Laserfiche WebLink
M. leIlliawircoledofcl'ehlb'lS'iesc 'tomrsID''e'apa''r'tt''m'itw,itrhepaolr'ted'utlis-119 a:''l <br /> ued <br /> 1 BID CALL <br /> 't 6::=1:ei:nZlial:c0T;:!M•fe:591:::e'r'llnIZ."'iPment. '"' <br /> voting yes. <br /> Motion carried <br /> Councilman Michelson was excused at this time. <br /> PoBLIC HEARING-LID 4705 <br /> public hearing on the final assesament roll for LID#705.which -17r 1 <br /> i <br /> 11 <br /> I <br /> 11 <br /> , I <br /> ., <br /> P9 consisted of the imProvement mf9 c <br /> 1. Everett Mall Way,formerly South Broadway;3rd Avenue S.E.to 9 91 <br /> 1-5 by the construction of an 82'wide street improvement with 1 <br /> curbs,gutters and sidewalAs,and inatallatiOn Of 4 trarfic signals ., <br /> 7.19 located at the intersections of 7.Avenue SE,PUD#1 R/W,the <br /> 0.99 north and central Mall entrances,and by the installation of approxi- <br /> 9•9; rnately 2,4op feet of 6"ductile iron pipe water main,fire hydrants , ... <br /> 7.9, and appurtenances and approximately 700 feet of 12"ductile iron pipe <br /> 5.7; water main,fire hydrants and appurtenances;and <br /> 6.59 <br /> 9.99 1. 1DhBvenue S.R.from aPProximately 3D0 feet north of Everett <br /> 9.99 0.11 9999,fomerlY Se..Eroadway,to approximately 300'south of <br /> 1.45 Everett Nall Way by the construction of a 44'wide street improve- <br />,. ment,curbs,gutters,sidewalks and appurtenances. . <br /> ' ' 1 <br /> f <br /> 5.11 <br /> 0.01 TOtal preliminary estimate was$1,535,630,less City contribution <br /> 9.N or$1,489,880 asseass.to the properties. Final LID Cost was <br /> 3.01 $2,153,713 less City contribution,or$2,087,723 assessed to the .'I' <br /> 1.94 properties. This resulted in a 28%actual cost increase and <br /> 0.17 15%comparable cost increase. <br /> 8.0 <br /> 8.99 She repOrted the LID wax segregated into 5 different benefit areas to <br /> 0.0 better assess individual property'owners for the individual parcel .. <br /> 4.. benefit,plus an assesament area for se99er lines. All assessm.ents . <br /> 7.N were calculated by special benefit methods permitted by RCW35.44.047 . <br /> 1.17 known as the Area Method,except that the water line replacement : <br /> 8.50 assesament areas 3 and 4 were aseeseed by front feet. <br /> 8.09 Ms.Strong then introduced the agenda packet on this LID as <br /> 0.00 'Exhibit,. <br /> 7.33 <br /> 113. She said one protest letter had been received which said"this LID <br /> does not benefit our property. The City has miateRenlY aeat as <br /> 9.9 notice of assessment. We are entering our formal protest". The <br /> letter was signed by Janet Stegall,Roger C.Stegall,Jack a. <br /> Cropley and Robert Wiles. ' <br /> Apparently there is an error in the Snohomish County tax rolls 1 <br /> as the property owned by these people is not within the LID area. <br /> It is,in fact,owned by a mr.Staudacher,but it is up to the <br /> People involved to straighten out the county's records. <br /> • <br />