Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20022ORDINANCE No. ~ac~.. AN aRDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PAVING, CURBS. GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STQRM SEWERS. STREET TREES AND STREET LIGHTS ON TERRY STREET BETWEEN ROYAL AVENUE AND BARGER DRIVE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ~ coNTRACT 9 4 - 3 0 ~ ~ JOB # 2 813 } The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: on the loth day of February, 1993, as authorized in Subsection 7.160 ~ 8 } , Eugene Code, 1971 SEC} the City Engineer initiated the proposed local improvement consisting of paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, storm sewers, street trees and street lights on Terry Street between Royal Avenue and Barger Drive. After due notice and a public hearing thereon before the hearing official, and no remonstrances having been filed, on the 29th day of June, 1994, the City Council formed the local improve- ment district and authorized construction of the local improvement. The actual cost of the local improvement is ascertained to be $915,588.20 and the amounts to be assessed to and borne by the specially benef fitted 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 E.C. 7.170 and 7.175. A notice containing the information required by E.C. 7.185 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 offi- vial'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 Councils record in these proceedings, and the hearings official's findings, including those regarding compliance with E.C. 7,164 to 7.190, 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 paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, storm sewers, street trees and street lights on Terry Street between Royal Avenue and Barger Drive is $915,588.20 of which $424,554.97 is hereby assessed oRO~NANCE - z 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 benef fitted 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 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. 2.422 through 2.024. 4.2 If the property owner so elects, in 124 monthly install- ORDINANCE - 3 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 benefitted 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. 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 E.C. 7.19o 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 oRD~NANCE - 4 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 over a mayoral veto by twa-thirds of all members of the Council. Passed by the City Council this ~~`'~ day o f ~,w~,~ 19 9 5 City Re rder Approved by the Mayor this day o f ~, l 9 9 5 Mayor ~RD I NANC E - 5 ~ ~ © -~ n ~ ~ D -~• cn ~ --! r+ ~ r ~ ~C cn r cn n r7nnnc~nncn -~ ~ ~ ~ m .. ~ 3 "C7 to t!? ~ "U r-»+ . -~ cn ~--+~~-tnnr n = V)CZozC~ Ln ~v ~ mz--(~cnz~ m N o m ray n~~ cn ~© ~ r ~ ~ z cn L-} z ~ ~ m '"S ~ ~ m z ~ z o0 ^ o a ~ -a -v C Z ~p {p ~ ~ ~~ ~ r-[- rf' rom ~~ s~ m~ n.. ~- n..~. ~~ (D ~ ~ ~! ~ J. o -a v ~ ro 0 ~ ~ ~, g m • cn o n n Q m C (D 0 -o ~ ~ N w W H-` EV ~ o~ o~ rn t-~ l--x ~ W {71 V Q~ t•-3 N ~N~~DIDO~W Q~00 VQIQ~VD~Ia DDOI V l--~ Qo -p V V .p U~ lD O~IOWtOVV01 ~0~ WIO~NC3~Q~CTi W~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ cn o cn W W CT1 Oa W .p N [V ~p O W V ~ ~ ,,, ~~~ ~~~ ---~ o ~. ~, ~~ mro ~~ o. . }...~, cn n ~ ~ . m o -~ w~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~+ ~. n ~ ~. ~ to 3 Cf~ n v n m n ~+ ~ z s1 z ~ ,. ~ ~ ~ N ~ .. N N ~ -I w ~ m ~ ~ ~ W -~P ~7 i ~ O ~ © CA W y o ~ m D C Z cn n ~ ~ 3 ~~ nm cn n --~ ~, .~, mw-~ ~~ ~n mu~o ~~ ~ m -n p cn ~, ~ to (D m ~~ "5 c-r C ~ . cr cn ~ ~~ c+ cn m ~, ~. or~z ~~ m ~ C~ -v m ~~ ~~ (J7 N ~~ (/? D t!} TJ ~n ~~ cn m O O I--' 1-} F~(IiIBR~' FINDINGS AND RECGNIlVIENDATIoNS SUBJECT: PAVIlIIG, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM SEWERS AND STREET LIGHTS oN TERRY STREET BETWEEN ROYAL AVENUE AND BARGER DRIVE. CONTRACT #94-30} JOB #2813} BACKGROUND This project was included in the FY `94' Council adopted Capital Budget. On April 11,1994, the City Council approved a motion authorizing staff to proceed with design, bidding and right-af way acquisition for this project. Also, an April 11,1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance #19962 authorizing eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of necessary rights-of way for this