Minutes - Council - 05/23/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Cook stated before this paving program all of these gravel roads were 100% assessed to the landowners. This program was an effort to give the property owners a break in order to see some of these gravel roads improved. The City has gone above and beyond with this project to work with the neighborhood. There are a lot of other roads available for this program, and they should not step beyond what has been set up for this program. Mr. Howe stated there should be consideration of the developer raising the traffic level on this road and the amount of traffic the little road carries. Councilmember Elvig stated he understands Mr. Howe's point, and this is the same conversation that was held at the Public Works Committee meeting. The point brought up by Councilmember Cook is the biggest issue he has, in that until about two years ago residents were assessed 100%o for their roads to be paved. The City has come forward with this program because they see the cost to the City in maintaining these gravel roads, which is over and above the 50% contributed to the paving. The contribution of 50% is already setting a precedent; there are people that have already paid 100%. Going above and beyond the 50% would set a bad precedent. It is the prerogative of the residents if they want the road to remain gravel; having their road paved for a cost of $I,000 per year is a great deal Them is nothing the City can do to prevent people from using this road, although they may be able to post it for no construction traffic. The Committee discussed administrative costs, and he would be in favor of only charging as-built costs. He noted the reduction in the stormwater costs were very beneficial to the residents. He agrees that this project will include long term administrative costs and the fee should remain at 5%. Councilmember Pearson concurred. Carolyn Shumway, 7530 - 163ra Lane NW, stated as citizens they are already paying taxes and are now being assessed more for these administrative costs. She realizes the City does not want to put more into this project and set a precedent, but her concern is that this cost estimate of $200,600 is not realistic. She is asking for a little additional help, and thought maybe the City could come in with some materials. She expressed concern that she ~vill not be told what she needs to pay for this project until it is finished. City Engineer Jankowski reviewed the assessment and project process. He explained if the City does not receive a petition from the property owners opposing this project it will be advertised for bids. If the bids come in at the estimate or less, or within 10% of the estimate, the project will be awarded. After the final cost has been calculated there will be an assessment hearing. He explained at the time the bids are opened it is not known what the exact cost of the project will be, but there is a cap. Councilmember Elvig clarified the only fluctuating element is the potential overhead costs. Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Olson, to ratify the recommendation of the Public Works Committee in Case No. 5 and that (a) staff be directed to modify the feasibility study with respect to financing in response to the issues outlined in the case above; (b) that the recommendations of this case be presented to the City Council for ratification at this meeting, and (c) that the deadline for petitioning against this project be extended to June 9, 2006. City Council / May 23, 2006 Page 12 of 20