Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19538w - ~ - ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~ ~ ~ AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PAVING AND STOR~~1 SEt~ERS LOCATED I~~ 25TH PLACE C~JL-DE-SAC FROM 204 FEET I~fEST OF HILYARD STREET TO HiLYARD STREET (JOB #2323) In the City of Eugene, lane County, Oregon. Item 1. Contract Amount Contract # 87-16 ~ 30,662.01 including contingency) Contract # Item 2. Maintenance Retainage Item 3. Other Casts (Describe} ~ . Item 4. Deferred Assessments (Type) Item S. Amount of Remaining Warrants Issued to Complete Cantract -'`~ Item 6. Estimated amount for Cantract # 87-16 ~ 30,662.01 Item 1. less - City's Share of Cost far Completed Cantract - 8,017.32 Item 8. Plus a. DUE TO WARRANT REDEMPTION FUND '" Item 9. Amaunt to Which City Charges are applied 22,644.69 Item 10. Plus - Unpaid Balance of City's Share (See Item 24 Below} ~ , 8,01.32 Item 11. Less - Liquidated Damages Item 12. less - Other Costs (Describe) ~~ Item 13. Plus - overpayment to Contractor by Warrant . Item 14. ASSESS MENT WORK IN PROCESS 30,6f2.01 Item la. Plus - Overpayment to Contractor in Cash ~ ~ ~~ -.Item 16. Plus - 19% City Charge .far Engineering- 4,,302.49 . Plus • 5% City Charge far Internal Service 1,132123 Plus - Warrant Interest Charge ~ ~, S__ 85.00... ~ a . DUE TO WARRANT REDEMPTION FUND 6,319.72 .Item 11. ~ Plus - OUE TO SEWER UTILITY for 1/2~ SPECIAL SEWER LEVY Item 18. Plus - DUE TO SEWER UTILITY for .lateral Sewer Equivalent of Trunk Sewer System Item 19. Plus - OUE TO WARRANT REDEMPTION FUND far Engineering . 1,523.30 Charges an Gity's Share of Gasts Item Z0. Plus - Other Costs (Describe) Item 21. Plus - Liquidated Damages Item 22. Less - DUE FROM GONTRAGTOR far Overpayment Item 23. INITIA L ASSESSMENT RECEIVABLE - TOTAL INITIAL ASSESSMENTS $ 3$,505.03 per Or dinance Item 24. Cit 's Share of Cost for cam feted Contract: Account Flo. En r. Contract Cost Total Pre aid JET Balance INTERSECTION 517.42 2,723.25 3,240.fi7 X32-9352-61739-9 ~ • TTL: ~ j ORDINANCE • I ORDINANCE N0. I SJ~ AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR paving and storm sewers located in 25th Place cul-de-sac from 200 feet West of Hilyard Street to Hilyard Street in the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: On the 8th day of June, 1987, as authorized in the Eugene Cade 7.1608} the City Engineer initiated the proposed 1oca1 improvement consisting of paving and storm sewers 1 ocated i n 25th P1 ace cul -de-sac from 200 feet West of Hilyard Street to Hi 1 yard Street . After due notice and a public hearing thereon before the hearing official, and ~o remonstrances having been filed, the City Council authorized the execution of a contract for the construction of the local improvement on the 27th day of July, 1987. The actual cost thereof is ascertained, and the initial amount to be assessed i n accordance with appl i cab1 a provisions of the Eugene Cade, 1971 has been determined to be: (Items 1 to 24 from Pagel of PW ordinance) The City Council has established the method of ,calculating local improve- ment assessments in Sections 7.llo and 7..115 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 Ha11 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 heari ngs off i ci a1 heard ORDINANCE - 2 ail evidence and argument presented, has fully considered the same, and no remonstrances having been filed, has reported his ar 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 apart of the Council's record in these proceedings, and the hearings official's findings, including those regarding compliance with Sections ].160 to 7'.190 of the Eugene Cade, 1971, attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference are adapted. Section 2. That the actual cast of paving and storm sewers located in 25th Place cut-de-sac from 244 feet West of ililyard Street to ~iilyard Street, a 1aca1 improvement in the City of Eugene is the sum af,$38,505.03 which is by this ordinance assessed against the parcels of property hereinafter described in the amounts set opposite, respectively. Section 3. That the City Cauncii does hereby determine and assess each lot and part of lot being within the described 1 ocal improvement district as set forth. an the assessment ro11 attached as Exhibit B hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. That the City Council does hereby determine that each parcel of land or lot hereinabove described is