Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20257 ORDINANCE NO. 20257 AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND STO~ SEWERS ON AYRES RO~ FROM DELTA HIGHWAY TO GILHAM ROAD AND ON GILHAM ROAD FROM AYRES ROAD TO HONEYWOOD STREET; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE, (CONTRACT 2001-26) (JOB #3367) The City Council. of the City of Eugene finds that: On the 26th day of January 1998, the City Council, by motion duly passed, initiated the proposed local improvements consisting of paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, medians, street lights, street trees, and storm sewers on Ayres Road from Delta High, cay to Gilham Road and on Gilham Road from Ayres Road to Honeywood Street. After due notice and a public hearing before the hearing official on June 7, 2001, the City Council fbrmed the local improvement disthct and authorized construction of the local irnprovement on the 25th day of June, 2001. The actual cost of the local improvement is ascertained to be $1,365,484~58, 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.") and as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by refkrence. The City Cotmcil 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 to the assessment more than ten days prior to the scheduled public hearing before the hearing official. Ordinance- 1 At the time and place specified therein, the hearings official considered the 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 summars¢ and based thereon, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES O~AIN AS FOLLOWS: Seefior~1. 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 to 7.190, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopmd. Seetio~. The actual assessable cost of the local improvement comprised of paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm sewers on Ayres Road from Delta Highway to Gilham Road and on Gilham Road from Ayres Road to Honeywood Street is $236,36Z29 which is hereby assessed against the parcels of property hereinafter described in the amounts set opposite, respectively. Seetion_ _ 3. The City Council does hereby determine and assess each tot m~d part of lot within the described local improvement district as set forth on the assessment roll attached as Exhibit C hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. 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 forth. 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 Ordinance - 2 may be paid, wfith imerest 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 and interest 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. Section 5. The City Recorder is directed to enter in the docket of City Liens a statement in connection with each-unpaid assessment containing the following: 5.1 A description of each lot, part of lot or acreage specially benefitted by the local improvement; 5.2 ~ghe 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 propert55 the amount and date from which interest accrues, and the date of entering the same in the docket of City Liens. Section 6. Upon enactment 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 by E.C. 7.190 and enclose therewith an application for paying the assessment in installments according to the terms set ~>rth in Section 4 of this ordinance. Section 7. 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 ibreclosure of assessments levied by this ordinance shall be deposited to the city funds which Ordinance - 3 advanced the cost of construcfion~ engineering and related expenses or which are used to retire any indebtedness incurred by the City for this improvement~ . It is necessary for the preservation of the public health~ wel~hre and safety fbr this Ordinance ro have im mediate effect. Therefore~ this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor~ retention by the Mayor for more than ten days, or readoption over a Mayoral veto by two-thirds of all members of the Cky Council. Passed by the City Council this 8t~ day of July~ 2002 City Recorder Approved by the Mayor this 8~ day of July, 2002 M~ Ordinance - 4 Exhibit FINDINGS AND ~CO~I~ENDATIONS SUB,CT: PAVING, CURBS AND GUT~RS, SIDEWALKS, AND STORM SE~,VERS ON S ROAD FROM DELTA ~GltWA¥ TO GIL~ ROAD AND ON GIL~ ROAD FROM AYRES RO~ TO HONEYWOOD ST~ET (JOB #3367) (CONTACT #2001-26) Physical Setting Ayres Road was a narrow5 two lane road, w/ndhag between Delta H/ghway and Gilham Road. The land to the north of Ayres Road is flat; properties on tlfis side ofthe Road are either occupied by residences and accessory build/ngs (/ncluding Riverpo~te, a large residential development) or are vacant, The property to the south of Ayres Road is more varied. There is a small, uudevelopable piece of land adjacent to the junction ofDelta H/ghway and Ayres Roa& With/n 100 feet (}f Del~ Hi ~ th/s small come} of land drops down ~to a lake (Xyres Pond). Ayres Road runs east alon~ th/s lake for a l~ttle over a tenth of a mile, and then cur~e~ toward the southeast, still folloMng the lake shore. Ayres Road then tums east and separates from the lake shore. From th/s point, Ayres Road runs east to Gilham Road. ~4~ter cur~dng around the lake~ Ayres Road passes between the gated residential developments kmown as Lakeshore on the south and RJverpointe to the north. I2keshore Estates