Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19960ORDINANCE NO. ~ ! ! l~D AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR S=DEWALKS ON EMERALD STREET BETWEEN Z 6TH AVENUE AND 2 8TH AVENUE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. CONTRACT 93-08~ The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: On the 19th day of March, 1992, as authorized in the Eugene Code 7.1505} the City Engineer initiated the proposed local improvement consisting of sidewalk construction on Emerald Street between 26th Avenue and 28th Avenue. After due notice and a public hearing thereon before the hearing official, and no remonstrances having been filed, on the 22th day of February, 1993, the City Council formed the local improvement district and authorized construction of the local im~- provement. The actual cost of the local improvement is ascertained to be $46,793.37 and the amounts to be assessed to and borne by the specially benefitted property and to be borne by the City or others has been determined ,in accordance with applicable provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 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 Sections 7.170 and 7.175 of the Eugene Code, 1971. A notice containing the information required by Section 7.185 of the Eugene Code, 1971 has been posted on a 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 public hearing before the hearing official. At the time and place specified therein, a hearings official heard all evidence and argument presented, and no remonstrances having been filed, has fully considered the same, and has reported his or her 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 of the hearing, and based thereon, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Summary of the hearing conducted by the hearings official are hereby made a part of the Council's record in these proceedings, and the hearings official's findings, including those regarding compliance with Sections 7.,160 to 7.190 of the Eugene Code, 1971, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section 2. The actual cost of the local improvement compris- ing of sidewalk construction on Emerald Street between 26th Avenue and 28th Avenue is $46,793.37 of which $33,109.20 is hereby assessed against the parcels of property hereinafter described in the amounts set opposite, respectively. Section 3. The City Council does hereby determine and assess each lot and part of lot being within the described local improve- ment 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 hereinabove described is specially benefitted to the extent of the assessment set forth. The Finance Officer ORDINANCE - 2 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 effected date of this ordinance: 4.l 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 install- ments, 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 to be 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 bene~itted by the local improvement; 5.2 The name of the owner or reputed owner thereof, that the name of the owner is unknown; and 5.3 The sum assessed upon said property, the amount and date from which interest accrues, and the date of entering the same in the docket of City Liens. ORDINANCE - 3 Section 6. Upon enactment of this ordinance, the City Finance officer shall send notice of the assessments by first class to the owners of the assessed parcels containing the information required by Section 7.190 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and enclose therewith an application for paying the assessment in installments according to the terms set forth 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 foreclosure of assessments levied by this ordinance shall be deposited to the city funds which advanced the cost of construc- tion, engineering and related expenses or which are used to retire any indebtedness incurred by the City for this improvement. Section 8. That the matters contained herein affect the public welfare and safety and therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and 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 aver a mayoral veto by two-thirds of all members of the Council. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this day of 1994 ~~~ day of ~GGV~ 1994 City ecorder Mayor ORDINANCE ~ 4 --~ o ~. ~, ~ ~+ mm ~ ~ (/7 C7 ~ o ~ n ~ m o ~ ~ --I ~+ CD C c~ v. f""" ~ cC Ln ...~. ~ CD r cn n ~ n n n cn ~ v r~ n ~ o n ~ ~ o o" ~- "~ tU r .. , . ~ ~ O Ul ' • ~ (~ -n cn ~--~ y ~ .. = o cn r~ ~ ~ m cn -~ o m ~ to o v c~ r cn m ~ ~ -o v rv ~ m n ~ m -~ -~ m ~0 3 --~! ~ z o o ~ ~o m v -~ ~ r .tom W ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ n o ~ ~~ o r- z o ct rfi U O ;~, ...~....~. o m~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~5 ~+' O1 ~ --i c-~ 2 o~ • ~ -~~ N ~~ ~ o •--I N ~ ~- _ ~I C1-~ • 'O CD (/) o -t7 m m ~ ~ ~ ~+ r ...7. lV r-~ w W W ~ ~ Q~ Q ~ O t0 ~--' © N v ~D ~ N W Q1 W W V Q1 I--+ ~D D~ D W ~ l~ LJ ~-' N ~1 ~1 ~W ~~ •• N ~R ~ W -~•-•~ ~w 3~ n b~ ~m cn n -~ (/~ J. .~ mm~ `V ~ ^ p V] ...J. cnmm ~~ ~ r~ C ~, ~~o ~~ r-~ cn m .~. ~. omz ~~ m ~n vm ~~ n~ -v U1 N ~ CJ`t t/7 ~ "O V1~ -o D ~o cn m 0 oN W W W W W W W W ~ J• ~O ~© ~© '"OO ~o ~o ~© "UO X ~ t't T5W ~W ~W ~W ~W -5W ~W ~W J NfD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o a ~• •• `o cn v cn v c~ -o u~ -a cn v c_r, `a to v to ~ rD ~ tU -P N -P CD .P N ~ N ~ ~D ~ CD -P ~--+ W ~ ~ ~ ~ "5 N ~ N ~ N ~ M--~ r3 ~--' ~ ~' ~-' ~ ~C o ~C o ~C o ~C O ~C o ~C f-` ~C 1-' ~C 1-' -P ~ o O -P -P W ~ ~ N ~' ~+ O W Q~ D~ O o O ~D O Cn D~ D Oo l0 mo roo CDo tUo r©o rpo tDO ma yt~ ~n p cn W cn o cn o cn ~ cn p to o to o 3 .p n n n n n n n n ~ J ~ ! ~ J ~ ? ~ J, ~ J . ~ J. ~ ..