Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Davini closed by arguing that the proportion being assessed to property <br />owners was excessive. He felt that making property owners pay twenty five percent was <br />too much when measured against the benefits to the property owners. <br /> <br /> The next member of the public to address the hearing was Mr. Dan Giustina. He <br />began with concerns about safety. He felt that vehicles would have difficulty pulling out <br />onto the street because of the traffic along 4th Avenue. He also felt that the pedestrians <br />who use the area a lot may be placed at increased risk by the improvements. Mr. <br />Giustina also expressed concern about the decision to select 4th Avenue for improvement. <br />He felt that, given the deteriorated state of other feeder streets in the area, improvements <br />tO 4th Avenue would encourage more traffic along that street, which would make the <br />problems along 4th worse. <br /> <br /> Mr. Klope responded that the raised crosswalks were designed to increase <br />pedestrian safety as well as slowing traffic. The City recognized the importance of <br />pedestrian use, and had worked to make sure that pedestrian safety was maintained. Mr. <br />Klope repeated that the designs such as the raised crosswalks and the landscaped medians <br />were incorporated to keep traffic slow even as traffic using the street increased. <br /> <br /> Mr. Giustina expressed concern that 4th Avenue was being used as a through <br />street rather than a local street. Drivers used 4th to beat the train or to avoid congestion <br />on other streets. Mr. Giustina asked if there were any instances where the City had <br />constructed street improvements with a sidewalk only on one side of the street. Mr. <br />Klope acknowledged that it happened occasionally, but only in circumstances where the <br />side of the street without sidewalks was outside the city. <br /> <br /> The final member of the public to address the hearing was Mr. Kent Jennings. <br />Mr. Jennings began by questioning the evaluation of the relative benefit to property <br />owners. Mr. Jennings felt that the benefit to the City was greater than to the property <br />owners. Mr. Jennings asked about other projects and whether the formula of a balance of <br />twenty five percent of the cost of a project being assessed to property owners was <br />standard. Mr. Klope explained that the formulas for assessment to property owners was <br />set by the Council depending on the type of improvements being made, and not on a <br />percentage of benefits. The percentage in this case was about the same as other, similar <br />projects, but only because it was as similar situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Giustina expressed concerns about the Pearl Street intersection. He asked <br /> what plans there were for the intersection. Mr. Klope responded that the intersection <br /> would be realigned. Mr. Giustina asked about street trees, whether there would be any <br /> choice of what trees would be put in. Mr. Klope responded that the City had a long list of <br /> trees from which the property owners could choose. <br /> <br /> A question was asked concerning the installation of wastewater services. Mr. <br /> Gallup indicated that the wastewater installations were being made to allow later <br /> connection of currently vacant properties. It would be important for property owners <br /> who had plans for later development of vacant properties to let the City know now, so <br /> <br /> <br />