is now all the way to Csilham Roa& Land north of Ayers Road and east of R/verpointe is still underdeveloped~ although there are two residences on very large lots~ At their kntersection, Cx/lham Road was nearly the same as Ayres Road; a narrow, paved road originally designed for a Iow level of use. South of Ayres Road Gilham Road runs between developed residential lots on both sides of the Roa& W-hen Gi~ Road reaches Honeywood Street it ~dens~ becoming a s collector streek w/th c~xbs and sidewalks on both sides and a center turn lane. After several visits to the area during the formation of the local knprovement districL the Hea~%ngs Official described the con&tmn of Ayers Road: Ayres Road has not held up well and is deteriorat~g rapidly. There are places where the pavement has begun to crack and dis/ntegrate, creatMg pot holes. Ayres Road is at or below the level of the surrounding land, and has no established drainage system. In many places the lowest portions of Ayres Road are the wheel mrs from the vehicles travetkn~ along the Road." Initial Steps and Proposals Improvement of Ayres Road and Gilham Road south from Ayres Road has been included in the ty of Eugene s FY 96 capital budget and capital nnprovement plan (CIP), The Willaken×ie Refinement P1an/ncludes Ayres Road as a Collector street, as does the Local Street Plan. PAVING, CURBS ANq3 GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND STORM SEWERS ON AYERS ROAD AND GILHAM ROAD FROM AYERS ROAD TO HONEYWOOD STREET FINAL ASSES8 Page 1 Prompted by these factors and the rapid pace of development in the area, the City Enghaeer developed a proposal to improve Ayres Road during the summer of 1996 in accordance with city design stand~d~ for collect~or streets. On December 18, 1995, an initial public information meeting was conducted to provide property ovmers and interested parties w~th information regarding the proposed Ayres Road Lmprovement project and get their input about preliminary concepts for upgradhng Ayres Road. A public ~e~ng on t~e proposed project was held o~ NOvember 20, ~ 997. ~he findings and recommendations of this hearing were sent to the Eugene City Council. The Eugene City Council considered the report on the hearing and passed a motion to authorize the design, right- of-way acquisition and bidding of the project on January 26, 1998. Throughout 1998 the City' held a series of public meetings on the design of the proposed pro~iect. In May- and again in November, design charrettes were held, where residents and other members of the public were invited to comment on proposed designs. The City Engineering staff reworked the proposed design nfthe project after each design discussion with the public. On December 6, 2000, the City held a drop in information open house where the proposed final design was presented to attendees. In the meantime, and partly ha response to public concerns about this project, the Council engaged in a serious examination and overhaul of the local improvement district assessment process. These changes resulted in procedural modifications to the local improvement district process, and substantive changes in the amount and character of assessments m be levied when a local irnprovement district is formed and the improvements made. In addition to the properties vdthin the city limits of the City of Eugene, two properties proposed to be included ha the LID are outside the C~ty of Eugene boundaries. The properties can be included ha the project bo~daries (LID) only after formal approval by both the City- Council and Lane C.'.ounty ~Co~msmners. The Lane County Commissioners approved the inclusion of the properties on May 1, 2001. The bids for construction were opened on May 25, 2001, with Babb Construction, dba as Delta Construction as the low bidder. A public hearing on the proposed formation of a local ~mprovement district was held on June 7, 2001. The City Council ~brmed the Local Improvement District on June 25, 2001. Construction has been substantially completed, and the final assessment costs have been calculated. The City Engineer recormnends that because there are no assessable costs yet to be incurred~ the final assessments be levied against the benefiting properties. The project has improved Ayers Road for the entire length of Ayers Road and on Gilham Road from Ayers Road south to Honeywood Street up to urban standards m meet the current and fi:tture ~G2~C AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND STORM SEWERS ON AYERS ROAD AND GILHAM ttt~AL; el(OM AYERS ROAD TO HONEYWOOD STREET FINAL ASSESSMENT Page 2 pede~rian bicycle and vehicular needs of the area. The urban standards involved paving. ~oncrete imer~ections curbs and gu~ers, sidewalks bike lanes~ street lights, street Ges a~d landscaped median islands. Sidewalks were constructed on the south side orA ers road adjacent to developed parcels on the north ~:-~- -~' ~ ,~ ~ -- Y and .... [~ ~u~ m~yers ~oact. Remaining sidewalks will be installed by and for the undeveloped properties when those properties develop. Along Ayers Road traffic calming devices were included to slow traffic along Ayers Roa& The City Engineer has recommended that assessments be calculated in accordance wSth Section 7.175 oft he Eugene Code and the Council adopted directions at