Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20074ORDINANCE NO. o?L107 AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES FOR FIVE ~5~ VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY . ~ CONTRACT 9 5 - Z 6 ~ ~ JOS # 3 3 7 5 ~ The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: on the 26th day of September, 1994, as authorized in Subsec- tian 7.160 ~5} and 7.160 ~7} , Eugene Code, 1971 SEC} the City Council initiated the proposed local improvement consisting of construction of sidewalks and driveway approaches for five ~5} various locations in the city. After due notice and a public hearing thereon before the hearing official, and no remonstrances having been filed, on the 25th day of September, 1995, 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 $95,784.78 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- cial'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 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 adopted. Section Z. The actual cost of the local improvement compris~ ing the construction of sidewalks and driveway approaches is $95,784.78, of which $77,150.07 is hereby assessed against the ~RD~NANCE - 2 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 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 ar parcels of land against which said several amounts are assessed, and may be paid, with interest on the unpaid principal amount commencing ten days after the effective date of this ordinance: 4.1 In up to twenty semi-annual installments, including principal and interest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in E.C. 2.022 through 2.024. 4.2 If the property owner so elects, in 120 monthly install- ~RD~NANCE - 3 meats, 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, or 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 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 forth in Section 4 of this ordinance. Section 7. Any assessment remaining unpaid and for which no ORDINANCE - 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 construe-- tion, engineering and related expenses or which are used to retire any indebtedness incurred by the City for this improvement. section S. 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 two--thirds of all members of the Council. Passed by the City Council this day of 1996 City Reco der Approved by the Mayor this `~ day of ~il, 1996 S ~ ~ Mayor ORDINANCE - 5 a ~NCaiT. ~ .,,~ -~o ~.~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ... o ---~ n v v' n -o . ~ n~ ~ o ~ o cn ---~ o -~• cn ~ ~ o ~ r D ti cn ~. -~ ~ ~ w r ~ n w n ~ n n n cn --~ ~ rv n rt a, o n ~--, ~., s o v~ ~ o cn3•• ~ m -7-i [n ---~ -..-~ D p- . . _ ©cn ~n m -a ~ m n cn ~ o m ~ r~ cn a L r r cn f~l 7c A ~ T3 v W r-- [n C'7 ~ ~ f~l ~ "~ W 1C? ~ --i A m z o D ~ ~ C7 v o --i -a -o to cn m ~c ~~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~~ o A z o ct ct O r ~m rn ~~ n as ~ ~~ m m cn rt ~ ~~ 3 ~ -~• m 3 Ul ~ o -~ ~] -~ rt a ca. -~• ~ ~ ~ z7 rv p ~ ~ n o m ~ 'o n ~ ~ `-~ D rU ~ ~ cn ~ n -I rt ~ ~, .~. ~D a ~ N ~~ ~ ~ ~D N U- O ~~ ct m 'T1 o~ ..~. ~ ~r~m ~~ ~, '"S rt C ~ ~, ~ W •~ v~cn G) r Iv o ~' ~-+' ~ m cn ~. ~ ~~ V, o© o~pz {no o~ ~~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rrn ~ 1 V V F r ~•I CO W /h/-~~-- ~!I • . a v V ~! V ~n A vm -i cn N ~ U1 N ~ Uz V] O "" v ~~ ~n N G~ U1 R'1 4 ' D r-~ qo Oo DO ~l W '~O "DO "00 ~© X ~ L1 ~ W ~f W -S ~ --~ OC7 DO Do DW O "O D1 ~ C31 `O Ol T3 Ql c+ DF-+ fD~ CpN ~W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~' ~ c-h ~ rt i c-f i ~o ~[o t[c~ ~o ~ Q~ Q~ G] nrn ©cn ~.~ o~v ~a mo mo ono cn o ~ o cn o cn o n n n n ~ -~ -~ ~ v ~v v -~ c-i~ c-r rt ~ o D D o ~ .. o ., o ,. o .. o c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ as ~ rn .p ~ ~o ~o Mo No n N w-+ W tp fp N o F.-+ V O ~0 v CJ7 ~ A ~7 + i i w oa oa ~ rn o .p ~, cn w w cn N W tD pa ~ o o .p N ~ ~ w N N o o ~ 0 »J !V N N ~ ~ p IV [.T~ Cp -p ~ ~ o N ~ o~ rn oo cv o . C v ~ rn ~ ~ !V N N N ~ :D n a c m~ocACn cntvv mrvao m~a p CdC3 AO~A CoA CN ~ mmm--~ m~----tn mcnz m.~~ ~ z ~_ ~ D z= z c -~ mrvy cnpz m~A m~;o o ~ m r --.~ ~ A ~ h-+ -!ate ~--F~a r-~ ~m ~ O2C7m may Dr p-~ -~, :~ zp r ~ ~Av ~7~3 D Azm C7E~ 3S mD ~ ~EAm ~r ~om~---+ ~r~v ~ •~m cn .~~~- von a, o ~~ om-o ocny .~. CTt L.. Ui IV --{ O ~ ~ ~ z w ~ w 0 v3 ~a o cn v. R-r m ru n~ rt r -~ DO tp V. pa {~ --~ n r~ ~ u, , n ~~ .~. ~ v~ ~~ J, ~ ~ o N • Ol cn n ~O CJ ~ mrt ~~ a~ rn 7c rt n~ D.. z ~~ -i ~o ~~ c u, n• -~ a ~o O N zrn z -~ ~© ~~ m .. (~ ~~ ~~ ~n nm ~~ on c~• ~o rw a no Do -~ W r-~ W Dv z CT1 z z m n --I O _.,. a ~ t1' N fD 1--; F-r ~-+ ~ .. ~ ~ N k--~ [Ti n~ 3~ ~ n ~~ ~~ ~ Vt {p ~n-~ ro ~. ~~~ ~~ ~A mr~o ~~ -~~ ra ~ ~~ ~~ ro~ rpm ~~e n ..