specially benefitted to the extent of the initial 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 date of adoption of this ordinance. Assessments that remain unpaid after the ten day period are ORDINANCE - 3 declared to be 1 i ens upon the respective 1 ats, parts of 1 ats or parcels of 1 and against which said several amounts are assessed, and may be paid i n up to twenty equal semi-annual installments, including principal and interest at the rate set by the City Manager as provided in section 2.022 thru 2.024 of the Fugene Code. The. City Retarder is directed to enter in the Jacket of City Liens a statement in connection with each unpaid assessment containing the following: 4.1 A description of each lot, part of tat or acreage 1iab1e for such improvement; 4.2 The name of the owner or reputed owner thereof, that the name of the owner is unknown; and 4.3 The sum assessed upon said property, the amount and date from which interest accrues, and the date of entering the same in the Jacket of City Liens. 5ecti on 5. Upon enactment of this ardi Hance, 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 Fugene Code, 1911, and enclose therewith an application for paying the assessment in installments according to the terms set forth in Section 4 of this ardi Hance. Passed by the City Council this day of F~P.~Jvotav~/ 198 ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ City Recorder Approved by the Mayor this off- day of ~e6vvt a ~ 198 Mayor ORDINANCE - 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PAVING AND STORM SEWERS LOCATED IN 25TH PLACE CUL-DE-SAC FROM 200 FEET WEST OF HILYARD STREET TO HILYARD STREET (JOB# 2323) A paving and storm sewer project to serve a Cul-De-Sac on 25th Place west of Hilyard Street was initiated by a property owner with 43~ of assessable frontage. On May 4, 1987, the City mailed a letter to the other two property owners, asking if they were interested in having this roadway repaved. Tn that letter it was estimated that the cost would be $40 per front foot for the paving with driveway adjustments being an additional cost. This estimate was taken from the average cost of 28 foot paving jobs constructed in the previous year, plus an inflation factor. 0n May 14, 1987, a positive response was received from Mr. Charles Stults which resulted in a total of 58~ of assessable frontage in favor of the paving project. No response was received from the other property owner, Irving and Janet Carlisle. The City Engineer initiated the project as provided in the Eugene Code 7.160(8) on June 8, 1987. The property owners were notified of the pending award hearing 10 days prior to the hearing. The project was authorized for construction by the City Council on July 27, 1987. The low bid was submitted by Delta Sand & Gravel Co., for an amount of $25,132.53. The project has been completed and assessment information has been provided to property owners. A Hearing regarding assessments was conducted on February 9, 1988, at 9:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. Hearings Official Jack A. Billings received a presentation by Les Lyle, City Engineer and the testi- mony of two property owners who are in opposition of the assessments, Charles Stults and Irving Carlisle. The remarks of Mr. Stults and Mr. Carlisle are contained within the Hearings Official Minutes. No party has provided additional information, although that was permitted through February 15, 1988. The Hearings Official has also viewed the project. Under the City of Eugene assessment policy, most of the cost of the project is assessed to the abutting property owners. The costs listed below are the actual calculated assessment costs to the property owners. 28' Paving $69.24 front foot Concrete apron 3.22 square foot -1- Based upon all available information the Hearings Official finds as follows: 1. This project was initiated after the owners of 58~ of of assessable frontage indicated their approval of the project. ~. The bids for the project were conducted in accordance with the City Cade. 3. The costs assessed to the project were reasonable for the size of the project and conditions encountered. 