the time of the formation of the Local Improvement District~ These Council policies have resulted in the reduction of the amoum of costs to be assessed against abutting properties. In this case the reduction has been more than half of what the pre'Aously estimated costs would have been. Under prior policies the assessments would have been$42.5~approximatetY~er foot. uineW dollars. Under current policies property owners are being assessed Under City of Eugene assessment policy, approximately 19.6 % of the total improvement costs will be distributed to the abuttkng property owners with the final assessment. In addition, approxknately 5.5 % will be collected in the future through delayed equivalent assessments f~es charged when vacant and partially developed properties abutting the improvements develop. Ayres Road is listed as a Major Collector in the City's adopted Arterial/Collector Street Plan. Based on the road's functional classification and the fact that all of the abutting properties are residential in use, abutting property ovmers pay for seven (7) feet of pavement width along their ilkontage.. Properties that are fully developed or vacant but under one-half acre pay for a maximum of One-h'tmdred (100) feet and a min/mum of rift5' (50) feet of frontage as their share in the cost of the road improvements. Properties that are partially developed and have more than one-hundred (t 00) feet of frontage pay for the first one-hundred (100) feet When the LID assessments are levied. ~en partially developed properties further develop in the future, an eqtfivalent assessment fee will be collecte~d as a development fee for the remainder of the p~ope~ f?ontage. Vacant properties over ½ acre are mJt included in LID and are not levied an assessment with the LID. When those properties are developed in the future, an equivalent assessment f~e will be collected as a development fee. Two planned unit developments (PUD), Lakeshore Estates and Ashley Estates, have fi~ontage along Ayres Road. Each of these PUDs are being assessed for their entire fkontage along Ayres Road ~th their assessments being distributed t~ specified lots as requested by tl~eir owners. The property owned by the Mimoba AG, -cCh/ch is occupied by the Ayres Pond, is not in the LID, and is considered undevelopable by the City. ~G2 S AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND STORM SEWERS ON AYERS ROAD AND GILHAM ~D t" KtOM AYERS ROAD TO HONEYWOOD STREET FINAL ASSESSMENT Page 3 bee (3) of the properties adjacent to the LID improvements are not witbSn the City limits. Two proper~i~s, Edga~ a~d Combs, are included in the }b°cal Improvement District ~ as a~thorized by .Co. unty ,Co~issioners. The t~rd property (Bunker LLC, 605 Ayres Road is not in L.~t5~ tn:mrs, ~s unaeveloped and vacant, and so was not included in the LD-. ) The non-assessable City share for this project will be funded primarily from Transportation Systems Development Charges (SDCs). Systems development charges are paid by new development to finance the non-assessable share of this t~pe of collector street improvement. These non-assessable costs include paving to meet growth demands, medians/traffic calming, non-assessable curb and gutter, non-assessable sidewalk, intersections, streetlights, street trees and non-assessable portions of the storm drainage system. The final unit assessable costs are: Paving, Curbs and Gutters Sidewalks/Driveway Apron Total Assessable Cost Total City Cost Total Project Cost $ $ 42.50 per front foot 3.31 per square foot $ 250,718.76 $1,028,502.87 $ t,279,221.63 At the time of the formation of the local improvement district, the City Engineer estimated the costs of the project, based on the bids accepted. These estimated assessments were: Pavement, Curb and Gutter and Street Drainage $ 5039/Trout Foot Sidewalk/Drive-way Apron $ 3.46/Square Foot Notices mgar~ng the proposed assessment and of the assessment hearing were provided as required by CiD' Code. In addition to the public hearings and other meetings held prior to the completion of construction, a public hearing on the final assessments was held on June 19. 2002. Minutes of that hearing are attached as Exhibit A. ~ Discusslon This project has been controversial since its inception. Many of the people opposing it when it was ~rst conceived continue to oppose it now. ~ome of the earlier Opponents ~ave disappeared, either because the inertia of the project has outlasted them, or because their concerns have been saris fie& G. CURF~,qF~ e~ SIDEWALKS, AND STORM SEWERS ON AYERS ROAD AND G~LHAM ' ONEYWOOD STREET FINAL ASSESSMENT Page 4 It is not fair or possible to classify all of the opponents in a sweeping generalization. Most of the opponents do f~tl into the Category of absolnt; ;pponents. Thee W0~l~d oppose the ProjeCt, and fi~n~ fault with it no matter ho~¢ it turned out, sir~l;ly because they object }; the wh{Jle idek of road improvements and assessments of the adjacent property ovmers~ ther residents concerns O ' are more particularized. The ultimate question facing the City Council is simply whether the properties within the Local Improvement District receive a direct benefit from the local improvements made to Ayers Rod. k is th/s Heatings OfficePs conclusion that the properties do benefit and therefore should be assessed pursuant to the Eugene Code. Concerns about the design of the bike lanes seems to have become the major focus of opposition to the Hers Road assessment. Opponents claim that, because the flat surfhce of the bike lane is less than the C!ty standard of five feet, the bike lane is in violation of the City standards, wtfich leads them to a conclusion that the entire project is flawed and that there should be no assessments. The assessments for the benefits provided to the local residents do not include any portion of the bike lane. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that the assessments should not move fo whether or not the bike lanes are designed within City standards or not~ It is not clear that the bike lanes do not meet City standards. The idea behind this design ora bike lane is that a path should be provided that is raised above the normal traffic tane, which should discourage vehicles from driving through the bike lane~ especially as they travel through the 2affic calming devices. The bike la~e is n~)t raised above ~he kraffic lane by an abrupt drop off, but by a slop~ that a bicyclist can ride up and down ifnecess~. Opponer~ts argue ~hat slope is an obstruction and that therefore its width should not be includ~c~ in the calculation of the width of the bike path. There is some irony in the fact that early in the process many of these same opponents ar~ed against the initial designs because the proposed Ayers Road was mo wide and would include ~ecessary improvements such as sidewalks and bike lanes. Bike lanes along busy street such as collector streets do pose some risk. It would seem that bike lanes along a collector street with traffic calming devices such as narrow and winding streets are in greater danger From an outsider~s Perspective, raising a portion of the bike lane above the regular traJ~fic flow seems like a good ide~ anal it does not s~ern to be too much of a deviation from ~e bike lane standards, if it is a deviation at all. The issue of traffic medians~ turn lanes and traffic markers all relate to the design of the road. Again, the first point t ' ' , ...... o start ~s that the residents satisfactmn or dmsat~sfactmn with these parts of the overall construction is unrelated to the basic question of the assessment. The residents are [ VING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND STORM SEWERS ON AYERS ROAD AND GILHAM OAD FROM AYERS ROAD TO HONEYWOOD STI*~EET FINAL ASSESSMENT Page 5 not asked to pay an assessment for these improvements. Therefore, whether they are satisfactory to them is nc~ ~ measUre of the benefit provided by the improvements which they are being assessed for. Des ire the su estio ~ ~ P ~ g~ ns from today s opponents that all of the requests for special design e~ements came t~om persons who do not reside within the local improvement districts there were from the beginning several residents who expressed concern that improvements would lead to increased traffic S~eeds and therefore requested a design that woutd ~low the traffic~ These opinions Should not be overlooked. There is, however~ a larger point. The question of design st~ould not be debated in th~s comext not only because it does nc~t relate to what the residents are being assessed for. The particular design of a road is not generally something that the public has a veto over~ Allowing the residents to debate the value of a particular turn lane or other design element~ and then t~ this into a debate over the propriety of an assessment defeats the purpose of the assessment process. Ayers Road was in very bad condition. The City designed a set of W°rthwtfile }mprovem~nts and the residents of Ayers Road are better off tl~ they would have been if the RO~d had not been improved. Their r~lUCtance to pay assessments is t~mderstandable. Their attempt to transform the question from whether they should be assessed into a larger question of ~vhether the design ;f the Road is satisfactor~ is certainly understandable a~ ~vell, but it does not have a place in the Cit3?s assessment policy. The Hearings Official is no better able to comment on individual design elements of a particular road than ~e the residents or others living in the vicinity of the Local Improvement District. Persons intimately £hmiliar with the Road in question certainly have a better sense of how they thir~k the Road should have been designed. The Hearings Official's contact with the CSty Engineering Department suggests that there is no perfect design for a road because there is no place perfectly designed to put a road. The Engineering Department must make compromises ~md ~mcult ~hoices~ balancing the terrain, the ievet o~ ~tse Dy locals and outsiders~ a~d the desires of the locals. The Engineering Department ~s revisiting some of the finer details of the design of Ayers Road because of the contractor's poor performance. It may be that in that process some of the individual issues raised at the hearing rnay be addressed. It does not seem~ however~ that these are the kind of issues that the Council should wish to examine. Even within :,he ov~alt ~ssue of the Council s assessment pohcy~ the issues raised by the opponents of the Ayers l(oad project only relate if the Council should choose to revisit the enti~ assessment