sanitary sewer in area between a line 400 feet north of I-105 and a line
<br /> 850 feet south of Centennial Boulevard (extended) fLom east line of 1st Addi - :
<br /> tion to Ayres Subdivision to 1200 feet w'est of Fairway Loop (extended) (7 3-W 11
<br /> Ini bated by peti tion of owners of 53% of property to be assesEif'c7. Total contract c:osl i
<br /> $143;820.50, awarded February 26, 1973 after public hearing. ApPI.~aring at the huaring 'I
<br /> , ,
<br /> \ but not speaking were Lewis B. Bartel .''1<1 Add,ie R. Parmenter. Don Furtick, George
<br /> Zellner,. and R. D. Hannum had given not,ice of intent to be heard but were not present.
<br /> \
<br /> Ed Pape' through his attorney, Don Gallagher, aske'd for reduction of $1,243.30 in
<br /> assessment against property at 20 Coburg,Road. Mr. Gallagher explained that when the I
<br /> building was qonstructed on that property in 1966 a service line was constructed to a ,)
<br /> point near Country Club Road in anticipation of future installation of city sewers. i
<br /> When the city lateral was installed in 1973 and the service line extended tO,connect,
<br /> about 38 feet, it was found the lateral was a foot higher than the service line. In
<br /> order to make the connt?ction the extension was rel,,;o.L'ked to allow gravity flow into the
<br /> l lateral at an expense to Pape' of $1,243.30. Mr. Gallagher said copy of plans were
<br /> , available showing elevation of the service line and a letter from the contractor (Vos)
<br /> ~ I
<br /> I stating the lateral was located at-an elevation too high to permit connection.
<br /> ~i
<br />.' :i Bert Teitzel, city engineer, explained that when the lateral was installed,an inspector
<br /> ,",i
<br /> "1 from the public works ilepartment, contacted Pape' and the lateral was installed at a
<br /> !
<br /> six and a half foot depth, one and a half feet deeper than normal, to accommodate
<br /> Pap€}'s...service line. Mr. Gallilgh,er asked if the e,Zevatioll, not depth, of the lateral
<br /> - -- - ~~-~~.'. _ _ ______~......__.,.,_.._r_. r;~. ".,...--..--'J-<".... "'...:-_ .':7:-._~---;;.~_-:".-;--._- -. ~ '. ..' . _ -- --
<br /> was known. Mr. Tei tzel said he did not have that informa tion wi th him. He said, it
<br /> was assumed it was installed in accordance with inFormation supplied by Pape'. He
<br /> : thought that it would be difficult at this time to determine which line was off the
<br /> lone foot without digging it up again.
<br /> I
<br /> Further discussion brQught out that the property in question was in the County at the I
<br /> I
<br /> time of service line install~tion /al though it was fel t that had no bearing on the
<br /> discrepancy, that the public works department did install the latera.Z in accordance
<br /> with prints of the building provided by Pape', and that there was no knowledge of any
<br /> ground disturbance in the area which could have caused the mismatch.
<br /> Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed but delay action until after
<br /> , return of information from staff with regard to elevation .
<br /> of the city lateral in relation to the Pape' service line.
<br /> ;C.B.671 - Paving, sidewalks, sani tary and storm seV.rers on Echo Hollow Road from
<br />e Royal Avenue to Barger Avenue (73-12)
<br /> Initiated by Council action as result of bond issue for public improvements. Total
<br /> contract cost $297,013.92, awarded March 12, 1973 after public hearing. Bert Teitzel
<br /> city engineer, explained that this project was assessed under the new pOlicy whereby
<br /> existing residential properties paid for the equivalent of a 28-foot width rather than
<br /> a 36-foot width as in previous policy.
<br /> G. B. Hol verstott objected to assessment for the bi,cycle path included in the 44-foot
<br /> width abutting his commercial property at 1245 Echo Hollow Road. He felt he was paying I
<br /> more than once for the bicycle portion since State funds were supposedly used for that !
<br /> ;
<br /> purpose in addition to the assessment. Mr. Teitzel acknowledged that the property was I
<br /> assessed the full 44-foot width according to city policy for improvements abutting com-
<br /> , mercial zones, and that a bicycle path was included within that standard 44-foot width.
<br /> Councilman McDonald explained the city's policy with regard to assessing 44-foot width .j
<br /> J
<br /> streets abutting commercial properties. He noted too the lengthy discussion in public (1
<br /> hearings when contract for this project was awarded after which the decision was made
<br /> to construct' the project according'to the design chosen. He felt it was quite clear
<br /> at that time how the assessments would be levied.
<br /> I
<br /> Mr. Holverstott was still concerned about his.money paid to the State that was supposed I
<br />e to be used for bike paths. ~nd he wondered why he should pay for the bike portion when I
<br /> residential properties were paying for only a 28-foot width. Mr. Teitzel further ex- e
<br /> plained the br~akdown of monies and how they were allocated to various segm~nts qf a 1
<br /> project in the bookkeeping process. Mr. Keller felt that Council response to Mr. Holver-
<br /> stott's objection would be the same as that of the panel - it was established as city
<br /> policy to assess commercial properties for the equi,valent of 44-foot width streets. I
<br /> Mr. McDonald agreed and mentioned that the improvement would add to the value of the
<br /> property. Mr. Holverstott further explained his opinion, upon questioning from Mr. Keller,
<br /> ------- ---~-. ..~- _a-~~ .- -.-_.--_..__._.__._-._-------~----- - - ----
<br /> 386 11/12/74 - 13
<br />
|