Laserfiche WebLink
parcel are assessed to that particular parcel. This includes assessment of $3,451 for a retaining wall <br />and two assessments for landscape work x$454.56 and 227.25}. <br />Cost to City: <br />$15,203.61 <br />The costs to the City arose from the construction of ramps at several intersections and because of the <br />construction of two residential sidewalks at a greater than the standard seven foot width. <br />Prior estimates <br />The assessable unit costs listed below are based on the low bids received prior to construction and <br />were quoted to property owners at the L1D hearing following the bid opening: <br />4 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 6.971Sq. Ft. <br />5 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 7.721Sq. Ft. <br />7 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 5.171Sq. Ft. <br />City Cost: $ 4,529.01 <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />The property owners were informed more than ten days in advance of the date of a scheduled public <br />hearing on the final assessment. The City Engineer submitted a report to the Hearings Officer prior to <br />the hearing Exhibit B}, Dne person appeared at the hearing and testified in opposition to a portion of <br />the assessment. Amedee M. Smith, who owned the property at the time of the formation of the LID, <br />but who subsequently sold the property to his son, testified that he believed the assessment for the <br />retaining wall constructed on the edge of the sidewalk on his son's property was excessive. Mr. <br />Smith stated the same objections expressed in a letter submitted to the Acting City Engineer by Mr. <br />Smith's son. <br />Mr. Smith objected to the idea of a sidewalk being installed, the fact that trees were removed to <br />install the sidewalk, and to the cost of a retaining wall that was installed along a portion of the <br />sidewalk. The Acting City Engineer explained that all the property owners had been given an <br />opportunity to install a sidewalk themselves, and had been warned that the cost of the city installing <br />the sidewalk might well be more expensive that if it were done privately. Amore complete <br />description of the hearing is provided in the attachment labeled Exhibit A. <br />FINDINGS AND RECgMMENDATION <br />Nature of the Assessment <br />The Hearings officer finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local <br />improvements as set forth in ORS 310.410 because <br />1. The assessments do not exceed actual costs; <br />SIDEWALKS AND DR~VEwAY APPROACHES FDR FIVE LUCATIUNS IN THE CITY <br />FINAL ASSESSMENT PAGE <br />