process again. FinaIly~ several persons asked the City Council to alter its established policy and hold a public hearkig On the assesSments~ That is i matter fo,r the Council. The Co~cil ;sta,blished ~ process of inf°mation gathering that saves the Council s time. It is within the Council s prerogative to make such a ch0ice, but this particular assessment is not significantly different from otl~er assessments of the recent past, and it is unlikely to be significantly different from other local improvement prqiects ~n the futUre. The peopl~ requesting to spe~rk to the Council want to speak PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND STORM SEWERS ON AYERS ROAD AND GILI-LAM ROAD FROM AYERS ROAD TO HONEyWOOD STREET FINAL ASSESSMENT Page 6 to the Council about the design and particular construction steps ~en fbr a construction project that is already completed. Tl~e question before the Council Wiil be the question of whether tf~e residents shO~ld b~ assessed ~br ~&e work that has already been done. The ~ouncil has heard from a widespread and representative group of indbddual concerning the City s assessment policy. In response t° those remarks the C~unciI has chosen to narrow tt~e type of ~'nprovements t~at Will be assessed to property owners and the Council has chosen to reduce the ~ounts to be aSsessed. This is the s~cond street improvement project to be completed under the new polices. The new policies not only reduce the amounts of assessments, they give some residents increased opportunities to avoid or defer the payment of the assessments. SettLng aside questions aborn the design choices and how they were implemented, and looking only a~ the sin~pler issue of whether a~ improvement was maple from w~ich the residents of tt~e Local Improvement District derive a benefit, the recommendation is easier to make~ The improvements were made under an assessment policy set forth in the Eugene code, and they were m~de pursuant to that process. For that reason, the t~earings Official recommends that the assessments be made as calculated by the City Engineer. Notice of the public hearing was provided and all the property owuers were given an opporturfity to participate in the hearingS. iProperty owners who will bear the cost for the proposed improvements were notified of the June 9~ 2002, public heating w/th the hearings official and the ~ity Council session to levy the final ~sessrn. ent..~etters informing property owners of the heating and anticipated Council action aate and notification to property owners of the ~ntent of the City to characterize the assessment as an assessment, not a tax, as requked by ORS 305.583(5) were mailed to the property owrters. Appropriate notice was given and the public hearing was conducted/n accordance with the relevant provisions of the Eugene Code. 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 The assessments do not exceed actual costs; The assessments are imposed for a capital construction project that provides a specific benefit for a specific property or rectifies a problem caused by a specific property The assessments are imposed in a single assessment upon completion of the project; and .The assessments allow the property o'~mers to elect to pay the assessment with interest over at least ten (10) years. ~AVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND STORM SEWERS ON AYERS ROAD AND G~LHAM R~OAD FROM AYER$ ROAD TO HONEYWOOD STREET FINAL AssESSMENT Page 7 ~T~ye Heatings Official also finds that the proposed final assessment~ calculated and recommended the City Engineer is reasonable and c?si~tent v~Sth the Eugene ~ode. The Hearings Official mc°mmends that the Council act in accord wkh the City Engineer's recommendation~ adopting an ordinance leVYing the assessment as set forth by the City Engineer~ Respectfi~ll}~- submitted~ Milo Mecham Heatings Official Dared: July 1, 2002 [AGVING' SEWERS ON AYERS ROAD AND GILHAM CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND STORM OAD FROM AYERS ROAD TO HONEYWOOD STREET FINAL ASSESSMENT Page 8 ExhibitA (Attachment to Exhibit B) MIN[JTES Final Assessment Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, and Storm Sewers on Ayers Road from Delta Highway to Gilham Road and on Gilham Road from Ayers Road to Honeywood Street (Job # 3367 Contract #2002~26) June 19~ 2002 Pubhc Hearing Heatings Official Milo Mecham convened the heating at 6:00 p.m~ He described the matter of the hearing and procedures to be followed at the hearing° Present at the heating representing the City of Eugene was Principal Engineer Paul Klope and ProjeCt EJ~ineer Brian ~enovese. Principal Engineer Paul Klope began the Cky's presentation by briefly describing the project and its history~ Mr~ Klope explained that the project was idenfifie~ in the Fiscal Year ~ 996 Capi~ Budget. The project was included in the Capital budget because of the condition of the roadway and because of the rapid development in the area~ The W~tlakenz~e Refinement Plan, the Arterial~Collector Plan and the Transplan classify Ayers Road as a collector street. Mr~ Ktope described the history of the project. After Council ~nclusion in the Capital Budget, the Council authorize~ the deJigr~ of the project in 1998. During the initial desig~ ~ork of the Project, the Council ~ade maj;r r~odifications to the City assessment policies in the Eugene Code. Mr. Klope explained some of the changes in assessment policy, as they applied to this project The wSdth of the street to be assessed to adjacent properties was reduced, in this case only seven feet of the twenty one feet of stree~ Mdt~ is ~o be assessed to the assessable prol~erties/Also in accord~e v~Sth the new policies, the d~mensions of the property to be assessed on each side of the street has been reduced, and the possibilky of deferring the assessment of some properties was expanded~ Mr. Klope described the nature of the project, including the street hnprovernents and the safety features developed at the request of the property owners~ The'project has inStalled lane spreaders, which w/Il slow traffic passing along Ayers Road, sidewalks, a raised bike lane and other features that ~e into account that the Road traVels along the urban growth boundary and thus has urban standards and rural standards of develoCment. Mr. Klope described the proposed assessments. When the project was first proposed and the local improvement district was formed, the assessments were estimated to be approximately $50~39 per foot for pavement, curbs and gutters and $3.46 ~br s~dewalks. The final assessments were less than estimated, amounting to $42.50 per foot for paving, curbs and gutters and $3.31 per square foot for sidewalks. 1~@. Klope also expialnec~ ~hat the Cit>~ Was paying the c;st ~r the street paving width greater than seven f~t (on each Side), th~ stree~ r~edians and the other impr;vements. ik@. Klope having concluded his presentation~ the Hearings Officer invited members of the public t{J speak. The first attendee tO speak was Ms. Debra Jeffries, of 3800 Delta HighWay. Ms. jeffreies does not oTM property subject to assessmem by the local improvement ~listrict. Her first question con~er~ed ~ statement that Mr. KloPe had made concerning some repairs that w~uld be made to the street paving. Mr~ ~op~ explained in more detail that, because the contractor had not performed satisfactory~ City was requiting the contractor to make extensive repairs to the road surface~ Mr. the Klope eXplained that this was being required because the surface was poorly la/d, was not done as specified by the city and was causing surface drainage problems. Ms. Jeffries suggested that the C~ty should wait to do the assessments until the repairs were made. Mr. Klope expta/ned that while the City could have chosen to wa~t~ th/s would have meant higher charges for the assessment. All the work for which an assessment might be done had been Completed and a delay would only mean an accumulation of interest charges for the ~ropre owners. Ms. Jeffi4es next turned to her concerns about the bike path installed along Ayers Roa& She explained that she felt that it failed to comply with city policies. By her reading city policies required that a bike path be at least five feet in wSdth. In her opinlo~, thee ~onstructe~ bike path violated pot~cy because the surface available for bikes was less than five feet wide. ~his was, she bxpl~dned, because, since the path is raised above the level of the street and the sloped area dropping from the level of the path dov~m to the street wa~s within the portion me~ured to be ~ ba~ of the bike path, the t~sable portion of the path was actually less than five feet wide. Ms. Jeffi4es wSshed for an ~pinJon from &e city attorney ~oncern/ng the perceived violation of city policy and the propriety of assessing Proper~y owners f~r improvements that did not, in her comply w~th existing cig~ policies. Ms. Jeffries also stated her concerns about the safety of the street design. She noted that some of the traffic medians did not have signs directing traffic to the r~ ght. She felt that, because the raised reflectors along the road margkn were double sided, traffic at night 'would be confused and might cross the center line and begin traveling on the wrong ~ide of the street. This was m~te more l~kely because some of the reflectors were missing. Ms Jefffies expressed her concern that this could be made worse if there were two vehicles traveling in opposite directions at night. Under certain circumstances it m~ght create an impression wi~ the t'wo drivers that a head-on collis~on eminent. Ms. s was also concerned about the tack of Speed limk signs on the street. Ms. Jeffries also question Mr. Klope~s statement that the capacity of Ayers Road had been enhanced by the improvements. She did not feel that the traffic carrying capacity of the Road had been increased at all. Ms. Jeffries closed her statements with a request that the Council deviate from its usual pa~tern of considering Only the written record. Ms. Jeffries requested that the CounCil should take publi~ input. She feels that~ contrary to suggestions from the Engineer~ public input was Sk~ewed, ~n that the i~itial design w(~:k involved people who were not residents along Ayers Road, and that the design the city eventually settled on did not involve the opi~o~s of the residents along the ~oad. Brian Genovese, the project engineer responded to Ms. Jeff-ties. He explained that according to the standard means of measuring the bike path, it was five and one half feet: wide, in excess of city standards. Paul Klope