~, ~ G7 ~~ ~~m nm z o~ ~ m n ~. 7C7 (7 vm ~w N "O W N Q~ ~ cn o v ~~ ~D N G~ ~~ v O W W ~w,eR.~, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES FOR FIVE (5) VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY. (CONTRACT #95-26) (JOB #3375) BACKGROUND This project was initiated by Council Motion on September 26,1994. The improvements involve twenty parcels, the owners of which wi11 bear ~ 00 percent of the assessable cost. Based on the Council Motion, city staff proceeded with bidding of the project, as provided for in the Eugene Code 7.1605}and 7.1 d0~7}, on September 25,1994 and the City Council formed the Local Improvement District SLID} on September 25,1995. The project has been completed, and final assessment costs have been calculated. PRO ECT The project involved the construction of sidewalks five to seven feet wide and four to seven inches thick. Where appropriate, the sidewalk construction also involved the construction of driveway aprons. The project involved 20 properties at five locations across the City. 1. The three properties on the south side of 20th Avenue between Willamette and oak 2. Nine properties on W.1 Ith Avenue from Chambers to Garfield 3. Four properties on Bailey Hill Road between 11th Avenue and 1$th Avenue 4. Gne property on Royal Avenue between Highway 99 and Louis 5. Three properties on Garfield Street between 12th Avenue and 14th Avenue ASSESSMENT Under City of Eugene assessment policy, S 1.2 percent of the improvement costs will be distributed to the abutting property owner. The final unit assessable costs. 4 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 6.201Sq. Ft. 5 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 6.9SISq. Ft. 7 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 7.151Sq. Ft. Additional costs attributable to the construction necessary to complete the sidewalks for a particular SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES FOR FIVE LOCATIONS Ilv THE CITY FINAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 parcel are assessed to that particular parcel. This includes assessment of $3,451 for a retaining wall and two assessments for landscape work x$454.56 and 227.25}. Cost to City: $15,203.61 The costs to the City arose from the construction of ramps at several intersections and because of the construction of two residential sidewalks at a greater than the standard seven foot width. Prior estimates The assessable unit costs listed below are based on the low bids received prior to construction and were quoted to property owners at the L1D hearing following the bid opening: 4 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 6.971Sq. Ft. 5 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 7.721Sq. Ft. 7 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 5.171Sq. Ft. City Cost: $ 4,529.01 PUBLIC HEARING The property owners were informed more than ten days in advance of the date of a scheduled public hearing on the final assessment. The City Engineer submitted a report to the Hearings Officer prior to the hearing Exhibit B}, Dne person appeared at the hearing and testified in opposition to a portion of the assessment. Amedee M. Smith, who owned the property at the time of the formation of the LID, but who subsequently sold the property to his son, testified that he believed the assessment for the retaining wall constructed on the edge of the sidewalk on his son's property was excessive. Mr. Smith stated the same objections expressed in a letter submitted to the Acting City Engineer by Mr. Smith's son. Mr. Smith objected to the idea of a sidewalk being installed, the fact that trees were removed to install the sidewalk, and to the cost of a retaining wall that was installed along a portion of the sidewalk. The Acting City Engineer explained that all the property owners had been given an opportunity to install a sidewalk themselves, and had been warned that the cost of the city installing the sidewalk might well be more expensive that if it were done privately. Amore complete description of the hearing is provided in the attachment labeled Exhibit A. FINDINGS AND RECgMMENDATION Nature of the Assessment The Hearings officer finds that the project is one for which the assessments are for local improvements as set forth in ORS 310.410 because 1. The assessments do not exceed actual costs; SIDEWALKS AND DR~VEwAY APPROACHES FDR FIVE LUCATIUNS IN THE CITY FINAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 2. The assessments are imposed for a capital construction project which provides a specific