4. The assessment to the individual property owners have been conducted in accordance with the City Code. Therefore, the Hearings Official recommends that the City Council approve the levying of the assessments as set forth above. ~` Jack A. Billing Hearings Official -2- - ~ . ~ t HEARINGS OFFICIAL MINUTES PAVING AND STORMS SEWERS LOCATED IN 25TH PLACE CUL-DE-SAC FROM 200 FEET WEST OF HILYARD STREET TD HILYARD STREET ~JOB# 2323} A paving and storm sewer project to serve a Cul-De-Sac on 25th Place west of Hilyard Street was initiated by a property owner with 43~ of assessable frontage, On May 4, 1987, the City mailed a letter to the other two property owners, asking if they were interested in having this roadway repaved, In that letter it was estimated that the cost would be X40 per front foot for the paving with driveway adjustments being an additional cost, This estimate was taken from the average cost of 2$ foot paving jobs constructed in the previous year, plus an inflation factor. On May 14, 19$7, a positive response was received from Mr, Charles Stults which resulted in a total of 58~ of assessable frontage in favor of the paving project, No response was received from the other property owner, Irving and Janet Carlisle, The City Engineer initiated the project as provided in the Eugene Code 7,160(8} on June 8, 1987, The property owners were notified of the pending award hearing 10 days prior to the hearing, The project was authorized for construction by the City Council on July 27, 1987. The low bid was submitted by Delta Sand & Gravel Co. for an amount of $25,132.53. The project has been completed and assessment information has been provided to property owners, A hearing regarding assessments was conducted on February 9, 1988, at 7:00 P,M, in the City Council Chambers, Hearings Official Jack A. Billings, received first a presentation by Les Lyle, City Engineer, He then received the testimony of two property owners who are in opposition to the proposed assessments, Charles Stults and Irving Carlisle. Mr, Lyle began his remarks by noting the background information set forth above, He noted that the original cast estimate pro- vided to property owners was $40 per front foot, with additional amounts necessary for driveway adjustments and the like, He stated, however, that the assessable costs turned out to be higher, He stated that these higher costs were in part because of the small project size. He noted that noone appeared at the hearing concerning the project award and that the City Council authorized the project, He noted that the purpose of this hearing is to consider the assessment amounts and notice was provided to the property owners, -1- He further stated that he had received a number of questions from Mr. Stultz, including that the cost of the project was too high, that he didn't like the driveway adjustment and that it was unfair to assess a ~0 foot minimum. Mr. Lyle stated that he thought the assessments were appropriate and the 60 foot minimum is mandated by the City Code. He said the Code has a specific direction that this is how assessments are to be done and that the theory is that the smaller lot receives a similar benefit to one which is larger. He said that the Cul-De-Sac bulb was constructed within the property lines and that there was no leeway in which to locate it. He said the driveway location was discussed with Mr. Stints. Irving Carlisle stated that he has a small rental on the Cul-De- Sac and it is not a benefit to him to have it paved. He thought that he had no choice as to whether the project would be constructed. He states that he got no notification about the increase in cost from the initial estimate. He stated that if he had received such notification, he would have contacted Mr. Stints about whether the project should go forward. He further believes that he should have received notification by registered mail and questioned whether notice was sent to all property owners. Mr. Lyle responded that notification was sent to all pro- perty owners and he would be willing to provide that information to Mr. Carlisle. He also agreed to provide Mr. Carlisle the opportunity to review the bids which were submitted. Tn response to questions from Mr. Carlisle he said that "clearing and grub- bing" is the opportunity to a contractor to prepare the site for construction, such as taking out any shrubs or trees. He stated that contractors are provided categories for the bid and the contractors individually determine how much to put in each cate- gory. The City does not negotiate with the contractor on each individual item, He further stated that "mobilization" is a portion of the bid which allows the contractor to secure band, to obtain any other necessary insurances that the