pointed out that residents were not being aSseSsed for any po~ti°n of the bike path. A~other member of the aUdience, Donna Wull~randt, asked abo'~t the measUrement of the bike path. Mr. Genovese explained that the angled portion of the bike path was included in the measurement of the bike path. Sever~ me'hers of the audier~ce questioned the legitimacy of including the slol~ed p°rti°n~Sable byWithinbicYcles.the measurement o~ bike path width, since ti~t slopped t~rtion x~as not Mr. Genovese responded to Ms~ Jeffries other concerns. Mr. Genovese explained that the traffic routing around the medians along Ayers Road were standard. The City conmmnly only puts a direction sign on the first median when there are several, assuming that drivers will understand the need to repeat the maneuver at the next median. Mr. Jeffries also explained that the City will be posting Ayers Road with traffic speed advisory signs until such time as the City can determine the appropriate speed limit according t~ state standards. Mr. GenoCese said that he was ~ot a~¥are o~ missing , reft?mrs, but t~hat that would be checked into. Mr. Genovese indicated that the ~ity s prevmus experience with similar street designs elsewhere suggested that the design and ~ee sffiit~eisPihnagd ~afisA~y~rs Road would work to a~oid the kind of ~ident or concern t~at Ms. The next member of the audience to speak was Stardey Wullbrandt. Mr. Wullbrandt expressed his disappointment in the design of Ayers Road. He indicted that .the old Road ~as better, strain'er and easier for cars to get ~p[ and down the ROad. Mr. Wullbrandt asked Mr. Genovese about the standard length for t~xrn lanes. He felt that there was much v~ation in their length. Mr. Genovese answered that there was no standard set for turn lanes. It was instead a location-by-location calculation, based on the balance between the number of vehicles that might be turning and the space available. {r. Wullbrandt stated that some of the turn lanes were not adequate to contain even one arge vehicle, and should therefor have been made larger. Mr. Wullbrand. t also questioned the overall width of the travel lanes. He felt that t ' ~ he lane s narrow w~dth would not be safe, for vehicles or for bike riders. Mr. Genovese responded that the design standards were to keep the street narrow to slow the traffic d°wn. Mr. Genovese indicated that the width of each travel lane was ten feet wide, which met the standards for such streets. Ms. Wullbrandt interjected that the streets were too narrow for her tastes and that, even though she was an active bike rider, she was concerned about riding in the bik~e lanes of ~ers Road. Ms. Wullbrandt suggested that if the City was going to ~ut in such narrow traffic lanes, the City should ban ~i~le trailer trucks. The next speaker was Ms. Blatchley~ who lives near the middle of Ayers Road. Ms. Blatchley indicate that her one concen~ was that her son, who is a long haul trucker, has great difficulty in parking his track on the Blatchley property when he returns home. The ~esign of the ~raf~c mec[ians is such that one of th~n~ is Placed so that, in order to back the truck onto the Blatchley property, the truck must back across the median. Ms~ BlatChley complained that this desig~ had been contrary to an earlier promise made to her concerning the ease of backing a tr~ck onto her proper~. Ms. Blatchiey requested that the media~ at that location be ;ither removed, or that ~ median be m0~lifi~d to give it a sloping margin that a truck could more easily back across it. Mr. Genovese acknowledged the concerns that Ms. Blatchley was expressing. He promised that the City would W°r~k with her~ but he could not promise a resolution favor~ab??. ~her concerns b~ecause of other ~ssues~ such as city stmndards. Ms. Blatchley asserted1 ~taa~ her concerns at, out truck access to her property had been brought up at several prior meetings~ and that she had received assurances that the design would acco~odate the particular needs of her property. She felt that the City ~ad not followed ~2zrough on these assurances. The next speaker was Jim Edgar of 55 Ayers Road. Mr. Edgar began by asserting that the whole, project was a fhilure. He felt that the design of the road was poor~ and that the contractor ~ W;rk in construction was poor~ Mr. Ed~tr indicated that he felt ~he b~ke path does not meet the code requirements because it ~s too narrow and has manhole covers. Mr~ Edgar~ repeating Ms~ Jeffr~es' complaints~ wondered how the c~ty could assess ~br substandard work such as he felt Ayers Road represented. Mr~ Edgar went on to complain that the bike path puts water onto the driving surface of the road, because of poor drainage~ where the water collects, l~Lr. Edgar felt that ~s problem was enhance~ by the fact ~hat the road was built below the ground level. Mr~ Edgar also expressed concerns about the bike path. He felt that it wa~s not safe, in that cars and trackS will driVe on the bike path to avoid some of the curves in the Road, and that the tendency of the water to stand on the road will cause vehicles to splash biEe riders. Mr. Edgar also expressed his dissatisfaction with the traffic calming devices in the road because tl~ey will rec]uce the response time of safety vehicles. Mr. Edgar then read a letter from