benefit far a specific property or rectifies a problem caused by a specific property 3. The assessments are imposed in a single assessment upon completion of the project; and 4. The assessments allow the property owners to elect to pay the assessment with interest over at least ten ~ ~ o} years. Recommendation This proposed assessment is somewhat different, because it includes several parcels in several locations across the City. Descriptions of the individual parcels involved cannot easily be provided, and the maps showing the location of the parcels are too large to conveniently include in this report. The information provided by the Acting City Engineer and the Engineering staff does indicate the location of each parcel. The Hearings Official has examined the maps and information provided by the City Engineer, and has determined that the general descriptions given here are accurate both as to location and number of parcels. The only dispute in this assessment concerns the cost of sidewalk construction at one property, which included the construction of a retaining wall. The Hearings Official is satisfied that the parcel was appropriately included in the LID. The property is benefited by the sidewalk improvement. The Eugene Code does not specifically include retaining walls within the definition of sidewalks, but such a wall is an implied part of the sidewalk when the alternative is to have a deterioration of the sidewalk because of erosion and runoff. The cost of the wall is high, but this property owner and other property owners were given the opportunity to install sidewalks themselves. Some of the costs that the City incurred might have been avoided if the property owner had done the work privately, and . most of the costs would have been less. Once the City began the work, all of the costs were legitimately incurred and were not excessive, given the constraints that are imposed on~City construction projects. The final improvement costs are lower than quoted at the local improvement hearing and are not unusual, considering the unusual character of the project. The Hearings Official agrees with the recommendation of the City Engineer. The Hearings Official recommends approval of the assessment distribution. The Hearings Official also recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance for assessment as set forth by the City Engineer. Respectfully submitte~l, !~ ~~ D' Milo Mecham Hearings Official Dated: November ZZ,1996 SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES FGR FIVE LOCATIONS IN THE CITY FINAL ASSESSMENT FACE 3 Exhibit A MINUTES Construction of Sidewalks and Driveway Approaches for Five Various Locations in the City; Levying Final Assessment for Local Improvement Job 3375 November 13,1996 Public Hearing Hearings official Milo Mecham convened the hearing at ~:oo 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 Acting City Engineer Jeff Lankston and Gale Mills. The Acting City Engineer, Jeff Lankston, began by providing a brief description of the project and its history. The project began after a Council Motion was passed directing the construction of sidewalks in several parts of Eugene. The property owners in the areas were notified of the proposal to construct sidewalks, and were informed that the owners had the option of having others construct the sidewalks, at what would probably be a lower price. The City announced a bid request for construction of the sidewalks in areas where the property owners had not responded by having sidewalks constructed. The initial bids were determined to be too high and were rejected by the City. The property owners were informed of this fact, and were again encouraged to obtain construction by other means. The contract was put out to bid a second time, and the City determined that although the bids were high, rebidding would not be likely to obtain lower costs. The property owners were again informed of the projected costs. After the property owners were notified of the date of the hearing, a public hearing was held and an improvement district was formed, to include all of the properties throughout the city that had been the subject of the original Council motion where properties were not already constructed. out of the original 12o,property owners who were given notice of the proposed improvements, only 20 property owners remained without sidewalks at the time construction of the public improvements began. Mr. Lankston explained that construction of the sidewalks has been completed and final assessment costs have been calculated. Mr. Lankston described one letter of protest