Ordinance No. 19932 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Costs listed below are based on the engineer's estimate and preliminary costs uoted to q property owners at the Local Improvement District hearing following bid opening: 20-foot paving $ 40.921front foot 28-foot paving $ 58.241front foot 36-foot paving $ 5Q.461front foot 7" thick driveway apron $ 15.3$Ifront foot 5" thick driveway apron $ 12.97lfront foot 5-foot sidewalk $ 12,141front #oot Asphalt driveway adjustment $ 1.291square foot Concrete driveway adjustment $ 2.591square foot The final assessment cost for 28•foot paving is slightly higher than what was uoted at the L! D ~ q hearing, since the cost of driveway adjustment beyond the apron area are now included in the front foot paving cost. PRQPERTY aWNER CORRESPONDENCE Staff received letters from two property owners within the LID prior to the public hearin . 9 Cne was from Mike Weech, who owns tax lot 6100, assessor's map 17-04-22-32. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit C. Mr, Weech's primar concern was with the Y amount of the assessment. In this case, the assessments are close to the costs estimated at the previous public hearing, and are similar to or lower than the costs of other projects of comparable size. Mr. Weech also questioned the assessment of more front feet than his property actually has, but the assessments of minimum fronta es have . 9 been performed as required by law. The other letter way received from Kevin Storey, who owns tax lot 2200, assessor's ma p "I 7-04-22-42. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit D. Mr. Storey's ma'ar concern J was with the prospect of adding a sidewalk in franc of his property, which he felt was unnecessary. No sidewalk was built in front of his property, and his property is not being assessed for any sidewalk. Mr. Storey's letter also expressed concerns over the amount of the assessments, but as noted above, the costs of this project are similar to or less than those of other projects of similar size. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ~ FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff provided the Hearings Cfficial with a Memorandum which outlined the above information. A public hearing concerning the assessment was held on Se tember 1, p 1993, at 6:CO p.m. ~n the First Floor Conference Room of the Public Works Buildin , 858 9 Pearl Street. Hearings Cfficial Michael Walch presided. A copy of the Minutes of that public hearing are attached as Exhibit A, and a copy of the Memorandum rovided b staff i ' ' p y s attached as Exh~b~t B. As described in the minutes, five members of the public were present at the hearin and 9~ four offered comments. Most of these comments were in the form of uestions q concerning minimum assessments, assessment deferrals, and assessment financin ,all 9 of which were addressed by the staff members present. Hank Melich asked about the relationship of collector streets and assessable street widths, and staff described how Findings and Recommendations -~ 2