Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 4534 RESOLUTION NO. '-/')" 3 f A RESOLUTION FORMING A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS ON HERMAN STREET BEGINNING 285 FEET NORTH OF SPRING CREEK DRIVE AND EXTENDING NORTH 350 FEET. (JOB #3538) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. After proper notice of the hearings required by Sections 7.165 and 7.166 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (E.C.), after receiving the City Engineer's report as required by Eugene Code 7.160 and after receiving the hearings officer's report of public testimony on the proposed project, the City Council hereby declares it is in the public interest to construct the local improvements described in Section 2 of this Resolution and assess part of the costs thereof to the specially benefited properties on Herman Street beginning 285 feet north of Spring Creek Drive and extending north 350 feet. Section 2. The Council hereby orders the establishment of a local improvement district, on Herman Street beginning 285 feet north of Spring Creek Drive and extending north 350 feet and in that district to pave, construct curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sanitary and storm sewers and related improvements. Section 3. The costs of the Improvements shall be borne by, and assessed to the properties in the district in accordance with E.C. 7.175. Included in the cost shall be the overhead costs specified in E.C. 7.170 and whatever other special costs, such as acquisition of interests in real property as are necessary to make the improvements. Upon completion of the Improvements, the Resolution - 1 final costs therefor will be calculated and the owners of benefited property shall be notified and the property assessed as provided in E.C. 7.185 to 7.240. The assessments to be levied for these improvements are hereby characterized for purposes of the property tax limitation in Section 11 b, Art. XI of the Oregon Constitution as assessments for a local improvement, not subject to the constitutional limitation of $10 per thousand of real market value. Notice of the intent to so characterize the assessments was sent to the affected property owners prior to the adoption of this resolution. Section 4. The City Council hereby declares that the construction of the Improvements, as well as acquisition of rights-of-way or easements necessary for the construction, is for a public purpose, is necessary for the public welfare, and is authorized under the laws of the State of Oregon and Charter and ordinances of the City of Eugene, and is directed by this Resolution. Section 5. Improvement warrants, short-term promissory notes and other evidence of indebtedness authorized by Chapter 902, 1991 Oregon Session Laws, issued to finance the construction of the Improvements shall be indebtedness for them. When improvement warrants are issued they may be general obligation warrants or limited general obligation warrants or other similar instrument. Such indebtedness shall bear interest at a rate set by Council resolution authorizing the debt. The interest shall be paid upon redemption. Section 6. Proceeds from unbonded assessments, improvement bonds, foreclosure of liens based on the Improvements and from other budgeted funds including ad valorem taxes, if levied, to pay the debt shall be deposited in the Short Term Debt Fund until the indebtedness issued to finance the Improvements is redeemed. Proceeds so deposited may be used only to pay the indebtedness issued to finance the Improvements. Resolution - 2 Section 7. The Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Officer may sign the evidence of indebtedness herein authorized by facsimile signature with a check signing machine. The Finance Officer shall cause the seal of the City to be printed on the evidence of indebtedness when required by law or by the purchaser. The foregoing Resolution adopted the ~ay of ~r1997 tr -- ql1~ City Recorder Resolution - 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT: PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM AND SEWERS ON HERMAN STREET BEGINNING 285 FEET NORTH OF SPRING CREEK DRIVE AND EXTENDING NORTH 350 FEET. (JOB #3538) BACKGROUND This project was initiated after two property owners submitted irrevocable petitions as a condition of development. Sections 9.033(3) and 9.040(3) of the Eugene Code establish the procedures for irrevocable petitions as a condition of development approval. The property owners adjacent to the portion of Herman Street now proposed for improvement have previously requested approval of proposed developments and received approval upon signing the irrevocable petitions. The petitions represent property that will pay 100 percent of the assessable cost for the construction of the streets and related improvements in the proposed local improvement district (LID). The City Engineer initiated the project, pursuant to Eugene Code 7.160(8), on April 2, 1997. The property owners were notified of the pending local improvement district hearing ten days prior to the hearing as required by Municipal Code. The project was advertised on July 9, 1997, and bids were opened July 18, 1997. The City received three bids for this improvement project. Babb Construction Co., Inc. dba Delta Construction Co., submitted the low bid of $71,802.00. PROJECT The project includes construction of 330 feet of 28 foot wide street paving, as well as the associated curbs, gutter, sidewalks, and storm sewers. The project will also include the construction of sanitary sewers for the properties within the LID that are not already served. ASSESSMENTS Costs listed below are the estimated assessment costs calculated from the low bid, including a ten percent contingency allowance, administration charges, and other charges associated with the project, as is allowed in Eugene Code, ~ 7.175. The final assessment will be based on final contract costs, and other actual and direct costs attributable to the project. Based on the low bids, the estimated assessment costs will be approximately: 28' Paving Sidewalk Lateral Sewer Line Service Line (Sewers) $ 93.74/front foot $ 28.60/front foot $ . 19/5quare foot $ 1,324.64/each PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND STORM AND SANIT AR Y SEWERS ON HERMAN STREET - FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING Eugene Public Works Engineering staff provided the Hearings Official with a memorandum which outlined the information set forth above. A public hearing was held on July 22, 1997, beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the meeting room at the Public Works offices in the Eugene Hotel building. Hearings Official Milo Mecham presided. A copy of the minutes of that public hearing are attached as Exhibit A. As described in the minutes, three property owners attended the hearing and asked questions concerning the project. The questions primarily concerned the details of the standards used to determine the specific design of the proposed street and sidewalks. The property owners raised the issue of a discrepancy between the proposed design of this improvement and others in the area. They pointed out that the previously constructed portion of Herman Street did not have any sidewalks, and that nearby streets had sidewalks at the curb instead of set back from the curb. The property owners were concerned that these changes might result in a greater cost of installation and maintenance. The city engineering staff explained how the project design was consistent with the local street design standards adopted by the City. Two property owners, who own property that would be subject to approximately thirty three percent of the total assessment, restated their concerns about the amount of the estimated assessment. These property owners, the Walkers, were concerned because they were uncertain of their ability to pay the assessment. The Walkers did not formally remonstrate against the project, but they did request that the proposed assessment of their property be reduced by half. Other Communications These same concerns were expressed in a letter the Walkers sent to City Engineer Les Lyle. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit B. Eldon and Sallie Walker own two parcels that will be within the proposed LID and subject to assessment upon completion of the project. In the letter the Walkers expressed concern about the cost and their ability to pay, and requested a 50 percent reduction in their assessment. The cost estimates they quote in their letter were based on the engineer's estimate of $140 per front foot. Based on the Contractor's bid, the estimated total cost to the Walkers will be $36,542 instead of the earlier estimate of $51,000. On July 25, 1997, Mr. And Ms. Walker delivered another letter to City Engineer Les Lyle, raising an additional complaint with regard to a portion of the proposed assessment. The Walkers learned that the proposed assessment included the cost of "removal and replacement" of a portion of the Walkers' driveway. They wrote to object, claiming that it was unfair to charge for this work when the driveway "was installed according to city requirements" when the house was built 10 years ago. A copy of the letter is attached. PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND STORM AND SANITARY SEWERS ON HERMAN STREET - FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page 2 Discussion Reduced Assessment The history of development in the area is closely tied to the proposed project and the request made by the Walkers. In 1993 the Walkers sought City approval to subdivide their land. At that time Herman Street was developed to the southern edge of the Walker property. There were design limitations that would have made an extension of Herman Street for the short distance through the Walker's property either impractical or extraordinarily expensive. After several meetings to discuss the options with Ms. Walker, the City and the Walkers agreed to delay construction of the street until later. In return for allowing the property to be divided without the improvements being made immediately, the Walkers signed an irrevocable petition. This process is one of the options allowed under Eugene Code ~ 9.040(3). The Walkers were connected to the City sewer system, and paid assessments for that. More recently, the property owners to the north of the Walkers, the Dukes, decided to develop their property by subdividing the property. At this time, the factors that previously effectively prevented extension of Herman Street have been eliminated. Consistent with standard City policy, the Dukes' development can only be allowed if Herman Street is completed through the Walkers' and the Dukes' property and sewers are made available to the Dukes' property. The Walkers feel that because the final incentive for the formation of the Local Improvement District came from the Dukes, the Dukes should be required to pay a larger share of the cost. The Walkers have overlooked the fact that the charges for improvements that they are now facing are the same costs that they delayed four years ago when they developed their property in the same way as the Dukes now seek to do. While the Dukes' decision to develop was the final factor leading to initiation of the project, the Walkers contributed as much as the Dukes to the total need for the project. The Walkers are facing what seems to them to be a large assessment, and it is easy to understand why they would like someone else to pay a portion of the assessment. There is, however, no general or specific policy in the Eugene Code that suggests or directs that they be given a special exemption. There are provisions that limit the amount that any individual property owner can be assessed, and in this case it appears that the Dukes will be assessed an appropriate amount. The only means to reduce the assessment of the Walkers' property would be for the City to assume a larger share of the cost. This itself is contrary to the direction in the Eugene Code. The Walkers are not being asked to pay proportionately any more than would any other property owners who have chosen to subdivide their property in an area where public facilities are not already fully developed. When they agreed to the delay in development, the petition they signed contained an implied provision that they would pay the cost of the delayed improvements when it was assessed. Because there is no policy direction in the Eugene Code concerning individual exemptions, and because the Walkers' request does not appear to fit within any general or PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND STORM AND SANITARY SEWERS ON HERMAN STREET - FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page 3 specific policy directions of the Eugene Code, the Hearings Official does not recommend that the Council limit the assessment of the Walkers' properties as they request. Driveway Changes The cost of driveway realignment is a common part of many street construction improvements, and such costs are always included as a part of the assessment of benefited properties. It is not at all uncommon for driveways to be realigned when streets are put in, because the street standards require different heights for streets than are used for gravel roads, so that the appropriate support can be installed and the curbs and gutters can serve their role in the storm drain system. In the Walkers' case it is not clear that the Walkers' home was within the city and subject to City standards ten years ago, and even if it was, the City requirements for a driveway onto an undeveloped street would have been different then than the standards for a driveway to enter a developed street now. There would have been no way for the City to specify the type of driveway the Walkers needed to put in ten years ago so that it would not require modification when a street was installed. Altering the driveway so that it joins the street in an appropriate way is a normal cost of a street improvement project. The cost of altering the Walkers' driveway is only being incurred because the Walkers have a driveway that must be aligned with the street, and the Walkers will benefit from the alterations, since they will be able to use the driveway and the street. This portion of the proposed assessment is no more unfair than any other part of the assessment proposed for the Walkers, and it is no more unfair than previous assessments that have been levied on hundreds of other city residents living in other local improvement districts. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Notice of the public hearing was provided and all the property owners were given an opportunity to participate in the hearings. Property owners who will bear the cost for the proposed improvements were notified of the planned July 22, 1997, public hearing with the hearings official and the City Council session to establish the LID. Letters informing property owners of the hearing and anticipated Council action date and notification to property owners of the intent of the City to characterize the assessment as an assessment, not a tax, as required by ORS 305.583(5) were mailed to the property owners. One such letter, sent to the property owner Daniel O'Sullivan, was returned because Mr. O'Sullivan had not filed the necessary change of address with deeds and records. City staff extended their efforts by reviewing other public data bases and were able to learn Mr. O'Sullivan's present residence. Staff contacted Mr. O'Sullivan by telephone to inform him of the hearing. Appropriate notice was given and the public hearing was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Eugene Code. PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND STORM AND SANITARY SEWERS ON HERMAN STREET - FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page 4 The Hearings Officer finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local improvements as set forth in ORS 310.410 because 1. The assessments do not exceed actual costs; 2. The assessments are imposed for a capital construction project which provides a specific benefit for a specific property or rectifies a problem caused by a specific property 3. The assessments are imposed in a single assessment upon completion of the project; and 4. The assessments allow the property owners to elect to pay the assessment with interest over at least ten (10) years. The Hearings Official also finds that the unit prices and the cost of the improvements are comparable to other projects of similar size. Therefore, the Hearings Official recommends acceptance of the low bid and approval of the formation of the local improvement district as recommended by the City Engineer and without any change in the standard method of assessments. Respeczzed' ~.. Milo Mecham Hearings Official Dated: July 25, 1997 PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND STORM AND SANITARY SEWERS ON HERMAN STREET - FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Page 5 Exhibit A MINUTES Local Improvement District Street Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Storm and Sanitary Sewers on Herman Street Beginning 285 feet North of Spring Creek Drive and Extending north 350 Feet Job # 3538 July 21, 1997 Public Hearing Hearings Official Milo Mecham convened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. He described the subject matter of the hearing and the procedures to be followed at the hearing. Present at the hearing representing the City of Eugene were Paul Klope and Peggy Keppler. Principal Civil Engineer Paul Klope began by providing a brief description of the project and its history. The project involves the extension of Herman Street from its present end to the north 350 feet. During street construction, lateral lines and service connections for the sanitary sewer system will be placed under the street, to provide sewer services to all the properties that have not already connected to the sewer system. The project has been modified slightly from its original design. It has been determined that the extension of Herman Street does not need to be continued at its original 32 foot width. The new portion of the street will be 28 feet wide. The project was initiated when two irrevocable petitions were submitted for the street improvements. One set of the petitioners, Eldon and Sallie Walker, previously had been allowed to develop their property without development of Herman Street. Now the other petitioners, the Dukes, want to develop. The Dukes' development will require sanitary sewers and construction of the street. Mr. Klope concluded his introduction by discussing a letter from Eldon and Sallie Walker, who object to the amount of the assessment and seek to have their assessment reduced by half. Mr. Klope also responded to a concern expressed by the Walkers about the plan to only extend Herman Street through the Dukes property rather than to complete the street through another, undeveloped parcel, to connect with Calumet A venue to the north. Mr. Klope explained that the City had determined Herman Street would continue to function adequately without the extension. The first person to address the hearing was Ms. Sallie Walker. Ms. Walker sought confirmation of the Hearings Official's earlier explanation that the record of the hearing would be forwarded to the Eugene City Council, who would make the decision concerning formation of the local improvement district. Mr. Archie Thompson asked a series of questions about the sidewalks proposed to be constructed as a part of the project. Mr. Thompson pointed out that the original portion of Herman Street did not have sidewalks, whereas this project had sidewalks set back from the street. Mr. Thompson wanted to know if it would be possible to move the sidewalks adjacent to the street. Mr. Thompson was concerned because the proposed separation would make maintenance of the Minutes - July 21, 1997 Public Hearing Page 1 area between the sidewalk and the street more difficult, and would require that the sidewalk be removed if work needed to be done on the utilities, since the sidewalk was being laid over the utility lines. Mr., Klope responded that the project was being designed according to the adopted street policies and standards. Mr. Klope explained that during the Council's consideration of the policies, issues about the relationship between sidewalks and utility lines had been discussed. The decision was made to require a design similar to that proposed because it would provide a space for and more protection for street trees. Mr. Klope indicated he would pass Mr. Thompson's concerns on to the City Engineer and would make certain that the proposed design was the most appropriate in light of all the relevant factors. Mr. Klope explained that the City policy was usually to modify the policy of a median between the sidewalk and the street only when there were physical limitations that prevented the standard design. Ms. Walker asked several questions concerning the establishment of the standards and Mr. Klope responded by describing the process of choosing the present standards as a part of the Council's adoption of a city-wide local street plan. In response to the Hearings Official's question, Ms Walker indicated that she and her husband continued to object to the amount of the estimated assessment. Ms. Walker pointed out that the amount of the assessment had not been reduced as much as it might seem by looking only at the estimated assessment for the street, because there would also be assessments for sidewalks. Mr. Walker agreed that the estimated assessment would impose a serious hardship on the Walker family. After Ms. Walker indicated that she did not understand the option of extending payments for the assessment over ten years, the Hearings Official briefly explained the process established by the City, and indicated that the Walkers could and should get more information on this option from the City finance offices. City engineer Peggy Keppler provided Ms. Walker with the name (Carol Martin) and phone number of the appropriate city staff to contact. Mr. Klope urged the Walkers to ask the City finance staff to explore other options for special deferrals that the Walker's might be qualified to receive. There being no further matters to be discussed, the hearing ended at approximately 6:25 p.m. Minutes - July 21, 1997 Public Hearing Page 2 4374 Herman Street Eugene, OR. 97404 July 23, 1997 Mr. Les Lyl~~ City Engineer City Engineers' -Office Public Works Building 858 Pearl Street Eugene, OR. 97401 Dear Mr. Lyle: We request that a copy of this letter be forwarded to the hearing officer, city council members and any other persons charged with making decisions regarding our assessments for the improvement of Herman Street. We regard this statement as part of our response dated July 14. We failed to address this concern in our letter of July 14 and at the hearing held July 22 only because we lacked pertinent information. We called Peggy Keppler today and discovered that the city of Eugene intends to assess us approximately $6000 for the removal and replacement of a portion of our drive- way which was installed according to city requirements when this house was built 10 years ago. We believe this is grossly unfair! According to Ms. Keppler, this is over and above the assessment for street and sidewalk construction. Why? Does the city choose to force us into poverty? or moving from the city? Weare searching for answers and will follow up with a phone call to Carole Martin regarding financing options as suggested by Milo Mitchum and Paul Klope at the hearing July 22. Thank you for your assistance. Yours truly, ~~~ ~f?C~'!)'~~ Eldon W. Walker Sallie 1. Walker JUL 2 5 1997 MEMORANDUM Date: July 22, 1997 From: Les Lyle, City Engineer To: Hearings Official SUBJECT: PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM AND SEWERS ON HERMAN STREET BEGINNING 285 FEET NORTH OF SPRING CREEK DRIVE AND EXTENDING NORTH 350 FEET. (JOB #3538) BACKGROUND This project was initiated as a result of two property owners submitting irrevocable petitions as a condition of development (Sections 9.033(3) and 9.040(3)) that has occurred adjacent to Herman Street. The petitions represent property that will pay 100 percent of the assessable cost for the proposed local improvement district (LID). The City Engineer initiated the project, as provided for in the Eugene Code 7.160(8) on April 2, 1997. The property owners were notified of the pending local improvement district hearing ten (10) days prior to the hearing as required by Municipal Code. The project was advertised on July 9, 1997, and bids were opened July 18, 1997. The City received three (3) bids for this improvement project. The low bid was submitted by Babb Construction Co., Inc. dba Delta Construction Co. in the amount of $71,802.00. The high bid amount was $84,034.00. Correspondence Eldon and Sallie Walker, at 4374 Herman Street, submitted a letter objecting to the project (see attachment). The Walker's own two parcels that will be assessed for the improvements. In 1993, they previously partitioned their property into 3 lots and chose to submit an irrevocable petition for the improvement of Herman Street verses constructing it through the private/public improvement process. Sanitary sewers were installed previously as a result of the River Road/Santa Clara sewer project. The street needs to be extended north to provide access for the Dukes property which is immediately north of the Walker property (see map). The existing street on the Walker property is gravel. Ultimately Herman Street is planned to extend north of the Dukes property to connect to the existing segment of Herman Street. In the correspondence, they expressed concern about the cost and their ability to pay, and requested a 50 percent reduction in their assessment. As stated before, the Walkers chose to not improve their segment of the street when they partitioned their property but submitted an irrevocable petition instead. The cost estimates they quote in their letter were based on the engineer's estimate of $140 per front foot. Based on the Contractor's bid, the estimated front foot cost is $93.74, and the estimated assessments for their two properties are $24,030.96 and $12,515.84 respectively. Although they do not qualify for the subsidy program, they can finance the assessments through the City over 10 years. The Walkers indicate that they feel the assessment amount for the Dukes property is "unjust relative to the amount of our assessment." All the assessments for property adjacent to Herman Street will be calculated per City Code which is to use a cost per front foot. The Dukes property has 345 feet of frontage, as compared to 276 feet for the Walker's property. The Walkers also expressed concern that construction of this segment of the street would not connect with the existing section of Herman Street to the north. The City has irrevocable petitions from the Walkers and from Mr. Dukes for the segment associated with their properties. Mr Dukes is required to improve the street so that he can develop his property, which he desires to do now. The property owner between the Dukes property and the existing section of Herman Street does not want to extend the street north through his property at this time. Ultimately, the City does expect that Herman street will be extended north to the existing improved section, however, that will likely only occur when the property develops. Herman Street south of the Walkers property is full improved and connects with Spring Creek to the south. PROJECT The project includes construction of 330 feet of 28 foot paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, storm and sanitary sewers. ASSESSMENT Costs listed below are the estimated assessment costs calculated from the low bid. 28' Paving Sidewalk Lateral Service $ 93.7 4/front foot $ 28.60/front foot $ .19/square foot $1,324.64/each RECOMMENDATION The unit prices submitted with the low bid are comparable to other projects of similar size. This project is a logical extension of pubic facilities, is necessary to allow for development of the adjoining properties, and is required as a condition of the development of the Walker and Dukes property. Staff recommends approval of formation of the local improvement district. a :\support\proj-97\3538hrg. m j 4374 I-Jerman Street Eugene. OR. 97494 July 14.1997 Mr. Lcs Lyle, City Engineer City Engineers' Office Public Works Building 858 Pearl Street Eugene, OR. 97401 Dear Mr. Lyle: This statement is in response to your letter dated July 9, 1997 describing the planned improvements for a portion of Herman Street nOl1h of Spring Creek Drive. Two phone calls were made by us to seek additional information and/or clarification. One to Peggy Keppler on July 10 for an estimate on the cost to us, and one to Paul Klope on July II for clarification of item 4, page 2 of your letter. We hold strong opinions about several concerns and request that this information be forwarded to the hearing ofllicial assigned to this matter: -We believe that the estimated costs of $34,000 and $17,000 for tax lots 50 I and 505 respectiyely, are excessive--indeed~ overwhelming for persons of our socio- economic status., :'" I,,~. "!:'," i"' . " (.". J' f. , 1 - Weare r~~irees, on fixed income; with chronic illnesses and high medical expenses expenses, although we do not meet the criteria for your subsidy program. *Eldon was just released from Sacred Heart 2 weeks ago after treatment for pneumonia! blood poisoning/heart attack. Assessment costs of the magnitude stated by Peggy Keppler would "wipe out" any monies which are likely to be required for future medical emergencies and/or long-term care. -We own 4 tax lots--the two already identified on lferman Street and two on Scenic Drive where each of our two children live. Originally, this was one property, but we were required to subdivide the parcel in order to provide housing for our children in 1993. Otherwise, one or both of them would have been homeless. We still subsidizle their housing. The point is we are not now--nor have we ever been--developers for profit. We have attempted only to care for family needs. -We were required to petition the city for street improvements in 1993 at the time the city required the subdivision of our land parcel. The engineer with whom we talked at that time stated Herman Street would not be improved untilthe two sections of Herman could be connected--the north portion coming south olT Beacon Drive with the south portion going north ofT Spring Creek Drive. Apparelltly, the proposed development by puke and;Duke has spurred. city . ., 1/ ,., JUL I 5 ,199/ planners to rethink/reschedule the improvements to llerman Street without the necessity for connecting. - We have been told that Duke and Duke will be assessed $80,000 for Iferman Street construction and installation of improvements. I f factual, t his appears to be completely unjust relative to the amount of our assessment. -Relative to item 4, page 2 of your letter, it is unlikely that 10 taxpayers will disagree with any characterization of the proposed Local Improvement Dist ricl. Aside from Duke and Duke, there are only 2 taxpayers on the portion of Ilerman Street in question. Who else knows? or is interested? Therefore, this item appears to cover a legal technicality to sidestep Measure 5 but serves 110 real purpose in addressing the events which are of concern to us. -In summary, we request that you reduce our assessment costs by 50%. Please do not impoverish us by creating an ut~ust financial burden. Thank you for considering our opinions. Yours truly, t€./4)tp-~ ykc:&~- y_, /ka/kt/ Eldon W. Walker Sallie 1. Walker *Should you find it needful to have additional information about the nature and extent of our health problems and medical needs, we will furnish you with the names of doctors whom you may contact. Please advise us. LL W I 11-bLf, 07-- r\ ( 'O. J f ~" /' t- .. 608 W ,O.IIAC. ~ ~ W a:: t- en ~ z <( 60S ~ 604 ' 602 . fY ~ ~: .. ~ ~ ~ " -- .. W 1=. ,: ~ ~ :c 'it .. ~2 0.1' A. "/ /r~' .All' ~tI..,' .1'..111' '''' ~---':'_-rl-' ---- ---------=--',.~ -- --', fNG - - I - ,:. - €-R-E-EK - - -DRtVE-- ; I 1....- - ", ,,..,.1'1. - .1'1 C..r. · ~ ~ I' .! _ _ --.~:::l~ -'4' ~ ....,-=. 1~"F') 'S ~ ,\ \ i.'l'\ (j ~ ~ .1.1/../' /~1.r' LJ PA"CIL ",.. -699- CALUMET AVE. ,." '" ,,' -.-. ',' ........"jI- - :... .. . o "... -.. . ~'I;. . -r ---- ""?'SIZ - /tI eN: , ~~d' 200 10 . , ~ ~ 011 10 ?J t ~ · t 2 ~~I, 10 J~ I ~ < ~,~ L~ . " ~. ~ I II~ ~ ,J04-17 ~t(J' . .. -. , 300 , o 5ul~~Ja.l") t~. AI.~.'~~" ... 401 0.87 AC. l ~ "0 l ,.4'1 \' g, "f';;; " a: ~ ~,134 III 't l t II' ~1 ~o~ peL.' ~ "".~U'oz.w. 6~O.G' I~_, 600 O.~AC. I I ~I. T1 Q ~I w I~E.C I " I 711 I 601 O.I~AC. ~it 603 ... _ (J.~.AC. ;;i ~. 4 ~ ~ '3 ~ \'\ad 1\,,(11.\10 ~hJ-,o(\j . ~ ~ , , 10 O' 609 004-00 807 ~ ,., .- " \ 0.1 '.Ii . ,..... :~...h.~_, .. ... . . . kACott oiPJw: f:. . . : : . : .. .. ..: ,. , .~ I ... : ..1aVDt LOOP 2 VICINITY. MAP