concerning the final assessment. A letter had been received from Amadee Smith Junior, who expressed his concern about the high cost of the completed project. Mr. Lankston described the letter's concern about the cost of the retaining wall that had been built along the edge of the sidewalk. Gne member of the public appeared at the hearing. Mr. Amadee Smith ~Senior~ appeared and testified concerning his objections to the proposed assessment. Mr. Smith Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing November 13,199b Page 1 explained that he had been the owner of the property when the improvement district had been proposed, but had since sold the property to his son. Mr. Smith said that he had received a letter concerning the proposed sidewalk about two years. ago. Mr. Smith said that when he received the letter he had protested the idea of a sidewalk because no one used the area. At that time he had investigated the possibility of constructing the sidewalk himself, but had been unable to find a contractor who would undertake the work. Mr. Smith said that the sidewalk had originally been proposed as a seven foot wide sidewalk, but the City had revised the proposed width down to five feet wide. Mr. Smith also stated that the original letter to property owners had suggested that the cost of the sidewalks might be about $25 per foot. The letter to property owners informing them of the hearing on the formation of the district had suggested an even higher cost. Mr. Smith's primary objection was to the retaining wall that had been constructed at the edge of a portion of the sidewalk. Mr. Smith objected to the decision to put a wall in. and to the method used to construct the wall. Mr. Smith complained that twa trees on the property had been removed and another tree had been damaged in the construction of the sidewalk, and that the wall was really unnecessary because the ground could have been sloped back from the sidewalk rather than leaving in a bank that needed a retaining wa11 to hold it off the sidewalk. Mr. Lankston responded by explaining that the retaining wall had originally been planned only for the portion of the sidewalk along the city property adjacent to Mr. Smith's property. During construction, however, it had been determined that a wall would be necessary for a portion of the sidewalk along the Smith property because the property would not be stable without a wall. Mr. Lankston explained that the trees that were removed had been on the street right-of way and had to be removed to put in any sidewalk. The city had attempted to be careful around the third tree to make certain that it was not damaged. Mr. Lankston also explained that the City did not have the option of sloping the bank above the sidewalk because that would have required going outside the right-of way, which the City could not do in this situation, Mr. Lankston suggested that the limitations that required the City to choose a retaining wall instead of other choices were the reasons that the City had urged property owners to choose to install the sidewalks themselves. Mr. Lankston explained that the City had included a portion of the cost of the retaining wall in the original bid, expecting that the wall would have to be built on the City's property. The City had been able to negotiate some cost savings when the wall had been expanded, and these savings were passed on to Mr. Smith. Mr. Lankston explained that the cost of the wall had been prorated so that the property owner was only being asked to pay for the cost of the wall built along the owner's property. Mr. Smith and Mr. Lankston then discussed the individual costs proposed to be assessed. Mr. Smith objected to the charge for landscaping, because he did not want any Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing November 13,199b Page 2 landscaping done. Mr. Lankston explained that this cost was related to the removal of the trees that were growing on the right-of way. Mr. Lankston agreed that the sidewalk and wall construction were expensive. This relatively high cost was the result of the project involving several sidewalks in different parts of town, and that the property owners had been warned about that before the project was initiated. Mr. Smith stated that he did not understand why there had been no further contact once the project was started. Mr. Lankston explained that once the property owner had chosen to not make the improvement and the city had initiated the work, there was no need for further discussion because all of the decisions had been engineering decisions related to the need to have a sidewalk