project. On May 1$,1994, the Lane County Commissioners approved Order #94-5-18-16 authorizing the City to include two ~2} properties that are outside the City boundaries within the proposed LID boundaries, The City Council formed the LID on June 29, 1.994. The project was designed to address a number of transportation needs, including providing a necessary north-south link between Barger and Royal far pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles in the area. The project has now been completed, and final assessment costs have been calculated. PROJECT The project included construction of a 44-foot wide roadway with 11-foot travel lanes, l2-foot center turn lane with medians,5-foot bike lanes with curbs and gutters, storm sewers, street trees, street lights and continuous sidewalk on the east side of Terry Street. ASSESSMENT Under City of Eugene assessment policy, 46 % percent of the improvement costs wi11 be distributed to the abutting property owners. The final assessment unit costs are listed below: 20-foot $ 44.111front foot 36-foot $ 72.261front foot 44-foot $ 85.251front foot Sidewalks $ 15.941front foot Cost to City: $489,555.42 FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS SIDEWALKS STORM SEWERS AND STREET LIGHTS ON TERRY STREET BETWEEN ROYAL AVENUE AND BARGER DRIVE PAGE I The assessable unit costs listed below were based on the low bids received prior to construction and were quoted to property owners at the LID hearing following the bid opening. 20-foot 36-foot 44-foot Sidewalks Cost to City; $ 46.23/front foot $ 83.22/front foot $ 101.71/front foot $ 17.95/front foot $386,H44.73 The final assessment unit costs are lower than the estimates quoted a the time of the formation of the LID. PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was held on the matter on July 25,1995. Minutes of the public hearin are .. . g attached as Exh~b~t A. At the public hearing staff presented a memorandum to the Hearings Official describing the project and made a verbal presentation describing the project and the final assessment. A copy of the staff memorandum is attached as Exhibit B. One property owner attended the hearing, Mr. Arthur Piculell challenged the proposed assessment, claiming that it was based on misreading an ambiguous provision of the Eugene Code. The provision of the Eugene Code in question is section 7.1752}fib} 1. a. The Code provides: . ~~ e~~,n~~~s~n~,~~~~~~. a. As provided in subsection 7.1751}fib}, the city shall pay the cost of street construction in excess of the maximum assessable width for a street. That width varies on the basis of street classification at the place of construction, and the zonin g and use of land abuttHag the street at the place of construction in accordance with the following; ~l} Parcels in residential zoning districts may be assessed for a maximum of 3G feet of an improvement and for paving of a thickness determined by the city engineer, on the basis of standard's of the Oregon State Highway Division or the Asphalt Institute, to be adequate for residential traffic; except that properties used for existing single family dwellings and existing duplexes may be assessed for a maximum width as follows: ~a} Parcels abutting arterial or collector streets may be assessed for a maximum of 20 feet of width. FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS SIDEWALKS STORM SEWERS AND STREET LIGHTS ON TERRY STREET BETWEEN ROYAL AVENUE AND BARGER DRIVE PAGE 2 fib} All other parcels soused may be assessed for a maximum of 2S feet of width. Mr. Piculell suggested that the ordinance had been amended and had inadvertently created a discrepancy between developed and undeveloped residential parcels. Mr. Piculell was concerned because the ordinance provides that parcels which, at the time of the assessment, are developed with single-family dwellings are assessed for a maximum of 20 feet of width along arterial or collector streets, and for a maximum of ZS feet along other types of streets, while undeveloped parcels are assessed for a maximum of 3d feet of width no matter what the type of street they abut. ~Vhi1e Mr. Piculell felt that a mistake had been made in the distinction between undeveloped parcels and parcels developed with a single family or duplex residence, it is not obvious that this was a mistake. The language of the ordinance is clear, and does not suggest an inadvertent omission unless one begins with the assumption that the Council intended to treat developed and undeveloped parcels the same. There is no reason why the Council could nat have chosen to recognize that developed and undeveloped parcels are affected differently by the installation of an arterial or collector street. Developed parcels faced with a new street and higher levels of traffic are less able to respond by reconfiguring the location of the dwelling unit than are undeveloped parcels. It is also possible that the use of an undeveloped parcel may change in response to a change in they type of street available, but this is less likely if the parcel has already been developed. Thus, it is possible that undeveloped parcels may benefit more from a heavier volume street than will already developed parcels, and even if they derive the same. benefit, the undeveloped parcel may be less impacted. Mr. Piculell also argued that the distinction between develaped and undeveloped parcels was unfair because there was no logical reason that would show a rough proportionality between the differing assessments. Mr. Piculell made it clear that he regarded the assessment as a taking which required a constitutional justification under the recent decision, ' ~, 114 S. Ct. 2309 X1994}. In this Mr. Piculell has confused his constitutional law. The proposed assessments in this matter are not at all related to the "taking" that was the focus of the ~ case, ~ concerned requirements imposed as a part of the planning and development process, while this matter concerns assessments for local improvements. Both developed and undeveloped properties in the local improvement district benefit from the street improvement and it is constitutional to assess the properties for these benefits. There axe valid distinctions between developed and undeveloped parcels that support the differing assessments the Council provided in section 7.175 of the Eugene Code. Finally, Mr. Piculell suggested that the local improvement district should assess based on a projection of average daily trips from a property, or some similar method more closet related . Y to use,lnstead of the front footage method provided in the Eugene Code. Mr. Piculell did not explain how a projection based on average use by residents of a parcel would be applied to an FINAL ASSESSMENT FQR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS SIDEWALKS STORM SEWERS AND STREET LIGHTS QN TERRY STREET BETWEEN ROYAL AVENUE AND BARGER DRIVE PAGE 3 unoccupied and undeveloped parcel, The lack of evidence that the suggested alternatives could be any more fairly applied than the present method does not matter; however, the front foota e g method ~s the method provided m the Eugene Code, and the assessments in this matter are calculated according to the Eugene Code, Unless and until the City Council provides for a different method, the front footage method is the only method of assessment available to the City, Mr, Piculell did not argue that the proposed assessment for his property was incorrectly calculated if the distinction between developed and undeveloped property is correct, he on1 .. ., y argued that the distinction is incorrect. Suace Mr. P~culell has not shown that the ordinance is being incorrectly interpreted, no change is recommended to Mr, Piculell's prope 's assessment. Nothing discussed in the public hearing provides any reason to alter the recommendation that the Council adopt an ordinance levying the assessments as calculated. The Hearings official finds that notice of the public hearing was provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Eugene Code, and that all property owners were provided an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Although one property owner has objected, for the reasons stated above, the Hearin s Df~cial g recommends that the final assessable costs be assessed on all properties in the LID as provided in the proposed assessments. The Hearings ~f~cial also finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local improvement as set forth in CRS 310.410 because: 1. The assessments do not exceed actual casts; ~. The assessments are imposed far a capital construction project which