construction will proceed, and to get equipment rented and on site. He said the paving cost is figured by the ton. Mr. Carlisle suggested that Marshall and Swift, an estimating service, would have given a lower figure for asphalt. Mr. Lyle stated that "base stabilization" is the pre- paration of the base to be sure that it will not settle. He stated that the base soil was soft clay which wasn't known until the site area was opened. He further said that there was sewer repair which the City is absorbing. Finally, he said that the percentage for City Engineering ser- vices is provided for in the City Code. He said that a figure greater than the 19~ charged to this project is common on small projects. This is for project design and all other supervision of the project. Mr. Carlisle then asked why property owners should be required to pay for over-runs. Mr. Lyle stated that -2- property owners are assessed for appropriate parts of the project cost and that $40 was only a preliminary estimate, He acknowledged that the 19~ administrative figure was not specified in the mailing, although he later stated that it was included within the calculation, He further noted that there were over- runs which added $5,160.71, Of those costs, $$94 was removed because this was a cost absorbed by the City. Mr. Charles Stults lives on the Cul-De-Sac, He stated he thought the over-runs, which he questioned, were the fault of the contractor, He thought the bid should include enough to allow for same errors. He also said that amounts for over-runs should be allowed at the time, not after the contract has been completed. He said he would question things as the project went along. He asked for minor changes with no luck, He also says that he didn't receive calls back from the City Engineer's office . Some of his paints included that a curb cut was moved on East 25th Place 3 feet and 7 inches. He said there was not a proper survey. He said the Cul-De-Sac is too small by 3 feet and asked whether the City will take care of the additional 1~ foot on each side, He next stated that the $160 per month to amortize the cost for Mr, Carlisle to bankroft this assessment is too high, He next stated that he never got letters about the award, He next stated that with regard to his driveway apron, he received a letter from Douglas Webber who was involved in the project. This letter stated that there would be a 5 foot apron and could be done with asphalt, Mr, Stults said he reads the letter to say that the first 5 feet of the apron would be paid for by the City. Mr, Lyle responded that they did allow the 5 fee to be done in asphalt which shows that the City is flexible about these things, but disagrees that the letter suggests the first 5 feet would be paid by the City. A copy of that letter is attached to these Minutes, along with other materials received by the Hearings Officer. Mr, Stults then stated that the driveway is 179 feet from the existing street to end, not 204 feet, He said that storm drain outlets and a curb cut were removed which were perfectly good. Mr, Lyle responded that the assessments are based on the quan- tities of materials used and it was necessary to tie to existing curb and gutter. The City picks up curb and gutter costs when adjusted to a new intersection, Mr. Stults complained that he and others were being charged for _3_ . ~ materials purchased by the ton. He stated that anyone should know that when South Eugene High School was built, it was disco- vered that the ground was soft, He said he is not satisfied that they didn't know that in advance, He stated that the contractor buried l2 yards of asphalt in a hole and could have used aggre- gate, Mr, Lyle responded that soil conditions vary throughout the City and it was late in the season. The preferred alter- native is to allow the soil to dry-out and then compact it. He said the City negotiated a change order with the contractor at a given price. He felt that figure was within line, It was up the contractor to use any of several possible methods to stabalize the area, so long as he knew he was only going to get paid the amount negotiated, Mr. Lyle later advised the Hearings Officer that most of the base stabilization was done with aggregate, A load of asphalt was also used at the contractor's expense. Mr. Stints also questioned that the church got some additional material placed on its property which doesn't show up on the assessment. At a later point