Ordinance No. 20074 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

explained that he had been the owner of the property when the improvement district had been proposed, but had since sold the property to his son. Mr. Smith said that he had received a letter concerning the proposed sidewalk about two years. ago. Mr. Smith said that when he received the letter he had protested the idea of a sidewalk because no one used the area. At that time he had investigated the possibility of constructing the sidewalk himself, but had been unable to find a contractor who would undertake the work. Mr. Smith said that the sidewalk had originally been proposed as a seven foot wide sidewalk, but the City had revised the proposed width down to five feet wide. Mr. Smith also stated that the original letter to property owners had suggested that the cost of the sidewalks might be about $25 per foot. The letter to property owners informing them of the hearing on the formation of the district had suggested an even higher cost. Mr. Smith's primary objection was to the retaining wall that had been constructed at the edge of a portion of the sidewalk. Mr. Smith objected to the decision to put a wall in. and to the method used to construct the wall. Mr. Smith complained that twa trees on the property had been removed and another tree had been damaged in the construction of the sidewalk, and that the wall was really unnecessary because the ground could have been sloped back from the sidewalk rather than leaving in a bank that needed a retaining wa11 to hold it off the sidewalk. Mr. Lankston responded by explaining that the retaining wall had originally been planned only for the portion of the sidewalk along the city property adjacent to Mr. Smith's property. During construction, however, it had been determined that a wall would be necessary for a portion of the sidewalk along the Smith property because the property would not be stable without a wall. Mr. Lankston explained that the trees that were removed had been on the street right-of way and had to be removed to put in any sidewalk. The city had attempted to be careful around the third tree to make certain that it was not damaged. Mr. Lankston also explained that the City did not have the option of sloping the bank above the sidewalk because that would have required going outside the right-of way, which the City could not do in this situation, Mr. Lankston suggested that the limitations that required the City to choose a retaining wall instead of other choices were the reasons that the City had urged property owners to choose to install the sidewalks themselves. Mr. Lankston explained that the City had included a portion of the cost of the retaining wall in the original bid, expecting that the wall would have to be built on the City's property. The City had been able to negotiate some cost savings when the wall had been expanded, and these savings were passed on to Mr. Smith. Mr. Lankston explained that the cost of the wall had been prorated so that the property owner was only being asked to pay for the cost of the wall built along the owner's property. Mr. Smith and Mr. Lankston then discussed the individual costs proposed to be assessed. Mr. Smith objected to the charge for landscaping, because he did not want any Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing November 13,199b Page 2