~J. . ._ . ~. ^~ V .... . ~ ~ ry ~ V ~ ,y, l ~ ~ .~. J. J. J. ...l. ..-J. .J. J. r n V / ~ 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o r~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .r~ o cn ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..© ..o ~ c..~.c-r 0 0 0 © N O o o rU N fp v Q1 CJ~ -P ~1 W N E-' ~ C? ~ ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o n ~+ o ~ N ~ ,~ N ~ o m v o F--+ t--' ~ ~ ~1 ~ 01 ~ Cp O .p V lD W LD ~' al -P CC] V. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J (~ W Co ~ 00 00 p0 lD o --~ f7 Ql Op F--} W ~1 0 o F-~ c-F CJ`s N W ~' W N o ~ fD ~ OD N ~ -P W N ~l -p cn . , r ~ -P N o c_r~ O n (!7 N 0~ N V N ~ J~ l0 L!7 ---~{ T3 ~ ~ o ~- w o ~'t' J, .~ v o 0 00 --~ ~ o ~.o ~ l--~ I-+ 1--a I-' I~ I--~ ~--i CO ~. ~ o l0 © o CJ`i o ~ W Z7 • rn w ~ oo w -P oo .~ N ~ D cn o ~ o 0 0 0 0 ~ o ~ ~ . c c„ n o rn o 0 0 0 0 o r~ cn n m cn o a o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ --~ o cn t~ ~--•~ m o ~ cn m ~+ ~ ~ m ~. n~ ~~-~ y rn ~-~ ~ ~~ o cn ~ y ~ ~ rocnO ~ o • • ~n ~ ~ ~~ rn~ ~~ 3 ~ ~D ~ rn W -~ r[~ m ~ ~ 3 ~o ~~+C ro n r~ W r n V / ~ ~ m ;z3 {7 !D Z rn o~ m ~ m ~a ~ C C1 Q7 ...,. m cn -~ ~ m ~- ~~ m~ fTl J. zn N Ol ~--~ -{ ~].. _.. ~ ~D C W m zo C O !T1 N W ~~ Z .p O mNZ mNC/) f'r'1NO"T1 fTINTI~ f'rINC"~ E"TIM--'Z77 mN3n mN~ O N CC~~--~ CD~3 C~lrTl~ Co~~m C~~70 C-PC Crn~= CCJ~~ ~ 00 ~7 to C7 ~7 ~ m G7 rv ~--~ x O W x ~--~ ~7 ~•-•~ z ~--~ ~7 W cn ~7 Ga to ~a O ~ cn ~ ~ r'ncnz mom mo---10 moo-~-~I mo z ron mcn~~--~ mfr m = z © z o z mz z zm z ~G) z z z ycn z ~ ~ mmr mm mm~ mm ~ mmcr mm mm ~ mm~ ~ 3~ 3G~ 3V» 3~iJ} 3Com Dn 33~ 3 ~--+ C mtn mr m = m= m© tn= mDD m~ ~ m 0~1 Ohm 030 003 O~~V7 O--a~ O:[A~z 07oC •-h z ~~~ ~Yz ~~~3 ~D3~ ~~rr7 ~ ~ ~y~7cn ~y-n O c r0 rz r~~ ry~7 rr0 Nr rym rc ~ m ~n ~oocn ~o ~o~cn ~c~cn~ ~o ~ ~o.~m ~©~z .~©cn ~ -vm .~ y .~ _ v v .~ ~ ~ .~ --~ cn v m .a ~ -~ cn -p cn r ~ cn .~ cn m c~a .~ cn aQ m .~ cn ~ .~ _ ~ to ---~ cn o cn as r•+• N v o~ ~--+ o -~I L o •--! o -I o -I -~ m o ~ o~ -~ W -I -~• W N W m w~ W W w cn W y W c...~ m sz~ o rn~ i/) sza m m m 3 v z c~ z ~ 7C C Lr i.!) ~ ~ C 3 m vD ~ ~ r N ~7 m --~ -P m z D c o o~ ~ W m 2 H H ~-~ ~~ r-~ w w r-~ w w w w --{ .•~{ QO 00 00 Oo 0~ 0o p~ 0~ ~ -~ • ~ `C] C7 ~ o ~ o `~ © "'rJ o ~7 0 "U O '•O o yC ~ t`r ~W ~W ~5W ~W ~W ~W ~W ZW -~ fDCD D o D o D o O o O a O o D o D o O •• •• T~ CJ7 "Q CTl "p CSl ~ C3'1 ~ (J7 U CJ7 T~ (J7 "C7 tJ~ r-h• rb ~ ~D ~ fD ~ ~D -P ~b ~P CD ~ [D ~ tU -P w W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~o ~o ~o ~o yea do s[o ~o ~~ p[J~ ©w ©o ©~ moo ©~1 C~QZ ~~ ~D rya r~o mo rya roo roo Apo rao y~ cn © v, w cn a cn o cn o cn r~ cn r-' v} © 3 ~P n n n n n n n n ....l. rJ. J. ... 7. ,J. . .l. ....1. .J. - V ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ,~y,, 1 y D D O D D D D O ~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .!~ O cn F--' N r-+ w ~ w O © N N N -P ~ W N ~•-' o iD 0~ ~ n ~ :C] o Z7 © Z7 © ~J o Z7 o ZJ o Z7 o iC7 o C7 c" ~' o w•-' O O i-' O I--' N CD ~ ao o~ .~ ~o rn --~ cn .P r ~ © Cri o c_T~ rn O1 v oz ~ ~ D ~D W ~ W V O .p N iG~ C-.~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ N •~ ~ w .+ ~ ~ o~ ao ---~ n rn o cn ~ © r-+ ~o •~ cf ~,~, ~ ~ ~ -P ~ OD V CJ~ .~ N N N ~ W ~ lD QZ ~1 W ~+ ~ ~ . . rn © ~ cn •~ ~ n f_J7 t--' o o C.T1 W 'S ~-' W N © ~ D Q1 --~• lD --i T3 ~t] O c+ W J• ~ ~ Do --~ ~ o ~ I~ I--~ I--' I~ ~ Fa ~--F M LJ./ ~ ~ ~ N W ~1 QO 'C3 cn ~o © © •, cn N w ~ D ~ o W W o 0 0o rn O ~ • ~ ~, t--, O o Qa 00 O O O N fD V} C7 (D (/~ 0 o D O O o o O ~ ~ O ~ b ~--~ CD D ~ to Cp ~ m~ ~n~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~. D~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~+ o cn ~ y ~ ~ mc~o ~ o • • ~n ~ ~ z -~~ m m ~ ~~ m ~ c-r cn 3~ m~ mw -~mm ~~ ~ ~Q ~c~'C ro n 00 ~•cno ~ ~~ ~ ~~rn ~ ~ ~a n m z m o~ m ~ m --~ o ~ ~ n J. m cn -~ ~ m .~ ~~ m~ m ~. zn ro N Ole ~ Q. _ .. ~~ C W m z O C O mN ~~ z~ 0 mN-r~-v mNaQ mNO ~"1N7C mN`D mNy ~lD=L, mWO o N c•~~~ c•io c•~~ owe--~ c•rm c•~z cn~ayo cam ~ ao oooC7U ~7rnz oar c/~rno ~~--~ X70© zc_n~~ oo~ ~ -I m o cn cn rn~ y m cn r m a m cn m m cn ~ r ~ m m ~ m = z ~~ z 3 z ~cnm z ~ z m ~nF-+m z~D -s mmcc mrn~--~ mmv _ c ~ mmcn mm~ zrcn rim--~ y 3~7~7 3n 3Z ~m 30 3i/} o~ o cn[n ~ C m o o m ~--•+ m ~--r o r m z m -~ ~ m -I n ~ m oz~~~ o~ oar cnc o~ o~-n o~ o = ~ z ~ y cn cn ~ ~ n ~ n ~•-•~ -•-~ n ;a y n ~ n ;~ a cn cn ~ ~a w o c r7« rz rv om~--~ rD rm ~--I~r tvm ~ m ~n w o ~--~ ~---~ ~o o © ~ o ~ -o ~ ~o o ~ ~ o © r a to -~ ;o ~ v m -P(!}3~ .PV7m ~cn Amy .PCn ~tnC7 V mr -P y ~ Nv o~~z o-~•~-I~ o~~ .jz o-IC o~ c,n a~ -~• WN W >C © W W ~ L/7 00 W W Scb N N F-' C O Q1 .~ "`~ ~ i2~ C~ V S2~ O fT7 ~ (l1 O Z N C O C/') C~ °p m m m o -I n o E ~ ~'- ~ _ -~ cn ~ ~--~ --~ D n v ~ ti = ~ m N ,i7 ~ r .~, m UJ L p p p m ~ oN -••-I ~ W = m ao m oo ~ oa o~ o0 0o v -coo va vo -vo va ~o vo -vo x ~ W -~ w -s w ~ GJ ~ W ~ W --5 w ~ W ._., 00 0© o0 00 00 00 0© ao 0 v ~ Z7 C17 ~ ~ 't7 cn ~ U~ ~ C7~ 't3 CP ~ C1~ c+ co ~ r~ ~ rn .P r~ ~ m .~ m .~ o ~ m .tom ~ ~ `5 ~P '~S ~ ~ ~P °5 ~ ~ -P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' i ~-h i t-F E ~+ r ~ -F i ~-F , [~+ i c--F i ~o ~o Leo ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o N N N N N I--' I-' ~-` p.p pW pN p}-' p0 C7~ pV p01 rvo mo rno r~o 0o r~© mo ~e© cn o cn © cn o cn o cn o cn o cn o cn o n n n n n n n n ~ 7 ~ J ~ J ~ J ~ J. ~ ...J. ~ J. ~ J. ~ . . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ,y, j ..7. ,J. J. .J. J. J. J. J. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m .. o .. © .. o .. o .. o .. o .. © .. o ~ N N N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~D N I-' O ~ W V Q1 C}7 ~ ~o ~o ~o ~o v~o ~o ~o ~o n I~ o F-+ I--' 7~ !-' Y o N Q~ N W ~ ~ C77 O~ l~ V Q1 V W O 0~ V ~ ~ N N ~ LO ~1 OD -P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O ~---' Qa 00 - 00 4R ~l ~ o~ cn •~ `v ~o Lo .~ N ~D N ~ U7 W o I~ 0 00 t--+ ~ V Q1 N o CT1 ~ W Q1 W lD w cn ~ m ~o •~ cn W , o v ~ -P N ~ o 0o c-r W ~ 0 r. ~ o ~ N .~ o rn w ~ W ~ 00 W © o W N © o '"5 o W lD ~ O W pl ~1 p . C O Q1 Ql o o ~ Oa 00 ~D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ n 0 mNrtl mN-o mNr~ mN---~ miv3 mN(n2 vv3 (/7~v(7 0 crn~ crn~ ca~c~ c•~o c•~~ c•r~o ooo~ ~o~ ~ o•~y ~ooz ~7~oC~m ~~3 ~7W~7 ~7t1~~v ~~= z•~(Il ~ mrnz mom r~oycn moo mo-1 momcn -ion ~ cn r~ z 7C z cn z to r Z o z ~--~ z -i r ~ D r y ~ mmr rnrn mm rnm7r mrnz rim = ~[nz y~ ~~-~+ 3r..~ 3c~ 3D 3 3r~ z~ mc~ ,-~ mz mo m~~ m m~ m-~C3 © L mG7 ~ o~ o~= o~nr oz~~ ©~~ oozy cn~ z~ -~, ~ytn ~Dz ~~~-~ ~1~c ~~r ~~zz r-~ r~ o r"" = r r ~--~ m r~ r ~-~I r m o o z~ ~o ~ ~p~ mom ~©m~ ~©~--~ room ~© ~av~ 3zm ~ •~ ~ v v .! o ~ ~ •~ m m z ~ .~ cn o ~ cn s~ -P to r ~ ~ to ~ cn ~ cn ~ oo cn c-+- o--Iz ©~ o~m~ acv ©~sx o~ •ao V---I~ ~• W W L W ~rE Z W W W N ;C7 U`~ O c.., ~ ~ p ~ ~ N a ~ n z -~ m cn N sz~ ~o z z z C y ~ `o m z m r n m ~] H n z --~ -~ m ~ rn ~a .~. ~, ~ c-F mm t-} W ~~ ,. N ~~ NN tD n~ 3~ -~ w o~ ~. ~ m r~ n -~ r ~ fD O cn v. ~ CD Jn O ~~ ~ .. n ~~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ W O o ~ D 0 . pp n to n V} C7 ~ Ln © ~ to N m c~[- ~ n -I ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~~~ r n c+ r, ~~ ~ ~~ ~ rp cn o a.. ~ ~ z -~• fD ~i ~ ~~ m ~o c~ cn 3 to N ~ m W -~ ~p m ~~ ~ yo ~c+C ro n p o J•cn G} ~ ~~ t!~ ~[ v~ m ~ ~ z~ n m z m D~ m ~ m --I p ~ ~ n ~ ~. m cn --~ -~ m v ~~ m~ rn J, zn m N ~~ --{ ~1. _ .. ~7 l~ C W m zo C o mN 00 ~~ z~ a N w C m z c m ~n -c7 m ~~ N ~ W N ~~ to o Vl ~] vD N G7 ..P m 0 ow W ~ ~ ~ 0o m m vo vo vo -~W ~w ~W 00 00 00 -O to "o to ~ m row r~~ r~~ ~ ~ rt i ~ ~ ~C o ~C o ~C o N N N O~1 ©~ D(h mo r~o mo cn o cn o cn o n n n ~ ~ -~ J J ~. . . o . O O ~ ~ 3 N fV N CJ7 ~ C.,.) ;C7 o iC7 0 7C7 r~ © r-+ .p N o W Oa ~ (J~ CTZ N ~ ~ ~ W ~ v ~ -P ~ o cn a .~ N rn m o .~ ~ ~ w o0 I--' I-•~ 1-' W W W 0 0 0 a~ o~ rn W W ~ o © o m N Tr C ~ ~7 ~ {n ~ more z rn mm~ 3 m~ o~~ ~D~ r cn Lo o --~ v m ~(nz © ~ C~J m N ~ C 01 ~-+ ~rnr moon z o mmz 3 m c..~ ono 7d ~ _ rz ~n a V = ~P (n O ~ Q~ W 2 ;C7 m N = C ~ ~ G7 V -C mom z n mm~ ~o m ono A y o rz ~oa~ V r' -P (n o o -I W 3 m D m r 0 m v x J 0 ~- fD 3 n m 0 v r-~ C3 0 C CD CD n 0 0 0 N c-E J. 0 ~3 p V1 v. ~ CD fD C? -5 r+ -a r -~ 00 lC] v, ~ ~p .J {) t+ 0 m~ cn . n ~~ ~. ~ ~~ t-~- W J, , D ~ O O W (n C7 ~D ~~ rn~ ~~ rn ~~ o•~ z m~ ~~ mw ~~ ~o r°' o O o m m ~o C m m cn ~m ~~ m C m -~. zn r~ N H Q .. CW m zo C o m N W ~~ Z .P 0 N C m z C m --i a ~. ~, ~~ mm ~w ~~ •• N .p ~ N N ~~ 3~ ~ ~ f~ L!'1 ~~ ~ (n ~D ~ n -~I J, ~7 ~+ J ~~ ~~^ ~~ .~. ~ ,~, ~~ ~~ m~ -~ r~ m ~~C n ~~ ~[ cn m rt n r~ z o~ ~ m f7 _..,. _~ .. ~n vm ~~ N Z7 W N ~~ Cn o i/ 1 v ~~ N ~7 .~ m 0 © .~ ca FINDfNGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT: SIDEWALKS CN EMERALD STREET BETWEEN 2GTH AVENUE AND 28TH AVENUE CONTRACT #93-08] JOB #2844} BAGKGROUND This project was initiated by a petition from property owners and at the request of the Amazon Neighbors Organization in looking at ways to improve safety an Emerald Street. The property owners within the LID supporting the improvement will bear 54 percent of the assessable cost.. Based on the petition the City Engineer initiated the project, as provided for in the Eugene Code 7.1608} on March 19, 1992 and the City Council formed the LID on February 22, 1993. The project has been completed and final assessment costs have been calculated. The assessable cost per lineal foot, which is typically based on the low bid, remains higher than most sidewalk projects. The city is assisting in funding the project, thus lowering the assessable amount to $18.00 per front foot. The high project cost is due primarily to the difficult construction associated with topographic constraints along the east side of the street. The unusual conditions, the safety need for the sidewalk, and the fact that the sidewalk was constructed separately from the street are the primary reasons for the higher costs. Normally a portion of the sidewalk excavation is included as part of constructing the street. PROJECT The project included construction of 3,800 square feet of 4-inch concrete walks, 5-inch driveways, and 115 square feet of wooden retaining wall. ASSESSMENT Under City of Eugene assessment policy and adopted Resolution #4365 for this project, 69 percent of the improvement costs will be distributed to the abutting property owners with the balance financed by the City. Below are the final unit assessable costs. Sidewalks ~25.79Ifront foot without city participation Sidewalks $1 S.OOlfront foot with city participation City Contribution $13,684.16 Costs listed below are based on the engineer's estimate and preliminary costs quoted to property owners at the Local Improvement District hearing following bid opening: Sidewalks $20.201front foot without city participation Sidewalks $18.001front foot with city participation City Contribution $8,000.00 Sidewalks on Emerald Street -Job #2844 Findings and Recommendations -Page 1 PROPERTY OWNER CORRESPONDENCE Staff received two letters from property owners within the LID before the assessment hearing. One was from Hannah Wilson, and it described objections to the