in the hearing Mr. Lyle pointed out that the church may have had a separate arrangement with the contractor and been billed separately. Mr. Stints also said that the amount of assessment should be the same for each property which has the same width. Mr. Lyle stated that he believed that was in fact the case. Pat Langon of the City staff pointed out on the spread sheet which several people were using that the asphalt driveway amount was $135. Mr. Lyle stated that the assessment was based on deed infor- mation. He said notices were mailed based on Lane County Records, He pointed out that Mr. Stints has gotten some of the mail, including the notification that told him about this hearing. Mr, Stultz stated he would not have agreed to $7o per front foot and didn't get any letter telling him that this was going to be the amount. It eventually became clear that the assessment information pro- vided after the project was completed was the first time the pro- perty owners became aware that the cost of the project had turned out to be in excess of $69 per front foot, rather than the $40 per front foot estimate provided in the initial correspondence. The City Code does not require that a figure be specified in the letter which notified property owners of the project award hearing. Toward the end of the hearing Mr. Langon said there were three circumstances which resulted in over-runs. The first was the soft soil underneath the Cul-De~-Sac area, the second was a sani- tary sewer which didn't have enough depth, and the third was an existing storm drain which also was not deep enough. None of these matters were the fault of the contractor and it was -~~. t appropriate that the City negotiate additional amount for these. The Hearings Officer stated that he would allow until 5:04 P.M, on Monday, February 15, for property owners to submit any addi- ta~onal informata.on regard~.ng their assessments. He further stated that he did not believe that he had any discretion to negotiate figures other than had been provided by the City Engineer, However, he did state that he would send a letter to the City Counsel. pointing out that the process set forth in the Code could be misleading to property owners, This case is such an example, since the initial communication to property owners estimated a cost of $44 per front foot, but the final, figures were almost $70 per front foot. The Code did not require that this be brought to the attention of property owners until the project was completed. The Hearings Officer also stated that he would view the location before submitting a recommendation to the City Counsel and noted that their review of the matter would be February 22, 1988. The meeting was adjourned. ~~,, Jack A. Billings Hearings Official _5- 1 i '~1 ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~. _ .. .. ~. '~I' .,,,:. :' : ~.~} ..... .- : ~; . ~.: ... ~ W .~ ~ - ' ~.. ~ -~ ~ ~:: ~. ~ ` ' ... MA1 M1 '':~ - _ -~ ~ ~ . _~ .~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~. ~.,~ ~~ M! ~ - v711 '. ~ ~1 ~ t ~ ~I~N ~ ~ ~ ' y ~-~ ~ [~'R' A'- 1 /~ 4R 5r~'I 'A MqM ~ ' _ X11 1~0.R.' ~ ~ ~ VM -_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~y' `~~e . y^!~w ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ." yy ~ ;~ s!H -M S~ 1 ~' 4' t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WI i*S ~ .. ~ . 1 © u~ ~ ~ u1 ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~v ~ r~.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ,~ ~ ~ ~` ~ a~ '~, R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ fit` ~ ~ ~ ~ #~» ~~ `W ~~ «~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ +~.F- ~ '~ ' `~ ~. ~ '~ ~: ,~~" . h~ ~ - ~"'' ~"'" ,~ MJ f,#;,# ~ .: ~. !~! ~d"1 ~ t~,. .~ .,~ ~~r, ~ ~. ; ~ , ' ~ ..; ~ '~ ~; ~. ; ~ ~ Q A~ ~`"" ~ ~.) ~ ~ .~1 +~ !~~ ~ ~ W fir, ~, '~ ~ ~. '~ ~' ~+ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ r!;` ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~"' ~ t'"' ~ ~ ~ ~ `,~~ ~ ~~ • ~! ~ ~ ~" ~ Q'' C~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 't` ~ "~" ~ d! ~fi ~ ~++) ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ e V3 ` ~"" ~ ~""' ~ ~ ~ try ~ ,~ ~ ~"' : ~ '"~ ~""~ ~ F"' ...m. ~ } ~{ ~ ~ { ~ ~ / ~ Y ~ 1 ' ; ~d q ~,: *A M + + ' 1~M~ ~ y ,,, f" .. . ~""~ 1 V' 44} ~1 ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~1 ~ ~ 4 ~ n ~ 7 M 1 k'M ~ ry ~ ~# ~ y~y ~: A F r 'A ,~^,' ~ " `FI 1 , '""y ~ hr~. !~! ^M. ~ t , ~ y l ~ ,fir ~ yr ' i #1 w+~ ~ , ~"