constructed that conformed to the building standards that the City was required to follow. After Mr. Smith renewed his objection to the cost of the wall, and the reasoning that led to decision that the wall was necessary, the hearing concluded at 6:40. Minutes -LID Final Assessment Hearing November 13,1996 Page 3 MEI~4RANDUM Date: November 13,1996 From: Roberk J. Lankston, Acting City Engineer Tv: Hearings Gfficial SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES FOR FIVE (5) VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY. (CONTRACT #95-26) (JOB #3375) BACKGROUND This project was initiated by the Capital improvement Program ~CIP} adapted by the City Council on February 14,1994. The improvements involves twenty property owners and who will bear 100 percent of the assessable cost. Based on the Council Motion on September 2fi,1994, city staff proceeded with bidding of the project, as provided for in the Eugene Code 7.1 GD~5}and 7.1607}. The City Council formed the Local Improvement District ~LID~ on September 27, 1995. The project has been completed, and final assessment. costs have been calculated. The City received a letter from Amedee M. Smith, 9D E 2Dth Avenue see attached letter}. Mr. Smith express his objection to the cost of the proposed assessment. This assessment included the cost of a retaining wall behind the sidewalk. The retaining wall was necessary to construct the sidewalk and greatly increased the cost, of construction. ~ The cost to, this property owner was $3,451.00 with a total assessment of $5,539.72. The retaining wall was constructed to Gregor Department of Transportation ~ODGT} and City of Eugene specifications. The retaining wall bene~#s this parcel in a manner peculiarto the parcel and was assessed directly against the parcel. PRQJECT The project included construction of five to seven feet wide sidewalk and four to seven inches thick. At the following locations. 1. 2Dth Avenue from UVillamette to Gak - 3 properties 2. VV. 11th Avenue; Chambers to Garfield - 9 properties 3. Bailey Hill Road from 11th Avenue to 1 Sth Avenue - 4 properties 4. Royal Avenue from Highway 99 to Louis ~ 1 properties 5. Garf eld Street from 12th Avenue to 14th Avenue - 3 properties HEARING MEMG ~ SIDEWALKS . November 13,1996 ~ . Page ~ ASSESSMENT Under City of Eugene assessment policy, 81.2 percent of the improvement costs will be distributed to the abutting property owner. Below are the final unit assessable costs. ~~ 4 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 6.18 iSq. Ft. 5 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 6.911Sq. Ft. l inch thick concrete sidewalk $ ?.1 SISq. Ft. Cost to City: $15, 312, 99 . For: City Ramps at intersections ~ . Extra width ~2'} for l toot residential sidewalks The assessable unit costs listed below are based on the low bids received prior tv construction and were quoted to property owners at the i_!l] hearing fallowing the bid opening: 4 inch thick cancrete sidewalk $ 6.911Sq. Ft. 5 inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 1.121Sq. Ft. l inch thick concrete sidewalk $ 8.1?ISq. Ft. City Cost: $ 4,829.01 . RECGMMENDATIC~N The final improvement costs are lower than quoted a# the local improvement hearing and are comparable to projects of similar size. Staff recommends approval of the assessment as calculated and that the Council levy the final assessment, e;~SUppartlproj-9513375hrg.m r' ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ .. i November 6, 1996 ~ ~ ~ . ' .CITY ENGINEER, PUBLIC WpRKS DEPARTMENT . . 858 PEARL STREET, ~ ~ . . EUGENE,~oR 97401 . Dear City ,Engineer-- This letter is..in regard to the proposed assessment for the improvement on the property at 90 East 20th, Eugene. We are greatly alarmed at the enormous cast of the completed project, especially in light of the fact that we and the previous owner, Mr. Amedee Smith Sr. opposed the building~of the sidewalk in the first, place. 