ravides a p spec~~c benefit for a specific property or rectifies the problem caused by a specil~c property; 3. The assessments are imposed in a single assessment upon completion o the project; and 4, The assessments allow the property owners to elect to pay the assessment with interest over at least ten X10} years. FINAL ASSESSMENT FAR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS SIDEWALKS STQRM SEWERS AND STREET LIGHTS ON TERRY STREET BETWEEN RQYAL AVENUE AND BARGER DRIVE PAGE 4 The final improvement costs are lower or equal to those quoted at the local improvement hearing and are comparable to projects of similar size. The Hearings official recommends approval of the assessment distribution. The Hearings Official also recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance far assessment as set forth by the City Engineer. Respectfully submitted, Milo Mecham Hearings Dff~cial Dated: August 1, X995 FINAL ASSESSMENT FAR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS SIDEWALKS STORM SEWERS AND STREET LIGHTS GN TERRY STREET BETWEEN ROYAL AVENUE AND BARGER DRNE PAGE 5 Exhibit A MYI~TiJTES Local Improvement District Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Street Lighting on Terry Street between Royal Avenue and Barger Drive Job # 2813 July 25, 1995 Public Hearing Hearings Official Milo Mecham convened the hearing at 6;oU p.m. He described the subject matter of the hearing and the procedures to be followed at the hearing. Present at the hearing representing the City of Eugene were Les Lyle, City Engineer; Bud DeSantis of the Eugene Public Works Engineering Division and Jeff Lankston of the Eugene Public works Engineering Division. The City Engineer, Les Lyle, began by providing a brief description of the project and its history. This project provides an important connector route between royal Avenue and Barger Drive. It is especially important as a part of the bicycle routes on the west side of Eugene. The project was initiated in 1994, with the Local Improvement District (LID} being formed on June 24, 1994. The project involved the construction of a 44 foot wide roadway. The project has been completed and the calculations of assessments have been made. Certain properties within the LID were subject to special provisions regarding the assessments, made at the time the local improvement district was formed. Mr. Lyle explained that the varying assessments made on the properties in the LID were based on the proportion of the width of the street that was assessed against the property. The variations in the assessment was based on the use of the property at the time the LID was formed. Some of the properties were outside the city limits, They were included in the LID only after Lane County approved of the proposal to include them. one of the properties in the LID was very narrow and long. For purposes of the LID the council decided to consider a portion of the property to be undeveloped. This would allow a smaller initial assessment against the property, which would be recovered in the event the property became more fully developed. Mr. Lyle also noted that the final recommended assessments were lower than the original projections made at the time the LID was formed, Duly one member of the public attended the hearing. Mr. Arthur Piculell, owner of a parcel on Terry Street within the LID ~TL 17-~4-2o-OQ-Q39~Q}, appeared and challenged the propriety of the calculation of the assessment. According to Mr. Piculell, there is an ambiguity in section 7.175 of the Eugene Code. It is this section that describes the basic method used to establish the amount of the assessment for each property in a local improvement district. Mr. Piculell explained that, as he reads section 7.175 of the Eugene Code, it provides that unimproved residential parcels shall be assessed far a 36 foot wide street, whether or not the street is an arterial, collector or residential street, whereas developed residential parcels are assessed fora 28 foot street width if the street is anon-arterial street and fora 2a foot street width if the street in question is an arterial street. Mr. Piculell felt the ordinance had recently been amended and that a mistake had been made in the amendment so that. the current provision lacked the rough proportionality necessary