formation procedure and project design and proposes expanding the area of properties assessed for the improvements. The other letter was from Philip and Judith Gall, who objected to the project design and lack of notice regarding LID formation. These issues, as well as others raised at the hearing, are addressed below, Staff also provided the Hearings Official with a staff Memorandum which outlined the above information, contained copies of the property owners' fetters, and provided background information on the formation of the LID. Staff also received a letter from a property owner after the public hearing date, and forwarded it to the Hearings Officiaf. The Hearings Official received this fetter prior to preparing these Findings and Recommendations, so it will be considered here. This letter, from project opponent Scott Pringle, questions the safety benefits of the project and raises concerns over the ability of low-income property owners to pay the assessments for the improvements. These concerns will be addressed below. PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing concerning the assessment was held on February 16,1994 at 6:o0 p.m. in the First Floor Conference Room of the Public Works Building, S58 Pearl Street. Hearings Official Michael Walch presided. A copy of the Minutes of that hearing are attached as Exhibit A, and a copy of the Memorandum provided by City staff to the Hearings Official is attached as Exhibit B. A copy of Mr. Pringle's letter is attached as Exhibit C. As described in the Minutes, two property owners spoke at the hearing. One speaker's comments centered on application of the assessment to a particular property, and the other speaker's comments were directed to matters of procedure and notice. These issues, and those raised by the property owner correspondence, are addressed below. FINDINGS AND RECOIVIIVIENDATIONS Prnrr~r~~ ira The Hearings Official finds that notice of the public hearing was provided and the public hearing was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Eugene Code. Desi n Chan es and LID formation Some of the objections to the project are based on design changes after the initial polling of property owners and contacts with property owners after the public hearing on formation of the LID. Both of these matters were known to the previous Hearings Official prior to the preparation of his Findings and Recommendations, and he found that the project as re-designed was supported by property owners which would pay a majority of the assessment costs. The City Council concurred with this determination informing the Sidewalks on Emerald Street -Job #2544 Findings and Recommendations -Page 2 LID. Since the LID has been formed and the project constructed, a final determination on these matters has been made, and objections pertaining to them are beyond the scope of matters which can now be considered by the Hearings official. The question of whether the design provides public safety benefits has been raised by a property owner. However, the previous Hearings official found that the project would benefit the public safety of Eugene, and revisiting that issue would be outside the scope of these Findings and Recommendations. Pro'ect Desi n Two parties have objected to the project's design, sidewalk in the street for some distance. As noted based on a final design and construction of the pro properly consider objections to the project design. Notice of LID Formation particularly its placement of the above, after formation of the LID ;ct, the Hearings official can not One property owner has contended that notice of formation of the LID was not received. The record discloses that this owner was included in the mailing list of property owners to which this notice was sent, so there is not a sufficient basis to conclude that this notice was not provided. Ex anded LID Boundar Cne property owner has proposed that the boundaries of the LID be expanded to include more properties, because this project creates a benefit far a wider area. Whether or not this is accurate, expanding the LID boundaries is not possible consistent with the Eugene Code. The Code both limits assessable properties to those abutting an improvement Ccite~, and does not allow for expanding LID boundaries after formation [cite]. Moreover, virtually all public improvements provide some benefit to non-adjacent areas, but the intent of the Eugene Code is clear in that only adjacent properties are to be assessed for such improvements. Expanding the LID boundary is not plausible in this case. Bonamici Pro ert The Bvnamicis were originally advised by City staff that their property would not be assessed for the sidewalk improvements. This advice was based on the erroneous determination that sidewalks had been installed along the entire frontage of the Banamici property. When City staff later discovered that this was not true and five feet of sidewalk were installed in front of this property, they proposed to assess this property for those five front feet. The property owners objected, based on the prior representations by the City staff. In legal terms, the property owners' claim is that the City should be estoppel from assessing their property because of these erroneous representations. However, estoppel against a government entity is extremely difficult to establish. This is true even if public officers are guilty of negligence, mistake, misconduct, or omission. School District 47J o umbia__Coun~y U.,, N„a~ional,,.. Bank of Po, ~, _ y. . S. ,, rtland, ~ 87 fir. 360, 2 ~ ~ P.2d 723 (~ 