'rhe sidewalk, as we suspected, is very seldom used. ~~ . This, perhaps, is due to the fact that it~ deadends at the now unused former 4-~J bus Parking lat. There has never ~. been much foot traffic in front of our house and I don't suspect that there ever will be. As for the sidewalk and the retaining wall, we are not pleased with the physical appearance and the workmanship,af the so-called improvements. The retaining wall looks very crude and blotchy in spots and much of our yard was over- excavated, leaving roots exposed and huge ditches that needed filling. We have spent over $20a in sail alone and mare money ~' since on re--landscaping. ,~ . ~. The lower section of the sidewalk and the retaining wall ' in particular .seemed to take much more time than necessary. . Foremen and workers, seemed to be taming and going somewhat randomly over a period of days. When we purchased .our home we knew we~would soon be paying . . for the sidewalk. Still, we~are deeply shocked at the outlandish pricetag for this "improvement"-- a sidewalk that ~ is hardly used and leads nowhere. For this,~well over $ ~oo~- . a foot seems excessive. ~ ~~ With vur mortgage, bills and the raising of our children we can hardly afford another substantial monthly payment- especially for something we are so adamantly apposed to. . Please consider these factors in your assessment. Please consider .this letter an objection, to the proposed assessment. Sincerely, Amedee M. Smith Jr. Donna K. ~Butera .. ' ~ Notice of ,Proposed Assessment ~ . ~' . ~ ~ Administrstkve • . This is. not.. a bill} ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ Services ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :.j....~..~f, ...: Finance City of Eugene Account Number : ' • ~ 860, West Park, Suite 3Q0 19 9 5 0 0 2 6 -018 0 ~ Eugene, 4regor~ 91401 - ~ ' . - P4. Box X967 . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Eugene, Qregon 97440 SMITH AMEDEE M QTR SUTERA DONNA K 90 E 20TH AVE . . .EUGENE OR 9 74 05 . ~ Assessvrs~ Map & Tax Lot No. 18-D3-06-11rD660D ~ ~ . TAIMS Account No. ~ 611564 ) Property Address: .90E 20TH AV'E EUG Property Affected by the Improvement: :2201R- 9652422 ~ ~. Improvement Resolution Number; ~ 4463 Description of Improvement: SIDEWALK.CONSTRUCTIQN IN FIVE ~5} VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY Assessments/Charges ~ , SIDEWALK/DRIVE APRON - ~~ l 5 $ 56.62 SIDEWALKfDRIVE APRON ~~ $88.32 .. SIDEWALKfDRIVE•4THER ~ $3,451.00 LANDSCAPE/EXCAVATION $451.25 • w w w w w w r- r w w w r r• n w• w r r r ~/ . . r .~ r w w .. w r w y .. • w~ w w w r - w r- r .. .. r--- - .. --- Total ~ , ~$5,547.Z0 Please call the Public Works Department,~682-5560,' if~ ou have Y ~Y questions regarding this improvement prv~ect or~ our assessment the Public Works staff cannot re Y If soave your questions .or problem to your satisfaction, you may submit your objections to the assessment h Baring officer. . ga ppp~p~~~~yy ~ ~ ` ~OSP V V V V V V V ~I ~ ~• v -vo `oo ~o -ao -va ~o -vo -vo X ~ c+ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~-P -S -P ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ mm Ow ow ow ow ow ow ow oN o •••• `o rn -Q rn -Q ~ ~ cn -a -p -o -~ ~ -~ -Q w r+ ~DEV NN NN (Dw N-P Cfl~ N~ mw NN ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ -P ~ N r5 I--~ "~ D "~ C7 "3 w I-~ h~' LC ~-' ~C F--' ~C N EC o ~C C] tC o tC o ~C D .~ N N N N o ~ O O Ol F--' CJl C7 t70 O (7D C7 V D C}~ O d~ D~ t7 N O W V mo r~o roo r~o mo rpa rpo rpo D~ in ~ cn p to ~ cn p cn o to t--~ in a cn o 3 LD n n n n n n n n ~ J. ~ - .f. ~ J. ~ ..~. ~ J. ~ ~. ~ J. ~ J. . . ~ ., ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ y l 1 y L i y t+ j [ f y C' y L J. J. J. ...1. J. J. J. J. (n ~ 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r~ -z ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ .. o ., a .. o ., o .. a .. o .. o ., o ~ ~,,~+ a o o N o o © o m r~ ~ V w ~ to N .~ w ~ ~ n~ ~o ~o ~o ~ a cno r~o rno ~o n c+ CY] V Ul ~--} W CF1 N TJ N ~ D t37 i O i CJ~ r~ I-+ o N ~ W tJl ~ {D p ~7 ,~ ~ ~ N ;U N ~C7 c,Q rJ. ~ W Cn ~ f~ fD { ~ ~ 3 tr ~ w w --~ n w ao ~ ~ ~ Eo w w -p oo w o 0 W N OD LD ~ N fD ~ o N © N N V ~ •• [Ft -P V -P ~ V f7 w (b l0 W Oo rn ~ ~ O~ (b CT1 CT l0 -~• lD ~ ~' w -P ~ --~I ~ lD Q c+ Ul c+ »~+• i ~ O O --~ ~ o N N N Cn to W N Ol N ~ ~ W W V N -P V o C.Ti "Q ~o ~ cn w w w ~ V -~ y ~ ~ w w cn N rn ~-~+ o cn C ~ n rn rn w V to cn o rn r~ ~ c~ m cn ~ -P N N o N DO ~ ~ +-~ O to -Q ---+ N ©~ ~ Cp ~ m ~- ~ n -I C'f' ~ -5 (D J. ~ ~ ~ "[ ~ r n rr ~-~+ ~ 7'C r+ o ~~ ~ n~ mcnp ~ o • • cp to C'F Z J• fD T! ~N ~~ --~ l0 c-F Ln A l~ N ~ Ccn mom n~ ~ F-~+ o c~ oN J•tno zrn ~~ ~cnm z n rte z o~ rn ~ m ~a ~ ~~ n m -~~ m .~ ~~ ~C J. Cn ~ CD iC7 r-~ r--i O Q. C •• [n ~D rw 0 no ao ~w r--i W D V z Cn ~/l ~w~ mNCn m~tntn cA~c~ mow m-a~ maoo~ m~aa o CJtD~ CC3~~ CV`U~ ~ p Ct7o~ C ~+ CDDy C C ~ Z X0--3 G7o3 ~~~~ t7C7~ G7o~ for'-' ~70~ L70c1~ ~ --~3 0 --~ m cn ~ m cn ij7 ~ m m ~ ~ m rA m Lo -~ m n rp --{ r to z m z zz ~w-t z~m zmc z~m zoa= ~ _ ~ ytno mgr moo mo m r mpg m r mo rn z~z a ~r ~ rr ~~A yx-~ ~© r~tn m x za n~ m x= ~ ~ ~ n 1 V~ o-~~ o~ w~ oz~ o~m pz~ oNC -h Cn~--+ ~~p ~--~~~ rCn ~-I3 ~o--~ x-33 ~~7C o ~ ~° oar mao =oo ~V(17 ~ -gym ~ ~m -~ -~ ~n C~ ~=m arm ~ -« ~ ~yc~ ~~~ ~oyc.