Laserfiche WebLink
bee (3) of the properties adjacent to the LID improvements are not witbSn the City limits. Two <br />proper~i~s, Edga~ a~d Combs, are included in the }b°cal Improvement District ~ as a~thorized by <br />.Co. unty ,Co~issioners. The t~rd property (Bunker LLC, 605 Ayres Road is not in <br />L.~t5~ tn:mrs, ~s unaeveloped and vacant, and so was not included in the LD-. ) <br /> <br />The non-assessable City share for this project will be funded primarily from Transportation <br />Systems Development Charges (SDCs). Systems development charges are paid by new <br />development to finance the non-assessable share of this t~pe of collector street improvement. <br />These non-assessable costs include paving to meet growth demands, medians/traffic calming, <br />non-assessable curb and gutter, non-assessable sidewalk, intersections, streetlights, street trees <br />and non-assessable portions of the storm drainage system. <br /> <br />The final unit assessable costs are: <br /> <br />Paving, Curbs and Gutters <br />Sidewalks/Driveway Apron <br /> <br />Total Assessable Cost <br />Total City Cost <br />Total Project Cost <br /> <br />$ <br />$ <br /> <br />42.50 per front foot <br /> 3.31 per square foot <br /> <br />$ 250,718.76 <br />$1,028,502.87 <br />$ t,279,221.63 <br /> <br />At the time of the formation of the local improvement district, the City Engineer estimated the <br />costs of the project, based on the bids accepted. These estimated assessments were: <br /> <br /> Pavement, Curb and Gutter and Street Drainage $ 5039/Trout Foot <br /> Sidewalk/Drive-way Apron $ 3.46/Square Foot <br />Notices mgar~ng the proposed assessment and of the assessment hearing were provided as <br />required by CiD' Code. <br /> <br />In addition to the public hearings and other meetings held prior to the completion of construction, <br />a public hearing on the final assessments was held on June 19. 2002. Minutes of that hearing are <br />attached as Exhibit A. ~ <br /> <br />Discusslon <br /> <br />This project has been controversial since its inception. Many of the people opposing it when it <br />was ~rst conceived continue to oppose it now. ~ome of the earlier Opponents ~ave disappeared, <br />either because the inertia of the project has outlasted them, or because their concerns have been <br />saris fie& <br /> <br /> G. CURF~,qF~ e~ SIDEWALKS, AND STORM SEWERS ON AYERS ROAD AND G~LHAM <br /> ' ONEYWOOD STREET <br />FINAL ASSESSMENT <br /> Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />