Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20254 ORDINANCE NO. 20254 AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR A SOUND BARRIER %t4LL ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF Iq05 FROM GARDEN ~,¥~y TO FEET WEST OF RUSTIC PLACE. (CONTRACT 2802~528) (JOB #3558) The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A petition requesting construction of a traffic noise reduction wall along the north side ofi- 105 f?omjust West of Garden Way to approximately 200 £bet West of Rustic Place was initiated by property owners within the Local Improvement District and other concerned property owners within the area. Based on an estimated construction cost of $1,200~000.00, commitments were obtained from Lane County for 25% of the cost of the project, the City of Eugene for 12.5% of the cost of project, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for 50% of the cost of the project. The remaining 12.5% of the project costs will be paid ~br by assessment of the property owners within the Local Improvement DistricL The City's portion of the project cost was funded in the 1998 CIh and the balance of governmem funding was included in an intergovernmental agreement between Lane County and ODOT After due notice and a public hearing before the hearing official on May' 24, 2000, and no remonstrances having been filed, on the 12th day of June, 2000, the City Council fbrmed the local improvement district and anthorized construction of the local improvement. The actual cost of the local improvement is ascertained to be $ ~ ,800~000.00, and the amounts to be assessed to and borne by the specially benefitted property and to be borne by the City or others have been determined in accordance with applicable provisions of the Eugene Code~ 1971 ("E.C.') Ordinance- 1 and as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council has established the method of calculating local improvement assessments in E.C. 7.170 and 7.175~ A notice containing the information required by E.C. 7.185 was posted on a public bulletin board at City Hall and given by certified mail to the owners of the parcels of real property subject ro the assessment more than ten days prior to the scheduled public hearing before the hearing official. At the time and place specified therein, nineteen persons appeared personally and testified as to the special benefit ~- or absence of any special benefit -- conferred by the sound wall. The hearings official considered the testimony as welt as additional written testimony and evidence and has reported the adopted findings to the City Council. The Council has reviewed and considered the assessment report of the City Engineer and Finance Officer and the hearings official's findings and summary, and based thereon, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: . The hearings official's summary is hereby made a part of the Council's record in these proceedings, and the hearings official's findings, including those regarding compliance with E~C. 7.160 ro 7.190, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. . The actual assessable cost of the local improvement comprised ora sound battier wall along the north side ofI-105 from Garden Way to 200 feet -West of Rustic Place is $150,000.00, which is hereby assessed against the parcels of property hereinafter described in the amounts set opposite, respectively. . The City Council does hereby determine and assess each lot and part of tot within Ordinance - 2 the described local improvement district as set forth on the assessment roll attached as Exhibit C hereto and incorporated herein by ret~brence. . The City Council does hereby determine that each parcel of land or lot herein above described is specially benefitted to the extent of the assessment set fbrth. The Finance Officer shall give notice of the assessments to the owners of the assessed parcels advising them the assessment may be paid in full~ without interest~ within ten days of the effective date of this ordinance, Assessments that remain unpaid after the ten day period are declared to be liens upon the respective lots~ parts of lots or parcels of land against which said several amounts are assessed, and may be paid, with interest on the unpaid principal amount commencing ten days after the effective date of this ordinance: 4.1 In up to twenty semi-annual installments~ including principal and interest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.022 through 2.024. 4.2 If the property owner so elects~ in 120 monthly installments, including principal arid imerest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.022 through 2.024 plus a service charge determined by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.020. . The City Recorder is directed to enter in the docket of City Liens a statement in connection with each unpaid assessment containing the following: 5 I A description of each lot, part of lot or acreage specially benefitted by the local improvement; 5.2 The name of the owner or reputed owner thereof, or that the name of the owner is unknown; and 5.3 The sum assessed upon said property, the amount and date ~kom which interest accrues~ Ordinance - 3 and the date of entering the same in the docket of City Liens. Section.6. Upon enacLmen~ of this ordinance~ the City Finance Officer shall send notice of the assessments by first class mail to the owners of the assessed parcels containing the information required byE.C. 7.190 and enclose therewith an application for paying the assessment in installments according to the terms set forth in Section 4 of this ordinance~ . Any assessment remaining unpaid and for which no application for installment payments has been received may be foreclosed as provided by law. The proceeds from the payment or foreclosure ofassessmems levied by this ordinance shall be deposited to the city funds which advanced the cost ofconstruction~ engineering and related expenses or which are used to retire any indebtedness incurred by the C~~ for this improvement. Passed by the City Council this day o~ May, 2002 City Recorder Approved by the Mayor this lY~ day of May~ 2002 Ordinance ~ 4 0 04 o,T, ' 0 E~BIT EUGENE HEARINGS OFFICIAL F Nr NGS Am) RECOM NDATmNs [~BJECT. SOUND BA~IER WALL ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF I-I05 FROM GARDEN WAY TO 200 RET WEST OF RUSTIC PLACE (JOB # 3558) (CO~RACT #2002-528) BACKGROUND This project was initiated by petition of concerned area prope~ owners. The project had wide~pr~ad support and the P}titioners Obtained commii~e~ts ~rom Lane County for 25% of the cost & the pro}~ct and the C}ty of Eugene for 12.5% of the cost of the projeCt~ The city of Eugene po~io~ was funded i~ the I~8 Capital Improvement Program (C}P). The balance of the cost is borne by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) (50%) and by assessments of prope~ owne}s within the improvement district (12.5%). n the early 1990s the C~ty formed an LID to cons~ct a sound barrier wall on the south side of Belfl~ne Road The citizens~ involve e t ~. . m n and assessment process for th~s prqject followed that ~eartier projecL The Oregon Depa~ent of Trm~sportafion participates in t~e retrofit of sound Da~er walls where local interest and participation are sufficient ~o pay 50% of the cost. Intergovernmental agreements were signed, }fipulafing the dollar c¢}s~ associated with the project. C%ts of anj overruns have b~n b~)rn& by OI~OT. The City Council formed the Local Improvement District (LID) on June 12, 20(~. The project has heeh completed, and final assessm&nt costs have been Calcfilated. The property owners were notified of the pending assessment heating ten (10) days prior to the hearing as required by Municipal cod~. CORRESPONDENCE Since the mailing of the Notice of Proposed Assessments, city sta£f have been contacted by ten (I0) property owners. The majority of the concerns and questions were about the noise from the fred~ay. Mtst of the owners ~re V~ry disappointed with the apparent lack of effective noise reducti}m by the wall. Perceived souhd le~is are subjective, ~d some property owners have expressed t~e sentiment that the wall has done nothing or in some case~ m~de ~he sound louder. ODOT staff is satisfied that the wall performs as well or better than they had predicted. The ODOT acoustical engineer responsible for the project visited the site a~d tool~ measurements at ear level and on a 2fi-foot boo~ that extended ~)v~r the Wall. He concluded that his readings showed that the wall reduced sound leve~ s ~n the back yards at least as much as predicted i~ all Findings and Recommendations~[br Final Assessment - Job 2002-528 Page cases. In many cases the reduction was at least one decibel more than predicted for the ODOT 1999 prelimi?ry design. Several property owners have complained that the wall was built in a different location and a different height than they were told. The Wall is built on the north side of the EWEB easement on the east end of the project and the top of the wall, while varying from lot to tot, is constructed very close to the h~igl~ts above grou~d that are sl4oWn on th~ 1599 ODOT preliminary plans~ The top of the wall elevation was set relative to the edge of the highway pavement. Since the !: : entire }oadway slopes down to the west, the top of the Wall also slopes. Costs are distributed as outlined in the Council adopted Hearings Official minutes, findings and recommendations and resolution forming the LiD. The agreements in place at the time or-the LID stipulated the 12.5% assessable shar~ of the project ~ be $150,00b. City practice is to proportion the asseSsments into two tiers using a ~/1 i:8/11 ratio of benefit. ~(~sts listed below are the ~stimated assessment costs calculated at the time of formation of LID: Tier One (47 lots) $2,732.95 Tier Two (21 lots) $1 ~026 26 Below ~s the final assessable cost to property owners: Tier One (47 lots) $2~732.95 Tier Two (21 lots) $L026.26 RECOMMENDATIONS The City Engineer has provided the Hearings Official with an assessment report that outlined the above i~fOr~ation and ~,'hich recommended approval of the assessment as c~lcnlated. Certification that notice of the proposed assessment was given as required by Section 7.185 of the Eugene Code. A public hed'rin~ regarding the proposed assessmd~nt was ~eld on April 2002. T~e ,m, inutes o~~ this hearing ~re ~ttach~d to ~he~e Findings and RecommendatiOns as Exhibit A. ' Eighteen members of the public, seventeen of wl~om live within the assessment d~stricL testifie~ at the hearing. Testimony was t[nanimous that either the noise reduction benefit was limited to a small portion of the individual s property, that their Was no noise reduction~ or that noise had actually ~ncreased after the con}traction of the sound wall. A frequent comment was that there was little or no noise reduction ~n the back yard but an increase la noise in the front yard. The effectiveness of the wall wa,s also difficult to ascertain because of the lack Of sound benchmarks established prior to the wall s construction and because the record did not contai n post- construction noise measurements, just conclusionary hearsay testimony that the wall performed Findings and Recommendations.Iht Fitful Assessment - Job 2002-528 ?age 2 at or above expectations. For these reasons, the record was reopened to receive s ecifi information re ardin n°'s p i ic g g ~ e measurements made by ODOT staff after the cons ' wall and to allow int~r~o*,~-~ -~: ........ truct~on of the --~,~,~o~cu b,m tics to comment on this new information. The information about the noise measurements made by ODOT staff identi ties how the sound measurements were made and at what locations were they taken. The information also evaluates noise measurements~ above: the wall and behind: ' the wall and compares these readings:~ against Predicted noise reductions made at the time the project was form~d., In all cases.i th~ ac~al noise ~eduction from the wall either exceeded or matched the predicted noise reductions. '-tech. inexpensive For instance, it is possible that the slick. have reduced its sound absorption obi lities by 3 to-~5 of the highway-facing portion of the sound wall might ~ugment the noi se placement of "fire barriers" along place these , the resurfacing of the highway overpass at ~in the range of one to two dB,A or mare. the further finds that the proposed ~ accordance with the Eugene Code and that the project is one for set forth in ORS 3 t0~ 140 because: (1) The assessments do not exceed actual costs; (2) The assessments are imposed for a Capital Improvement Construction Project which specificPr°videSpro~erty;a specific benefit to a specific prope~y or rectifies the problem c~used by a (3) The assessments are imposed in a single assessment upon completion of the roe t (4) The assessments allow ~he ~-r ....~.~, ~.2.__.~ ........ ~ p ,j c; and ~, ,~,~ [~y ,2whets ro elect to pay o~ with interest over at least ten (10) years. Eugene Code 7.187{2) requires a determinatmn of the special benefit each parcel of real property assessed receives from th~ local improvement Based u~on noise measuren:tent data su lieci ODOT staff, the Hear' o · ~ ' pp i by ln~s Officml is able to conclude that all of the properties in the improvement district have received a special benefit from the improvement. While the project has achieved the benefits promised prior to the formation of the LID, it is clear perceived as being inadequate and that there are several additional uce the impact of highway noise on the benefited :ourage ODOT staff to pursue all and Recommendatior, s for Fi~m! Assessment - Job 2002-528 Page 3 Respectfully submitted, ures that, either individually or cumulatively~ will reduce Date Page 4 E~IBIT 'qg' Attachment 1 E IBIT A HE~GS OFFICIAL MINUTES UBJECT S ~ R WALL ~ONG THE NORT G H SIDE OF 1-105 FROM ~EN WAY TO 200 ~ET ~ST OF RUSTIC PLACE Gary Damielle presided. the nature of the hearing and listen to the testimony a set of Council. neighborhood support for the sound barrier wall for project be supported through assessments remained the same as dBA reduction in noise. for cost onsmactmn of the wall. Ms. Sullivan by failhag to establish an initial . claims could be measured. She believes that pointed out that ODOT is noise mitigation measures such as the installatmn of a tire barrier and [ that the assessment be postponed until ODOT has Arm Lamon of 3440 OxBow Way next testified. She noted that her house was closest to the freeway and that the wall worked to some degree in her backward but the noise was not lessened on other Portions of her property. MS~ Lamon stated that she supports the concept of being Public Hearin~o Minute~ ,,*~ ~,,,~ ~ ~ .... - u5 Sound Barrier Wal~ Page 2 of 4 assessed for a project that reduces the noise but noted that the wall r>rovided htr abatement Ms La ~. i ' te noise . · mort stated that a ha ' nd-lind buck wall was installed to save destruction oftre the unnecess es but noted that the aw trees were cut an a being Ired for the entire length of the wall. yw y. She supported the t~re barrier Chuck Imus, of 2720 Country Lane stated that he had no %eel' with the assessment although he was initiall~ told that there would be four tiers of assessment instead of two Mr Im that ODOT s sound measurements we,.,~ ,~w- ~ ~ -. ~ ~ - . us noted ~,~ ~,~n ~,y mevat~ng a mmrophone above the wail and then placing it about 15 feet behind the walt to show an alleged 13 dBA reduction in sound. Mr. Imus noted that ODOT originally said that they were goin~g to use a retaking wall as a ~bundation ~br the s, ound reduction wall to allow the wall to remain at a constant height Mr. Imus stated that he didn t believe that he has received a benefit from the wall and requested that the C~ty present the neighborhood's arguments to ODOT. Sam Blackwall of 3062 Counw Lane noted that the noise was not greatly reduced by the walt He also noted that cutting down the trees increased the noise lever !oel Rosenberg of 2860 Country Lane stated that benefits from a project may be seen by an increase in property value or increase in services available to a property. He stated that he believed that his property had lost value because the area adiacent to his house was no longer heavily wooded and he has seen no noise reduction. Mr. Ro}enberg stated that if he received an3, benefit at all it would be a "Tier 2" benefit. Llyrm Tindol of 3642 Oxbow Way summarized written testimony that in regard to her house, the wall was not constructed as close to the freeway as warranted and was not built as high as promised. She noted that the noise in her front yard was now louder than it was previously. Raymond Moreland of 2762 Homestead Place noted that his home was located adjacent to the wail at its west end~ He stated that he had noticed some noise reduction in his back yard but not m his front yar& Mart/n Vandervies of 15 Rustic Place stated that the west end of the wall is too short since the h~ghway is h~gher than his backyard. He has noticed a small benefit ha noise reduction ha his back yard bu~t an hacrease in noise level in h/s front yard. Julie Ghormley of 45 Rustic Place testified that she has received no benefit from the wall. She noted that with the wall being too short and the trees being cut, the noise k~ her yard is worse. Ms. Ghormley is in the Tier 2 assessment area. Next to speak was Roger Skhalo of 40 Rustic Place. Mr. Skinlo testified that the wall funnels freeway sound to where his house is located. He noted that the noise is worse today than befbre the Wall was built. - Public Heating MinUtes of May 24, 2000 t-105 SOund ~a~er Wall Page 3 of 4 Vicky Bock of 3542 testified that she did not favor the construction of the sound wall She no. ted that the trees that Were Cut down had previously reduced the sound and the dust intrusion onto Ms.her propertY~Bock requestedShe statedthat thatthe assessmentShe could nObelOngerdone carry on a normal conversation in her back yard. differently as she has seen no benefit from the wall~ untiIJim ChippSo13OT Ofcompletes2650 CountrYmitigatingLane measures.testified that he would like to see the assessments delayed Donald Gracik of 2662 Donner Place testified that when he moved into ' could not hold a conver~*:-- -' ......... h~s house ha 1999 he ~auu~ m ms t>ac~c yarrl or sleep ~th his window open. After the wall was built the noise level was unchanged. Mr. Grassik felt that ODOTs sound readings, which he believed Were extrapolated from one reading for all of the affected properties, were not accurate. He would Ikke the assessment delayed. Larry Eisenhardt of 3658 Oxbow way stated that he lived on the east end of the wall and felt that the assessment should be based upon lineal foot. Mr. Eisenhardt felt that it is noisier ~n h~s front' yard after the construction of the wall because the vegetation that was cut had previously reduced the sound levels. Teresa Chipps of 2650 Country Lane stated that the sound wall along Beltline Road was much more effect}~e at reduchag roa~ noise than the one erected along 1-105 She the no~se level at her house and exr>lo;*,~ *~* ~ ..... ~ ~..~ has seen no change m ~- ,~,~,~ m~[ n~' nmghbors, who lrveo at 2645 Country Lane, experienced a notable/increase in noise and moved away. Ms. Chi~ps~ suggested that noise mkigation measures, such as curved metal crown on top of the wall s~milar to the Autobahn in Germany, be explored. Bob Smith of 3390 Oxbow Way testified that he has lived in his house for 14 years and never had a serious noise Problem until the wall was constructed. Mr. Smith felt that he should not be k~cluded in a Tier 2 assessment. Jim Mau of 2788 Country Lane stated that he has not experienced a decrease in the sound level since the construction of the wall. ' Noxon, an acoustical eng/neer with an office at 3690 next.~ Mr ' . Country Farm Roa Eu ene . Noxon testified that e had r~,,~ .... -~ ...... ~ g , spoke he ..... ~weu me consrrucuon plans for the wail with the ODOT engineers and found that they had applied the correct "so-mad" model to the placement of the wall. He noted that the wall was constructed to obtain a 5 to I 0 dBA sound reduction in the he record contains a Februm~ 22, 2002 letter from Mr Noxon t . 2002 lette . o Pat Sullivan Harlow Neighbors, and an April r from Mr~ Noxon to Tom Larsen, Eugene Traffic Engineer. ~ ll>_ublic Hearing Mirmtes of April 11~ 2002 105 Sound l~rfier Wall Page 4 of 4 of each house. The "active area "was the location where most outdoor activities ' Y otc'ur. Mr. Noxon explained that he had two concerns regarding the accuracy of ODO ts~ eha; tq~ee ;tal s°~e~ eWnh; ~ ~t~ ~nX~trSough nm0}7~ ~ [.°ad n°~se a~ much as 5~ dBA. By the same token, normal road =o~ vy creating a smoo~ road surtace. Second~ Mr Nox whether the ODO . . on uestioned T model accounted for the absorptive quality of the ainted wall q that ~e ain whic - P ~ He noted p t, h was probably a lied to ' PP make it easier to remove sound This is . ~ graffiti, does not abso . especmlly ~ae of the higher frequency ~,~,-.~ .--^.~ ..... ~ .... rb -~ j ~,,,~,u [,,vuucec~ Dy nre8 on the road. Mr. Noxon expla/ned that in some cases, the wall could make the noise louder by changkng the direction and character of the sound. He noted that the trees that were cut had diffused the sound by scattering it. Mr~ Noxon suggested that there were a number of simple methods to reduce the noise ~mpact to the neighborhood. First, the paint on the upper one-third of the wall could be sa d re-establish its sound ~,~,,~.;:.. ..... ~..,: .. ~ . ~ ~ n blasted to these -ro-e~ie~ 2 ~,~,~(~ quinines, increasing the surthce roug~ess could further ~crease p p s. beconcl, ODOT could place concrete fire barriers along the side of Highway 1-105 to create a second sound barrier. These devices, which are about 3 feet tall, could reduce sound as much as 5 dBA. Finally, ODOT could repave the elevated section of Highway 1-105 tO reduce the greater than normal noise created by vehicles travel/rig over this rough section of the fromr°ad' betweenMr' NoXOnsevenCOncludedand ten thatdBA.a combination of these three actions could reduce the noise level Receiving no further comments, the public heahng was closed at 8:01 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, o o :~00 ~ m E IT 0 0 0 0 0 0 4J r.q ~ 0 0 E~ 0 r~ ~q 0 m o ~ (J 0 o~ © 2: ~ o r~q D r.~ rd go 0 ~ o 0 ~ ,~ 0 ¢~ © c D © o~ ~ SO El o -- 0 Z L~ 0 © cq © o 0 © S 0 ~ ° o~ ch 1:2 m ~ o~ o~ ~ ~ 0 c9 0 © ~ E9 o~ ~0~ 0 E~ 0 ~ ~ ~00 0 ~ 0 E~ 0 c,I 0 © o ~ ~ 0 0 -- ¢1 0 o O ~J m ~ c~ o 0 o © © © © © m ~ © © © © © © © © © o © © co D 0~ 0 * 0 OC~ 0 o © 0 © o~ 0 ©