~ stn ~ ~m -~ •~~~ Vy m Vr Votn Vr VVn ~ --Ito l0 V] .P --°I ~ C ~-~+ y ~ t~ ~ D -P C~ .A ct N -v V~ t7 o to o rn ~-+ 0 7O ;C7 o z o ;L7 ;Y7 o Qo ~• W fV N U1--~ D N C~ N t7 ~ N O N O tT .p N ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ to a ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C N ~ o ~ Z t/) "U ~-~+ w --~ z ~ ~ a ~ c~ ~ = cn = r N o ~ cn ~ ~ -~ m m z z z oN n w ~-+ N--+ F--~ F--' ~--~ N I--' I-} --~ ~! V V V V V V V i71 ~o ~-~ao ~o ~o so -vo -v o v© X ^^ hh ^ ow ow ow oW oW oW aw ow a ~~ ~rn ~rn ~rn ~rn ~rn ~rn ~rn ~ fpW rUW NW ~pW fDW [€~N cbN fDN ~ N -~ ~ ~ F-•' ~ ~-~' `S F-` ~ -R ~ -P ~ -P rt i c~- ~ c-F i c-F i rF i ~--F i c-E- i ct i ~o ~o ~o ~o Ito ~~ ~tr~-~ ~~ W {Ti W W W W W W 000 ©rn orn ocn oN ©W ot--~ 0O rpo ~o ~o rDa rpO No ~o rho cn o cn o cn O cn o to o to o cn O cn p n n n n n n n n ~ J. ~ ,..l. ~ J. ~ J. ~ J. ~ J ~ J ~ J . .... . . ('F {"+' C'F C'F t"~' C"{' ~ ti'F J. J. J. ....I. J. J. J. J, (~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .c.~ .. o .. o .. O „ o ,. o .. o .. o .. o ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ o N o ro W U1 N o ~' U1 D Q~ ~ ~0 0~o No rno rno ~a E o No n ~I N O C.T1 -p N OZ N © CTI CD ~ V I-+ CT1 Dl 7Q ~ i V Ol Ol ~ ~ ,Z7 U1 ,TJ Ol ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i CI1 N ~ i i V W W t0 W 00 N o W t0 ~D N © .p V a1 W ~ ~ ~ N -P N W ~ N ~ ~ W I~ O 00 V lD to t---' W O lD lD V 00 o V rn -f 0 N V W N ~ ~-' N N -~-~+ d~ U1 N V W W W V "Q 0~ .p 00 0~ O V N N "'S V ~ .p O V 0~ V C}'i o . C 0o V Q1 N W N V (J~ (D ~ Ql ~ Ol V .~ Ql Q ~ L"'~. 0 (nO~TC mN"rl CW© mrsV]D m-vV1 mf--~tl) mNCA mI-'r D ~O~ CNO mVm COo-!y C ~ Co3 C~ CVO g cxz mw~ zcnC X00 ~ ~o orn~ ~wsz~ ~cnz ~ a O ~F-~-m mom moC~ m C mO--E mo mtn r~ ~-+ ~ m v~ -~ ~o ~ z ~ ~ z ov ~---+ z z z y z ~ ~ ~r7 ~ ~ ~ m m~zcn moz mc~ m~ m~F-+ ~ N c ---~ W o 3 D n o x n =~ ~---~ c7 ~N~ Cnvo ~c Nmz m ~m Nz ~_ ~ ~ -[ ---Im orx Df-'z ONZ Dix ONc7 D~'~ --h va~~ ~_~ ~r ~--l-I~ ~~-~I X00 ~cn ~~~ o ~ cn ~~ r-n c, z rn m -I s o ~ cn ~ to~~ ~o ©z woa ~~ ~o ~o ~ m toCO V 3 Vym V00m Vtn .,y .,y-~ ~, -I 00 m .R ~ m ~ C ~ -P ~ ~ .P C .p C c-r ~~ N ~ 0op(!} om~ O ~ ocn om oms~ J• C Z 00 [T1 C.., ,~ C m r L ~ ~m c r~~ o ~ r` o u4 y to ..~ m -{ cn r a ~ z -t o o n m o C n --~ _ © z r~ 3 z ~ ---~ z ~ m -~ o ~..,. ~ ~~ N N N N .. ~ .A N ~--~ U1 D~ ~~ -0 3 ~~ o~ v. ct o~ n -~ r~ Z7 r -~ fD o cp v, ~ ~ ~~.+ ~ ci~ fD ~ ~ ., n ~ h-a -~• ld ~ ~ ~~ J. ~ oD ~o N . ~ ~ (~ cn n ro cn ~ o [n 'p ~ O~ ~ N m rj- ~ n -~ ~ ~ CD J. n f}] ~ ~ -~ rn r~J 1 ' ~~ D ~ ~ ~p G7 z J' CD ~l ~/} N [n V) ~~ ~+~ ~7 l0 ~p ~ C Cn ~ N m ~~ ~ --~o ~rrc ~o n O N J. (/~ G7 Z rn ct ~[ ~[v,m z C~ m z o~ m ~ m ~-+ a ~ Cc n m J. ., ~p v~ ~ ~C J. Cn ~ Cp F~-~-I H © ~. C.. rw 0 nO ~o -i w i-r W pV z CTS H z -.~ z m n ~ ~n ~m ~~ N ~ W N rn .p cn o ~~ ~D N G} .~ m 0 o rv w h-3 s•--~ N N --~ ~ W W V N -vo -vo ~o -vo x ~s w ~'S W ~ w ~ ~ --~ 00 00 00 oW o ~rn tern ~rn ~rn ~ m~ m~ o~ r~W ~ ~ ~ E'-~+ ~ i---- ~ N (" ~ E ~ I ~ I (~'~ i ~C o ~C o ~C o tC o rn rn rn W orn ocn o~ ©~ mo rya mo croo cn © cn o cn o to o n ~ n n ~ «.J. -s ...l. ~ ~ -~ J . . ..,i. ..J. ..J. J. 0 o O O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. o •. o .. o .• © ~ N ~ E1 N N W V of .P ~ t o t o Ego ~o n N ~ w ~o ro N o r~ V ~ 00 V C,fi ~ w...a V /Z7 ,l7 ~7 I ~7 I I I ~ w w ~ rn o .~. ~ {.]7 W w c17 N ~0 lD DO ~ © o .p N Q1 .~ W N N D O ~ 0 W J CT1 N !-+ I-I CT1 N CJ1 00 T3 W {Jl ~ N -5 ~o rn w w o • C V lD 01 ~ !p N N N N ~ fD n 0 rn~ovc,n ooNV mNOQ m~0 0 coca yaaD cay CN g G? --~H 7C~7Q ONE ~17V~7 3 r~ m m -I m ~-- to m c,ri z m .{~ D rp z ~_ ~ o z= z c -~ mNn cnnz rn~n m~7~ o n Ttr ~~ A~ ---103 ~~o r~ ~m ~ DzOm I~-iyy pr am --h ~ z© r ~ 7~D'v ~I--,3 0 Dzm oC-t 3z rn~ ~ LoCnm I--+r ~rr-i~ ~r~ ~ •~m cn .ter vor~ v ~ ~ 3 n ~ ~ -P --1 E--E ~ ~ ~ o DD om~ ochA ~• CTE L, C3~ n7 -E p ~ to {!) Z ~ W -~ W C.f`i ~3 "S ~ p to v. ~ -r o r€~ n -~ r~ f© O ~C] c ~. sv fD --~ n 0 rp ~ to . • n ~~ .a. ~p T3 t0 c-fi CJ1 00 N . ~ {/? C7 ~D O ~ rn~ ~~ n~ rn ~~ ~~ D.. z ~~ ~~ ~~ c cry I -10 ~o O N Z z ~o CC m r~ ~.}7 ~ C Cn a~ a n. C•• (/~ rw no ~o ~w I-I W O V z U1 z m C~ ~ O ~..,. ~ ~ r} ra ~ ~~ N ~ .. ~ ~ N N~ n~ ~w ~ n N (n ~ ~ ~-i ~ N ~ C7 -~-! ro -~• ~~-~ ~~ ~n cameo ~n ~ ~,. m -n ~~ ~~ m~ ~[pm .. rr C n J.(n~ ~C cn m nm z o~ ~ m n J. J ~n wm ~~ N '~ W N Ol .p V} O Cn ~ ~n N G7 ~rn 0 DW W VICINITY MAP j~+ ~. +~ .,,.r. •• I ' 1.... {.~wU ~}II~ONO ~ 1~ y1 ^~~~ +~ .iI `Uw wT llOr ,~ 41~. ' 1 ~ ~.. rj -1 ~1 !7 '~~ '~~~' ~~ y 41 ^~ ~ , I.AY 1~.^ ~ f III \ ~ -11 -~ ' ~- , E ` ^,• t ~`~""1I~I~ ]il ?~11 + wa~Cr 1a ~ 1 ~1~ ` ;:1 ~I •1• ~ ti Jr~.`. aLL!>•~~\, ~<t~ it I il........ Y / 1 ~ Q S ~c Y +.. ~ ~! V J • ~ ' I ~ i ~ ~] L".'~~~rrr~"~ p 143 ~ 1 + :1 I. ~ ~. r ..I~ ~ ~ ~••>F ,': ~ Yf~1 of ~11.