949}. Sidewalks on Emerald Street -Job #2844 Findings and Recommendations -Page 3 Acts exceeding an official's authority, such as incorrectly granting a waiver of assessment here, do not create an estoppel. See, e, g., Bankus v. City of Brookings, 252 Or. 257, 449 P.2d 646 ~ 1969; Solber v. Cit of Newber , 56 Or. App. 23, 641 P.2d 44 ~ 1982. A tax case found that estoppel could exist where there was misinformation by staff, a valid reason for reliance, and a resultant high degree of inequity, Johnson v. Tax Commission, 248 Or. 460, 435 P.2d 302 ~1967y, but other than misinformation those elements are not evident here. The acknowledged erroneous representation here does not create a basis for exempting this property from assessment. inancin Low-In,,.,, g;___ , „ ,,,,,cpme Property.,,,Dwners All properties to be assessed will be eligible for 10-year assessment financing. Low- income deferral programs are also available for those property owners that qualify, and this is the appropriate method of addressing Mr. Pringle's concerns. Qualification will be determined at the time the financing application is processed. The final assessments costs to property owners are equal to the estimates provided at the hearing on formation of the LID. Uvhile actual project costs are higher than those estimates, all cost increases are proposed to be absorbed by the City. The Hearings Official recommends approval of the proposed calculation of the assessment perfront foot for property owners within the LID. The Hearings Official also finds that he project is one for which the assessments are for a local improvement as set forth in ORS 310,410 because: ~ 1 ~ The assessments do not exceed actual costs; 42~ The assessments are imposed for a capital construction project which provides a specific benefit for a specific property or rectifies the problem caused by a specific property; ~3~ The assessments are impased in a single assessment upon completion of the project; and t4~ The assessments allow the property owners to elect to pay the assessment with interest over at least ten ~ 10~ years. Therefore, the Hearings Official recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance for assessment as set forth by the City Engineer. Respectfully submitted, ~.~..,R.e, n,bt~Q. Michael C. INalch Hearings Official Dated: February 25, 1994 Sidewalks on Emerald Street -Job #2844 Findings and Recommendations -Page 4 Exhibit A MINUTES Local Improvement District Assessment Sidewalks on Emerald Street Between 26th Avenue and 25th Avenue Job # 2544 Contract #93-a$} February 16, 1994 Public Hearing Hearings Official Michael Walch convened the hearing at 6:oo p.m, He described the nature of the hearing and the procedures which wauld be followed, and he summarized the information he had received prior to the hearing. After this introduction, he introduced City Engineer Les Lyle. Mr. Lyle began by introducing Paul Klope and Bob Terrel of the Eugene Public Works staff. He then stated that this project had involved much effort to comply with both its topographical constraints and the provisions of the Eugene Code. He indicated that this project was unique in its history. The first time that bids had been requested, the City staff felt that the amounts were high, and decided to re-bid the project later during a time of less construction activity, The second set of bids were almost identical to the first, so the City agreed to fund part of the project cost to make the project a reality, Mr. Lyle also stated that the topography and cost constraints resulted in same sidewalk being placed in the street, which is unusual for City projects. Mr. Lyle recounted that at the hearing on formation of the local improvement district, City staff had promised property owners that assessment amounts would not exceed $1$ per front foot. Due to circumstances encountered during construction, the cast of the project was higher than projected, but Mr. Lyle stated that the assessments to property owners would not exceed the $1$ per front foot as originally promised. Mr. Lyle described three contacts with property owners which occurred before the hearing. City staff had received a letter from Philip and Judith Gall, which questioned whether the project had received the support of owners who would pay a majority of the assessment. Mr. Lyle indicated that at the hearing on the formation of the LID, a petition objecting to design changes was submitted far the project. Because of these changes, property owners who had previously supported the improvement signed the petition; however, at the hearing they indicated that they might change their position on the LID formation and were contacted by City staff. Same of these owners did change their position, and the Hearings Official reviewed these changes and found that property owners who would pay 54 % of the project costs as ultimately designed supported the project, Mr. Lyle also summarized a letter received from Hannah Wilson, which stated that the project benefited a wider area and thus the City and owners of property not abutting the improvements should share in the project costs. In response to these matters, Mr. Lyle pointed 1 out that the City is sharing part of the project cost to keep the assessments no greater than $18 per front faot. Under the Eugene Code, he explained, the City can not extend the project cost to properties outside the boundary of the LID, and the Code does nat give any authority for assessing any properties other than those bordering on the improvement, which are deemed to directly