another resident of the area~ Jim Holm, Mr. Edgar expressed. Mr. Edgar then turned to a he had done among residents of the Ayers Road area. Mr. several survey responses. After Mr. Edgar had read one set ~ survey in its he wishedthem to be a part of the record. Mr. Edgar process~ as it was being Mr. Edgar noted that he had been the proposed assessment process since the Ayers Road project was first public con:anent. ~ ,~ ~ '~ 5. ~J i ~,=~)nc new ~yers F~oac~ was better than the old road. While lv~ro uernxe reit that there, might be a need for some minor corrections, the road Was an overall improvement. Mr. Lemke asked about his particular assessment. He noticed that his property is 120 f~et wide along Ayers Roa& He wondered why, since Mr. Klope had eXPlained ~at upper Hmit on assessment was 100 f~et £br sidewall~s.· the Lemke's neighbor, had a wSder parcel, but was paying more. Mr. Klope and Mr. Genovese ext~lained that, despite appearances on the g~ound, the neight~orkng tots were actually no'trow strips o~'la~d gi~i~g access to back ~treas. The actual fron~ footafie of the pr(~perty that the Lemke s suggested was their neighbor was less than the Lemke } property. Mr~ Lemke ir~dicated that their one concern about the construction was the placement of a street light so that k shown directly into their yard and home. Mr. Lemke indicated that he had st~ken with the constmcfior~ contractor} and they had indicated that it wotdd be possible to add a shield that would block the light from their yard. Mr. Genovese promised that he would look into the possibility and the cost of a reflector for the s~eet light. Mr. and Ms. Wultbrandt offered that the½ appreciated the additional ~lluminafion provided by the street lamp outside their yard. Ms. Wullbrandt ~ndicated that she wanted to also express her request that she felt that the City Council should hold a public hearing on the proposed assessment Ms. Wullbrand~ then went on to express several concerns on t~eh~tf of the R~Verpointe Home Ovmers Association. Their major concern was with some of the street trees along the front of the RJverpoint subdivision. Ms. Wullbrandt explained that while the original plan had been to ~emove some trees, the original plans ~lso included the retenfio~ of ~everal large trees along the fight-olJ-way. ~ne o~these trees had been damaged by the contractor ~d had the~fOre b~en remo~Te& Ms. Wullbrandt indicated that s~e understood that the City had fined the contractor for the damage to the tree. On behalf of the Pdverpoint Home Owners association, Ms. Wullbrandt requested hat the Home Owner s Assocmtmn be compensated for the street that it had planted to replace the trees that were removed. Project Engineer Brian Genovese expbined that the tr~es that Were removed were in the public right-Of-way, and that the City had itself planted numerous trees in the area. hs. ~Wull~randt in~ticated that she u~derstood the location of the trees, but she felt that there had been an understanding with the Home Owners Association that the Association would be reimburse& Mr. Genovese indicated that he was not aware of such a promise and would investigate further. The next member of the public to speak was Dan Edgar~ of 55 Ayers Road. He began by expressing his opinion that residents should not be assessed because the projec~ is ~ot c(;mpi~te. B~;ause Mr. Klope had indicated that the CiLv wold be requiring ~h~ contractor to resurface the road, Mr. Edgar felt that any assess~nent was premature. Mr. Edgar also expressed h~s dissatisfaction with the overall quality of the work, mentioning es~;cially the intersection of Gilham and Honeywood, wt~iCh l~e felt was ba~t because Of th~ chan~e in road levels. Mr. Edgar explained that h~ felt the project was poorly designed and was overbuilt for the need. He was concerned about such safety m~tters as the need for weeding in the center medians, and the water standing on the edge of the bike lane. Mr. Edga~ suggested that the cO'cji should visit the a~a just afte~ a rainstorm~ when hi thought it likely that they would get doused by v~hicles. Mr. Klope responded that many of the issues Mr. Edgar was raising would be dealt with. The original design of the road included ways to deal with the drainage. The contractor had falle~ to const~ct a road according to th~ original plans. Mr. kdope assUred Mr. Edgar and the other audience members that the ~ain~ge and road resurfhcing problems woul~ be dealt with this summer. Mr. Klope explained ~ain that a delay in assessments until the contractor finished the repair work would only increase the  sessment costs. Mr. Klope also explained that it is standard policy for the City' to pay e cost of intersections in any public improvement plan involving a}sessments A brief general discussion followed about what changes might be made through the contractor repairing process. There being no ~arther requests to speak, the hearing was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. m 0 o ~ o ~ o o8 °~ m © o N 0 0 O o E 0 t21 ~ 0 o o 0 o ~ 0 0 o ~q o co o 0 © CO o o 0 o 0 ® O E E 0 rd 0 0 c~ 0 ~o ~q r~ © o o~ O c0 0 o ~q 0 o a~ 0 © 0 Eh o >. o 0 0 E~ ~4 O n~ 0 r~ o o ~ o o 0 0 o ~ 0 r~ n~ o', 0 ',~ ~q O3 © 0 c~ 0 0 0 o r~ ~ © r~ © 0 © 0 0 .ca 0 0 E~ 0 o~ O ~q 0 o 0 c~ ~ o 0 o ¢ o >~ c~ ~ o 0 o Q o 0