Agenda - Public Works Committee - 06/18/2019

Home

City Engineer Westby stated that City Improvement Project No. 19-02 proposes to reconstruct streets within the Brookview Estates neighborhood including 173rd Avenue and Germanium Street. The streets total approximately 2,662 linear feet(0.50 miles) in length. The engineer's opinion of probable costs for completing the proposed improvements is $502,555.46. Estimated costs include 5-percent contingency costs plus 23-percent indirect costs for administrative, engineering, finance and legal costs. Per the Feasibility Report,twenty-one (21)properties are considered to benefit from the improvements and Staff recommended applying 25-percent of eligible project costs equally across the 21 assessable properties using the"per lot"assessment method. Eligible project costs include everything except subgrade corrections and guardrail modification costs. This resulted in a proposed preliminary assessment rate of$4,418.30 per assessable parcel. City Engineer Westby stated that following the Public Hearing on November 13,the property owner at 17230 Germanium Street requested a petition template to use in gathering signatures in opposition to this Council initiated improvement project as provided by Section 8.4.5 of the City Charter. On November 15, Staff provided a copy of the petition template to the property owner. with instructions to modify the top of the petition to define the project and to note what the petition specifically opposes. This property owner did attend the neighborhood information meeting held on November 8, 2018 where Staff explained the proposed improvements and assessments in detail and gathered public input on the project. City Engineer Westby stated that on December 3,the property owner delivered a petition with fifteen signatures on it to City Staff but Staff rejected it noting that the top of the petition had no clarifying language on it leading to concerns that the petitioners might not have understood what they were signing. Based on comments Staff received from several property owners while the petition was being circulated, Staff had concerns that this might indeed be the case. City Staff then contacted the City Attorney to seek further direction on petition language and process requirements. On December 4, Staff provided clarifying comments to the property owner circulating the petition based on the City Attorney's comments. On December 10,the property owner submitted a revised petition to City Staff. This petition had a page attached to it with clarifying language noting that the property owners objected to the cost of the project. Staff has since verified that all property owners who signed the petition are indeed benefiting property owners per the preliminary assessment roll contained within the Feasibility Report. City Engineer Westby stated that since that date, staff has spoken with property owners that may not have exactly understood whafthey were signing. He stated that the City Attorney stated that the Council could accept the petition if they believe the petitioners understood what they were signing, but if the Council believes that there was ambiguity and people may not have understood what they were signing, Council can direct staff to contact the property owners to gather additional information. He stated that based on the conversations with the City Council and the fact that at least one resident would like to retract their signature, staff would recommend mailing letters to all benefiting property owners,to clearly define that the petition can kill the project for one year or more if 60 percent or more of the benefiting properties sign the petition, and to inform them of the option to withdraw their signature from the petition per City Charter Section 8.4.6, including the deadline for doing so. Public Works Committee/December 18, 2018 Page 3 of 11