benefit from it. Mr. Lyle added that at the previous hearing, the Hearings Gfficial decided not to adjust the LID boundaries. Mr. Lyle also referenced conversations City staff had had with Beth Bonamici. He said that there had apparently been some miscommunication regarding this property. The sidewalk for this property had already been partially installed, and Mr. Lyle stated that the proposed assessment for this property was only for the amount of frontage which did not have a sidewalk in place. Mr. Lyle concluded by stating that the assessments would be only $18 per front foot, and that City staff believed that the assessment amounts had been computed correctly, Mr, walch then asked the members of the public present to offer their comments, and the first to do so was Andrew Bonamici. Mr. Bonamici and his wife own a home on Emerald Street, and Mr. Lyle had referred to conversations with Ms. Bonamici earlier. Mr. Bonamici stated that he had been told at the beginning of this project that there would be no assessment for their property, where sidewalks had already been installed along most of its frontage. The Bonamicis were later advised that changes in design of the project had resulted in extending the new sidewalk construction onto their property, but were not then given an opportunity to object. As a result, the Bonamicis were proposed to be assessed for five feet of sidewalk, though they had originally been advised that their property would not be assessed. In response to these statements, Mr. Lyle confirmed that City staff had erroneously advised the Bonamicis that their property would not be assessed, but that five feet of sidewalk had been built in front of their property. It would be up to the Hearings Official, he said, to determine whether this miscommunication should relieve them of their liability for assessment, or if they should pay the proposed assessment based on their front footage like other properties in the LID. Mr. Klope added that the Bonamici property had five feet of frontage without sidewalk, but this five-foot section had not been noticed until after the Bonamicis had been advised that their property would not be assessed, Phil Gall, writer of one of the letters referred to above and a resident of Emerald Street, was the next person to speak, He referred to a petitionlletter he had sent to City staff at the time of the design changes in the project, and asked if that petition was considered apposition to the project. Mr. Lyle answered that it was considered a remonstrance against the project, and that after that time City staff contacted the property owners who appeared to change from favoring the project to opposing it based on the design changes. written approvals were sought from those owners, with the result that the project, still had a majority of support after the design changes. Mr. Gall then stated that he felt that this post-hearing process occurred without the knowledge of all property owners, and that City staff was able in this way to seek more support for the project without providing opponents with a similar opportunity to seek more opposition for the project. In reply, Mr. I~lope said that staff's post-hearing inquiries were to determine 2 whether any property awners that had previously supported the project had changed their support for the project based on the design changes. Mr. Lyle added that at the formation hearing, some property owners indicated that they might change their votes, and this was the basis for contacting them after the hearing to determine if they did indeed change from supporting the project, Mr. Gall stated that some property owners could have changed their position the other way, and Mr. Lyle said that they had not received such comments from property owners. Mr. Gall concluded by stating that he had not received an appropriate notice of the result of the formation hearing, to which Mr. Klope replied that notice of the formation of the LID was sent to affected property owners. Mr. Gall responded that he had not received this notice, and Mr. Klope reviewed his records and noted that Mr. Gall's name was included in the mailing list. There were no further comments from members of the public, sa Mr. Watch adjourned the hearing. Mr. Lyle also advised the property owners present that after the City Council approves the assessment, if it does so, financing agreements would be sent to assessed property owners. 3 MEMORANDUM February 16, 1994 TO: Hearings Official FROM: Les Lyle, City Engineer SUBJECT: SIDEWALKS ON EMERALD STREET BETWEEN 26TH AVENUE AND 28TH AVENUE CONTRACT #93-48} (JOB #2844} BACKGROUND This project was initiated by a petition from property owners and at the request of the Ammon Neighbors Organization in looking at ways to improve safety on Emerald Street. The property owners within the LID supporting the improvement will bear 69 percent of the assessable cost.. Based on the petition the City Engineer initiatedthe project, as provided for in the Eugene Code 7.1608} on March 19, 1992 and the City Council formed the LID on February 22, 1993. The project has been completed and final assessment costs have been calculated. The assessable cast per lineal foot, which is typically based on the low bid, remains higher than most sidewalk projects. The city is assisting in funding the project, thus lowering the assessable amount to $18.00 per front foot.