Laserfiche WebLink
Exhibit B <br />MEMORANDUM <br />August 27, 1993 <br />TO: Hearings Official <br />FROM: Les Lyle, City Engineer <br />SUBJECT: PAVING, CURBS, SIDEWALKS AND STORM DRAIN CN MARSHALL <br />AVENUE FROM 244-FEET EAST OF HUGHES STREET To ECHO HOLLOW <br />ROAD AND ~N TANEY STREET FRGM MARSHALL AVENUE TO 250-FEET <br />SDUTH tCaNTRACT #92-27~ ~J4B #2763 <br />BACKGRaUND <br />Design and bidding authority for this project was initiated by Council Motion January 13, <br />1992. The formation of the Local Improvement District and adoption of the hearings <br />official, minutes, findings and recommendations was approved by the City Council on July <br />27, 1992. Property owners within the LID will bear 4$ percent of the cost for the local <br />improvement district ~LID~. The property owners were notified of the final assessment <br />hearing ten ~ 1 a~ days prior to the hearing. <br />PROJECT <br />The project included~4,loo-lines! feet of 36-foot wide paving on Marshall Avenue, curb <br />and gutters, and sidewalks, with short segments of 28-foot wide paving on the nan- <br />collector designated street segments. The City is funding the non-assessable width and <br />depth, all major storm drains, and the cost of the intersections. <br />ASSESSMENT <br />Under City of Eugene assessment policy, 48.9 percent of the improvement costs will be <br />distributed to the abutting property owners. Below are the final unit assessable costs. <br />2O-foot paving $ 39.641front foot <br />2$-foot paving $ 6o.761front foot <br />36-foot paving $ 5o.461front foot <br />7" thick driveway apron ~ 12.151front foot <br />5" thick driveway apron $ 12.151front foot <br />5-foot sidewalk $ 12.151front font <br />Front foot cost for 36-foot paving is less than the 2$-foot paving because there are only <br />two Lots being assessed at the 36-foot rate. One of the Tots is a panhandle Iot with only <br />15-foot of frontage. Using 6o-feet as a minimum assessable frontage and the full <br />frontage for the other parcel the total assessable frontage is greater than the deed calls, <br />thus, the resultant cost is less than that of 28-foot paving. Those properties fronting the <br />28-foot paving all have frontages greater than 6o-feet thus the resultant frontage has less <br />