for a constitutional talon g of property. Mr. Piculell also felt that the properties should not be assessed for storm sewers because storm sewers provided a benefit to the city as a whole and not to the individual property to be assessed. Mr. Lyle responded that the assessment against properties in the LID does not include the cast of the storm sewers or the street lighting. Sidewalks are assessed against those properties abutting the sidewalk, which in this case was only one side of Terry Street. Properties are only assessed for the cost of the street construction, which includes that cost of paving, curbs, gutters and, if applicable, sidewalks, Mr. Lyle also pointed out that the method of assessment and its estimated cost to the properties was explained to the property owners at the time the local improvement district was formed. At that time the property now owned b Y Mr. Piculell was owned by another person. Mr. Lyle explained that the potential assessment and the means whereby that assessment was calculated should have been explained by the previous property owner to Mr. Piculell before he purchased the property. Mr. Lyle explained the effect of the language in section 7.175 that Mr. Piculell found ambiguous. The method of calculation provided that the use in effect at the time the LID is formed determines the assessment share or equivalent width. The width of the street to be used as the basis for the assessment is provided in the Eugene Code and has not been changed in recent years. Mr. Lyle explained that the distinction between arterial and other types of streets is based on the Council's recognition of the impact of greater volumes of traffic an arterial streets. Mr. Lyle also explained that the method of assessment is fixed b the Eu ene Code Y g and cannot be changed by the Hearings Official. Mr. Piculell responded that he felt the Hearings Official should be abbe to revise the assessments if the method provided b the Y Eugene Cade was ambiguous or rmproper, Mr. Lyle and the Hearings Official ex lamed to . p Mr. Piculell that the Eugene Code did not give the Hearings Official the authori to develo a tY p alternative method far calculating assessments. The Hearings Official's responsibili is to tY make certain that the assessments were calculated according to the provisions of the Eu ene . g Code, to provide a forum for hearing and review of comments concerning the ~m rovements p and the assessments and otherwise prepare a recommendation for the City Council ~concernin . g how the final assessment complies with the Eugene Code. Mr. Piculell stated that he felt that the method of calculating the benellt of local improvements should be re-examined to allow a more even distribution of benefits, Mr. Piculell argued that the lineal footage method was not the mast equitable method and that it should be replaced by a calculation based on trips per day. Mr. Lyle res owned that the Ci . p tY Caunc~l had deternvned the method of calculating assessments and felt that it was the best method for this and other types of improvements. There were no further questions or statements, so the Hearings Officer closed the hearing at approximately b:4~ p.m. • I ...7 .1 3 ' ....1 --1 ....s c E I e ~l V V V V V V V ~ ~• ~ ~ -oo vo vo ~o -vo ~o -vo ~o x ~ rr ~-P ~~ ~~P -~~ ~-P ~.~ ~~ ~~ --' rD(D oN oN oN oN oN oN oN oN o •••• -o~ -o~ -vim -vo -coo -oo vo ~o rr ~ fp N fD o N o N 1-' CD o rU o (D o N O W OD ~N ~o ~o ~.~ -50 -so `~o ~o ••~ ~ ~[ o ~[ o ~[ o ~[ o ~[ o ~[ o ~[ o ~[ o .p ~ w o 0 o w w w W ~-+ o~ a-p cat~.~ oN ©~o o~0 000 000 ~~o C rpo mO mO ruo rpo r~o mo mo 3~ cn I-~ {n o Cn o cn o cn © [n o in o cn o cn n n n n n n n n J J ~ ~ J. J. J. ...J. . . . ... . C'F ~ C'f [-E' l"'F C'~' l 'F C~' ~ ...,, ~,, ..~, ~. ..J. ...I. ...I. ~, ~ ~ 3 j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m -~ v ! ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ .L~ O ~ .. p .. p .. p . , p .. p .. .. O . , ~ c_,. c-I- ` 0 0 0 0 0 o m om v cn w rn .~ w N ~ ~ n -~ ~ ~o ~o ~o ;va ~© 70o zo ~o n ~t N ~ a E~ N N o N rro ~ o to ~ •~ o .~ ~ o r -~ © V --1 O~ W N -~ ~-+ ~ fD o " D ~ ---~ -P C3~ CO 2 ~' t~ v, E I ~ I i I I j]} (p ~o ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ -~ n ~ ~ O N (J1 N CTr -A r+ ' I I z 1 I 1 }---i I Q V (J7 N o ~ V fp ~ N Ol ~ 00 Ql Ql ~l lD V1 ~ • ~ Q~ Cn r I--' N -P fT'1 O n W 01 D W W V m 07 ~ N © F"'t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J• ~ O o lam' -~ ; © ~ C'~' ....~. I c I N O O ~, "C7 ~] -"r ~ © I (J~ ~P ©-p CO ~! N N Ol ~--t W V lD W W l0 W N O N ~I I-+ O V. N. ~ ~ O N W V ~ f--I Cn Oa ~ N LO W Cf~ ~P N ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 Oo f-+ C.F~ 4D CTE N o V} •, Qo rn .~ w ~ I ~ rn ro O ~ n m cn ~, rn v N cn ~ v vw rn ~ zoo cn-o o ~ ~ ~ +.+ ~ n ---~ , n ~ • n s+ -a ~ ~ ~ o c~ ~ ~ ~~ //~~ Y~C~ /' m~ 1V ~ 0 3 l f /V W ~• ~ ~ I m to ~ cn cn m • to r+ cn i ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ -p -~ r~ m 0o C I ~ ~~o n ~mw ~•tna mAa ~~ m cn ~ cn m z - c-t~ l nm z _ ~ cn o ~ ' ' o~ ~ m ~a~a ~ ~m~ n r~ ~ -~• J ~ ~ r m ~, 3 C~CZ m C/7 C z • J. I• c n m cn r€a ;. ~o~ z ~ o_ o~•• Ww~ ! ~mw ~~ G7mo moo ~ V1 N • 00 O I--' ' ~~W ! F -~-~ z C ~ m•i~ mI-~~p R7v(n= m~c'~V? ~WV mCT1ov mcnv mcnc~ o m 1` CND CI--'-ID C~D2~ Cr-'OC ONr-+ C~C7 CI--'o C1-'O `~ V) ~i7No ~'7ty-Iz G7rnor ~7~oc3 ~WC7 C,?N]Q ~rnz G7rnz ~ ~ m o rn~zm m me m X73 --Io~C mvm mCnm mcnm rp ~ z n r- z r z p 3© z cn i---i m r cn r z cn z cn z vi ~ m ~ m©~ rnz~y m~y~ mvr~ ~~m mom m~ m~ m ~ C z o z -•~ 7C Cn ~ r -n z r ~ 7C D cn O (n t--+ ---I 3 zo -Izo -nmO ~7 ~ a~cr ~[ -~--~ ~-I ~ o-~ om~ o-I~z orc..~rn m Ono own ona -~ r ~~-o ~~r3 ~~ ~~ r r3~ arm ~rz ~orz o ~ mom Ooc~ tnao ors ~ ~ a ~n tones ~v-t r ~00~0 ~cnr ~-[-I ~o~-I ~o~~ ~vnsz~ ~ z -vm .3r~ •~ ~ •~o~~ •~ mm ~ _ .~~~ .ac .f~ v -~ stn -~C ~cn== ~ zn ~ozcn ~ocnC -pm ~m© -Pmo rr cn N~ Doom o-fOO oa~m oroz-1 •i-[~ o C~ o m O m -~• wN j 1--~ t/1 N 3 3 ~' 7C7 r' y N• N N aQ N W O C~ ~ ~ -I ~ m r o sz~ ~ O n ~ ~ E-+ ~ cn o o ~ cn y m ~ cn m -v -I O ~ ~ m cn c c..a I ~ m z~ r r H~ ~ cnv ~ to ~ m r~ ~• f v~ ~ z mz m rva r m z c~ ~ m -~ r E~ o ~~ © r y O o~ ,i n c,n w MEMORANDUM July 25,1995 TO: Hearings Official FROM: Les Lyle, City Engineer SUBJECT: PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM SEWERS AND STREET LIGHTS ON TERRY STREET BETWEEN ROYAL AVENUE AND BARGER DRIVE. CONTRACT #94-30} JOB #2813} BACKGROUND This project was included in the FY `94' Council adopted Capital Budget, On April 11,1994, the City Council approved a motion authorizing staff to proceed with design, bidding and right-of way acquisition for this project. Also, on Apri111,1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance # 19942 authorizing eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of necessary rights-of-way for this project. On May 18,1994, the Lane County Commissioners approved Order #94-5-18- 16authorizing the City to include two ~2}properties that are outside the City boundaries, to be included with the proposed LID boundaries. Property owners will bear 46.3% percent of the costs for the local improvement district SLID). The City Council formed the LID on June 29, 1994. The project has now been completed, and final assessment costs have been calculated. PROJECT The prof ect included construction of a 44-foot wide roadway with 11-foot travel Ianes, 5-foot bike lanes with curbs and gutters, storm sewers, street trees, street lights and continuous sidewalk on the east side of Terry Street. ASSESSMENT Under City of Eugene assessment policy, 46% percent of the improvement costs will be distributed to the abutting property owners. The final assessment unit costs are listed below: 20-faot 36-foot 44-foot Sidewalks Cost to City: $ 4011 /front foot $ 72.26/front foot $ 88.25/front foot $ 15.94/front foot $489,555.42 The assessable unit costs listed below are based on the low bids received prior to construction and were quoted to property owners at the LID hearing following the bid opening, 20-foot $ 46.231firont foot 36-foot $ 53.221front foot 44-foot $ l 01.711front foot Sidewalks $ 17.951front foot Cost to City: $386,544.73 Special assessment provisions adopted as part of an LID resolution cannot be modified during the final assessment process. The f nal assessment hearing is to determine if there axe any errors in the calculations as prescribed in the LID and the municipal code. REC~MMENDATI~N The final assessment costs are lower or equal to those quoted at the local improvement hearing and are comparable to pro jects of similar size. Staff recommends approval of the assessment distribution. ~' A ~~ VICINITY MAP