} The high project cost, is due primarily to the difficult construction associated with topographic constraints along the east side of the street, The unusual conditions and safety need for the sidewalk, and the fact that the sidewalk was constructed separately from the street are the primary reasons for the higher costs. Normally a portion of the sidewalk excavation is included as part of constructing the street. Two ~2} property owners have requested to attend the hearing. City staff are working on the questions from the property owners and will have a response for them at the time of the hearing. PROJECT The project included construction of 3,500 square feet of 4-inch concrete walks, 5-inch driveways, and 115 square feet of wooden retaining wall. ASSESSMENT Under City of Eugene assessment policy and adopted Resolution #4365 for this project, 69 percent of the improvement costs will be distributed to the abutting property owners with the balance financed by the City. Below are the fins[ unit assessable costs. Sidewalks $25.791frant foot without city participation Sidewalks $18.OOIfront foot with city participation City Contribution $13,684.16 HEARING MEMO -EMERALD STREET February ~ 6, 1994 Page 2 Costs listed below are based on the engineer's estimate and preliminary costs quoted to property owners at the Local Improvement District hearing following bid opening: Sidewalks $20.2o1front foot without city participation Sidewalks $ ~ 8.o01front foot with city participation City Contribution $8,000.00 REC~MMENDAT~CN The final improvement costs are the same as what was quoted at the local improvement hearing. Staff recommends approval of the assessment distribution. 16 February 1994 City Engineer Public works Department SS 8 Pearl Street Eugene, GR 97401 RE; Improvement Resolution No. 4365 At a previous hearing on the sidewalk pro'ect between 26th and 28th J Avenues, the legitimacy of a neighbor's petition submitted to the Cit . y obecting to the sidewalk offset into the street, was considered a otential P roadblock for the approval by the City for going ahead with the ro'ect. We PJ never heard the outcome of this question. Rather than 'ust roceedin with ~ P g the sidewalk as it actually ended up being constructed, it was our understanding the Hearings Gfficer was going to check on the issue and inform those at the hearing if the petition was an a ro riate ob'ection and PP P ~ deserved a response by the City such as, either removal of the offset of the sidewalk into the street or solicit another all of the ro ert owners for P P P Y approval of that condition. I believe we deserve the minimum consideration of bein ke t . g P informed on this kind of question, espec~all those of us who are directed to Y pay for a condition that is not to our benefit. The result of this ro'ect is PJ detrimental to the canven~ent access to our ro ert that we had before and P P Y that other property owners on the same street still have. ~we are unable to use our property frontage for the normal loading and unloadin that most g take for granted. VL~e object to being required to pay for the sidewalk as installed. As we stated at the previous hearing, we would not object if it had been ro erl ~ P P Y installed in a manner that permitted us to use the east side of the street 1 a ong the curb as before. ~.. Philip J. Gall Judith J. Gall ~Praperty owners at 2765 Emerald St.} .~rrAA~ ~JVJ~ ~ 1.e ~~ r ~ ' . ~: •-, Hannah Wilson ~ "~ ~~ f:.Y# Yk G.r~ tll ~ :~ iti=~.i i, it..~L~ DEB 1 0 i99k City Engineer Public works Department S~8 Pearl Street Eugene 0~ 974U~ February ~, ~ 9~4 ~.f:u 1 ~,-- .~~~U~ '~~,wn . r...w .~____ ~~ ~ ccc ~ dEQT ~,~~-~f~f "1 r' ~k~ 0 ~ ~~ I am writing to object to what I consider to be the unfairness ofi the assessment fiat sidewalks an Emerald Street. I recognize the sidewalks are in, costly, and that someone needs to pick up the tab. I recognize, too, the claim that sidewalks improve my property value twill my assessment go up now?}, although I prefierred the concrete -less path, Na, my complaint is with how the City decided to go ahead with the project, The City responded to the Amazon Neighbors' concern that traffic an Emerald Street was a dangerto the residents. Drivers tend to use Emerald as a thru-way between 24th and bath; the hill encourages the speedster in too many hearts. At a meeting to consider the problem, those of us who live on Emerald suggested speed bumps or a roundabout at 25th or closing off the street at 28th and Baker. fur neighbors from Onyx and Baker and Elinor, and those who live south of 28th, suggested sidewalks and limiting parking to one side of Emerald, steps that would perhaps make it safer far pedestrians but that in noway would stop for has stopped the speeding. At the meeting, Emerald Street residents were outvoted. lrt chart, everyone else in the group voted to assess the people least responsible for the problem. It was a little like assessing people to p~. bars on their ground-floor windows to fail robberies, ~~~ ..r ..~ Betwee~r~ that meeting and the tearing up ofi the street, Emerald St, residents forwarded letters, petitions, and phone-calls to you objecting to the "solution." Interestingly enough, families who live between 2~th and 24th have always had sidewalks, but fear for the safety of their children was the main driving force behind the Neighborhood Association's raising the problem with the City. what naw~ 1 don't know. The City might suggest sharing the costs ofi the sidewalk among all the residents between ~3oth and the Masonic Cemetery, between Emerald and Elinor--all those who felt they needed to continue using Emerald Street, that any street-closing would be undue hardship. ~C~ne man complained that if he needed to go to Albertson's three times in one evening and faced a barrier at Baker and 28th, he would have to drive around to 2~th--such waste!