~--•~r ~'p f i11 +I~ 1 rt •lI ~ A w ( rI~r4R4\ ~ Y ~ V !_'~r '~' r ~ ~ ~~ .IS II • I I EE I 41 +w *l ~ Q `4.~ ~ ~ ~1 ...i !lu[A ~ .,IAlrri.\J^ ~`,,~~ '~f~1 • •ti ~~+ ~+~r.~rl...r~ \ ~ ~ 1(LC\ .~ ~A .,~ ,.11 .{I , "'r~..q• M ., I tr1 ; ~i .+. r^*+ \. '\ .~ ~'"w`.-. • i fl L~ ~i ~ 31 r"" . I L 1 M 1 1 w ~ , ', ~ al 1 1 r~L~~ti ~~ ~1 ~ rl If 4 JI \y \ rwl .ri., U ~~, ` ~ +~ ~ I f ]I YI sl rfi ..1 t ~........,..w.~,,, ~~~ ~YOCY[!1 di( ~ ~~ ~ • ~~ I it ~ ~ R ~ xl • , ri ItT.~ ~ 7 C e wi ~~ al ri ~j~ I \,:, J ~ ~* a'a40\ ~ C~~,~• iai.rCl{F ~. .~ f q ~ ~'''''~ A ..... iii +i I \ ~''/ r v ~ ~--•,.. L ~ (,LNi1w Y E~~ 711{ ti,,~ ~ •.~ ~y1 NIiL\ I ~ ,,Viw~ ^• _ ~ ~~{ ~~` Y' ~~.41 ~~ r rli` +I1~~~ •' 4;ifG ~~ M `•'.\1 ' ~if 1~ - l`Vr_ •r 11 ,1 ~ wl ~ /RyNfM ,• E ~'„r Y f ~ i , ,, ri ~i ~ i . . E 'a'll wl { ~I rl - ..~ -".1 I '~ 1 ~ C~o~": "~ ' '~f x , -'"I Ivc+~ I r ,~ 6.r.t L++.~3 •+ !!<1 j'n.\\\\ wI! ~'~ s~~X ~~ ~ ~ ~~ C~I K1j71~L..C lIIJII 'E + I ~ L~~ •II 111 ~ `i Q N, ~1 ~'~, I .~~N ' ~'• ~ III `elf S.l ."'1, ~1 '~ ~~ u. ~ ~~ ° f .f l ~ [ ti T r r, ' r ='iCaOf! .. rlfArys#rl ~...,. Ic,' ~_~..If I i1 . J -I ....-..~ ` I 1 • l i iui l ~ E ~ 'I'll S,.I I fT ( r G wil ~ s ,, a J1 ' ~~4 it?~ti.{']It~'•~ ~~.1 •~ tiwr C ~ M :~ ~ I sr ~:~ .r~* ~ ~` , -~~ ~ I if ~~~ ,, I 1 I ~ :r r ~ K I N NE ~•~••a, • ~ 4 VI'1r.... iMG {Y l tklol~~~~~ ~ Mflll• ~ .w ' ^..• .... ~w+.r 111 \ f ..ter `~ 1 ~ r I I I i ~irr ,~ ,1 :~I I 1 '~ I ..mow r.... -~ ~~ ~• ...- ~, lr..~ ~ _ _ _r _ r rr M ~•~ 1 y I ~ ~ ~ ~ { y . 1 I „"" r 1 + r+ 3 T H ~ - ~ f ...... / • I 1 ~ ~f ~ ^ ~ . l -+r :1 .... ~~..._ ..! :.~.•~. I ~~ ~ - - -+ 1 V.~+ ~~ L.-...-~.~J ~wL.r....,..,,,.' I.. ~: ~ ,; , ~ ~ ~ .h I { ~ U l_^__. a'..~ 1..::,L ~'~\; i ~ L..:i~.r~ ~; ~.ti 1..~: ~ ~ ~' 1.,~` t~ LJ lr xl~~! Wit, wl. ! ! r-, iGC._:L~;~1 J~ ~{f ~! \'~ ~~il~ ~'L.~1.._:I.J~...a[... L..;~.,.:.1+_ .i ri. r ITYx~~T .!+ rF + S r p .7ir' 1~ I ~ ^ ,~~ s J AREA 3 _ ~ ~M ~~~~ :L::i.~~~~.l~r~l~_~ `~. - ~ 1o'f11 rt a ' ~ la rH ~r( ~ ; ~....J~..: fnll.ri !v i~~ ~ alU1~.,'~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lal~ rr~~11 Ire. ~-~1 f (; ~~ c ~ ~r -art 7 ~ J ^ --•, r---'--• ~ I ~ C ,' , I it 1 w f `~ ~ +..~ Lw~::1 41 r ~ "1 L1.~:J Lam: L,.~7 , _. a ~1 I~ T I ~ II { ..-----'•-~w. I ~"'~ J''"~ .,.~ .-. ~x'1 s ., r-» ~ ""iT r KI a 1 n ~ l,. $ ~_ l i TM .i x i ~ L, ~1 < ~...~.; l~._.,..J LJ L: f 2 i r~i ~ a vi I .I ~ r { ~ ~~,i u I rl r, ~ I ; I 1 r I n I t ~•1 rlr~ll .r'^^-~r'..'r--.~~a'lra! MI ' +~~ zl ~i = .' ~~s~-s-~~ ~~VI' X11 21~~~ '~'' "'~L~; ^i IS f~1 AREA ~ ., ~ ~ .,,t l}T ~. vif J , rlrt ~ ~ 1{ AREA ~ }~ ? ~111~ !!-~I ' J ~;~ -~r ~C w Trl~ , ! Ir. ... f ~~~~ ~[ I IIrA ~IJi ~k.,.r~ 1 u '• IiTw ~ ,•~y~ »~ ~ ` ~ I! ~' w•~.~.. ~f•~~.:'.. i ..~i....~ I~ I r"'I~~l~'~L..»LJL ~(~KJITMf~~ vl Is;rrl~ ~ it I~ a a~i r_ (j~ 1 'AM !L v.lt.~fj~ paq If ~ r ~ IL Y ~ ~. JI w~ ,Jl x `.^~IQ f/ }~rN~I 4Vy ,~.gZ,~j~l. S~ J e ~N ~ ii ~1 ' I '~ -,a.l~'~-t..- .w.r.~ w'~~ ~~ r M J r~ I Si I ~ IJ ~ r~'~ Y . ~. `x'11 ' I l:f_ ~' a i r l ~ ~ ~} = ~ 1 ~ ~-;~2..~--------4;1 ~ r-'.., ; _ _, _ -i , r ~rN ~ L f i r I r„. ~- I I 7 ' r % - ~; li vi iv I ~~1~+ +~~ •A ti. • I ~ ~ ..1 fE f I ri d I ~ +,1 ~ r ~ t.....-i.r ~.M ir..r ti..+ I i 9 r + [f( '111 IfI I ~ i ~ Q II I I ~ .... ~ 11 I r.-~ Ar'., Irw' I r1 ,r..l ~ f 1 ~• (~I ~ai .1 ~i~.l;'' Itl' slll I , ~lir"ii~ ~~ . r I ~~ ~ ! 7i ~ r.. .-.. ~• r TT I i ~~~~ Y: =' I ~.t •,,I'#+1 i~ I+~S~'~'i mill .~ ;~I~'r~~; I If ~~ ,J li .. , ~ _ 1 it si ~ I fl,_, tJ` AREA 1 ROYAL AVENUE, FROM B4N VUE T~ L4UIS ;~ ~,,~ ~~`~;~;; ;; ~~;~~~~~, ~~~ ~~ ~' , rl ill r AREA 2 BAILEY HILL, FRC7M VV.~ NTH T4 VV.~BTH ~" ~~ '~~," ~'~! ~~~~~ ;' -~ `. L.~ ~~ -~ 4y AREA 3 W,~~TN, FRAM CHAMBERS T~ HAYES ~'~i ~ '~i ~r.' a~ ~1~ :.~=`., ~ii~ ~L~.;' .~~'~ ~,. ~, AREA 4 GARFIELD, FRAM W.~ NTH - VIr.~ 3TH •~ ~ I.,{ .;, ~; 71. y,; ~, z;.~~l~l ~~~~ ~~ :1-, .,CC: ~IVfI .I, i ai sil ;.fl ral~ '1 .. .,~ .' , AREA 5 E Z~T~f. RAM WILLAMETTE TO OAK ~~ Jlll..':~-.~-., _ .i .,~1 -~11~~~ 7~1~11~ ~ / 1b ,1 ..-...a ~ ~ .~. i~",y j U : l ~/ • a "~ ~..~^^.-^^"'w.+..,~ ~ ~/1 ..~..,...' -~•~7 I + '~' ~ 117.:. ° j ` ; ~ ~' Tf I I ? L • ~ I ~ ~,. • ,,,r.,:: r r 1 I al 1 a I { a [ I ~ ti. •] I pLpM T 0 3 ~ ~ /~ / a ~ ~~~.. r. - .{^~w ~ I,.. L...~._... ~... ~ i :11 I ' r . ~ 1 . }i~.r~ ~ •!•'f ~ 1~...1 yr~ 1 i~~~ l~'~ •~ :!I "'L~. ' I~'.' ~ •rlnf~t' .... ~ ~ -~, .1~ p1 C•'\\ rat ~` j•i ~` '~ a11~:~ ,.. v ~ {Sr - .,. :. ~ 4.~-» y ~~~. l.4 ~r ~, ~.r 4, ~ •'{~' .~Y~•,.` 1.a~ ~ ~ ` ra~Y^a~~..rel:: f ~'i 3 •~ r1\ S r •~ •.i~. t, ~, .t y,. • ,.,~' ' ` zT ; .r.~ y! 1 til,'~_ ..r•r.y ' ' ~ all + 1 Y ' 1••~ , t 71 I ,~ . , .'~` ~--~. ~ ; _ ~ ~ I