} 26fiD Fmerala~ St. Fugue, 4R9~4~3 (503J 343-5386 ~ ~ r h• ~ a- , J At the least, the City Council ought to question.the validity of using the Neighborhood Associations as conduits of neighborhood opinion. Listen, yes; but do be careful of relying on well~muscled majority votes before making substantive changes. l live on a fined income. l feel very strongly that nurturing a strong sense of community is important to the quality of life in Eugene, That is why l've voted for taxes to protect and enhance services; it is why 1 am supporting the "Library, Yes" committee. But l deeply resent what 1 consider to be an unfair assessment and a mis-use of the power of the Neighborhood Association. sincerely, :,, , .~ :~. , ~~ ~ ~ ~~ P.~. Actually, sidewalks have existed across from my house for same years, in front of the property directly across and to its immediate north and south. when 1 realized sidewalks were going in despite the objections of people on Emerald, l offered to pay half of the cost for the sidewalk across from me. ll~y neighbor refused the offer. But it makes me doubly cranky to have to pay the City fiat what's been there far years. copies to Barbara Keller, Guth Bascom, and Amazon Neighbors. ., :~,~~~ ~I ' ~ _ ~ -~ ~s~ J . ~ ~~ :r ' ~~~~ J. ~~s~ f c;' -~ ~;~ ~~~ f' f~. Exh~ bi t C a February 21,1994 Scatt E. Pringle 2610 Emerald Eugene, Oregon 97403 City Engineer, Public ~lork~ Department City of Eugene 858 Pearl Street Eugene, Qregon 97401 I am writing to state my objections to the Proposed Assessment of my property regarding the sidewalks on Emerald Street. As well, I offer alternatives far bearing the costa ~`~hen this project was in its early stages of study, the concern and purpose was what to da about the speeding traffic on the Emerald Street hill.. From the neighborhood meetings I attended, it had everything to do with scantrol and reductions of vehicles on the streets As soon as the ssoZutions to the speeding traffic problem became the sidewalk projects, I became oppossed to it. I disagreed be-~ cause sidewalks would do very little to reduce traffic flow and high spe~ds.~The sidewalks have only cleared the street for even a greater nurnbe~ of s runway ~ approaches up and down the hill.. } I also disagreed with r simply sidewalks s because of the cost and affords-- b ility to myself and other santi--sidewalks homeownersa As stated back in 192, I would not, could not afford any additional expenses to my cost of existing on a law income. I still canrt. I am in jeopardy every month just to make my mortgage payment, let alone my other necessity expenses. The last possible expense =Head in my life is to pay for 3o feet of laid cement at X20#OQ a foot ~ It be- comes very clear, and how claw it is, how one can become homeless through no fault of their own. To cut back on my personal budge t any further, to somehow meet this proposed assessment, just is znt there or passibleo Z am despratel-y trying to live within my means and take s a grasp of c ontxo~ in one ~ s life and budgetary res tric Lions . 2t only becomes out-of-control when told to pay 54x.00 for someth~.ng never wanted, requested, or asked for4 A possible s alution might be to use funds for the cos t ~ mine and any one else ~.n the same forced situations}from The Community Devlop- men t Block Grant a Funds may be used for Public Improvement which sidewalks fall ur~der.~Ses attached.} Also, perhaps a scost scheduler based on ability-to-pay could be initiated for low--~.n.come residents i If nothing else, The City should just absorb the cost assessment for _ myself, and anyone else who simply do not have the money to pays Thank you for listening and your hopeful understanding and considera- tion, Meanwhile, the cars continue to speed by. Sincerely, ~ Scott ~. Pringle ~ rr ~ ., :~ ~ r-, ,.. .. ~ ~ ,, `, Notice of Proposed Assessment Administrative This is not a billy ServECes Finance e ruary City of Eugene 860 West Park, Suite 300 Account Number: .Eugene, Oregon 9740 19930008-0270 P.O. Box X961 Eugene, Oregon 9?444 PRINGLE SCOTT E VAN AUSDALL KRISTEN 2 610 EMERALD ST EUGENE OR 97403 ~.SSASSOr'S M.ap ~ Tyr LQt No . 18-43-45-42-03901 TAIMS Account No, 4 647760 ~ Property Address: 2610 EMERALD ST EUG Property Affected by the Improvement: R1469f87-33057 Improvement Resolution Number: 4365 Description of Improvement: SIDEWALKS ON EMERALD STREET BETWEEN 26TH AVENUE AND 28TH AVENUE Assessments/charges SIDEWALKfDRIVE APRON ~ $540.04 Total $540.00 ~~ r r m ~oa .~~ ~=D ' a ~ C~ min ~o ~ ~ ~ c ~W QlW 2C ~ y dam ~ z~ rr Dt!?C ~~m p,N ~ , m ern..,, ~~~~ ~~~p~.v ~' ~~~Dm~~~~ ~ ~•a ~n o ~~c~C~'•~m~ ~`~ocoC7 ~ OZN r~o ~CZ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~.. ,~ ~m~ Zr ~ ~ ~ N ~ _, ~**m~~ Duy cnm~ a o ~ ~, N o ~." CC 'p ~, _ ,~ NG ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ 0 C N ~ ~ ~ rN ~o ~~ocn-I or~~ Qo-cn C~ ? a *a a~ a c a mo c ~~ °~ Gm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ a °~ p ~ N d a _~ ~~~ C~ to N ~-~~z-~~~a-~o c~cnoa= ~ ~~ ~ ,o a~n~ *~ OCsnoc ~ ;~w~ ~ 3c~ao~ ~ac~~ ~ 'S o w~~m ~ o~~~~~ m~a.n? Q (~ N cn~ N~' rn~~~o 0 0 -~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ? ~. (~ ' '~~~~ ~ _ -ir i ~~ ~ -~ .s ~ _ ~ N C~ W {gyp ~, ~ N N N ~ o ~ Q` ~ ~w^~ ~ c _? _. w ^ * o• ~. uy• ~- ~ n ? "t' 0 '~ m n (D ,~-~ 3 ,,,~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~' ~' ~~c cn R1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rt ~ ~ .••• ~~