My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1989/11/22 Council Minutes
>
Council Minutes
>
1989/11/22 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2020 12:26:18 PM
Creation date
9/29/2020 8:30:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Minutes
Date
11/22/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
"!g 490 <br /> November 22,1989 owners tit } The hearing Is not intended to be a question and a spier but <br /> instead, is the final opportunity co for property c present <br /> confirm or information to the c essm before action pis token <br /> to <br /> or <br /> confirm the supplemental Tinel assessment roll. The protests o <br /> objections city. 131 be notetl antl coniidexetl antl may be should to <br /> FI by CM1e asa If a written protest has not been filed p hoard be <br /> � done no a written protest must be Piled 1n order to speak. <br /> y ttk 1 President N1va'then asked Lee Vorhees, Special Counsel to a plain <br /> the LID process, an the winter of 1986 the council first considered <br /> a resolution of intention to farm the district and he has worked <br /> with the city providing a transcript of proceedings. He said this <br /> is a supplemental assessment roll hearing. Because of litigations, <br /> p� interest costs to the city were approximately $1000 a day. Many <br /> SP, days have assed and the supplemental roll is approximately$464,000 <br /> which is supposed to be assessed against the property in the <br /> g.! district on the basis of special benefits. In the event that <br /> propertyn ers do not aear to be heard at this hearing= <br /> protesting oopposing the assessments, it would be appropriate to <br /> .` k. et on the ordinance. an <br /> . Brian Jones,of Public Works, said LI0 726 was formed in J uery of <br /> 3987 to effect the construction of a new arterial connecting Seaway <br /> 4-,i Boulevard and Glenwood Ave.and an extension of Haxdeaon Road to the <br /> 4i t new arterial. New'water, <br /> sew. and drainage systems were also <br /> included in the scope of the pro0ect. To accommodate the <br /> 11 <br /> accelerated development schedules of s of the property owners, <br /> the design and construction of the project was divided into two <br /> phases. <br /> Sf Phase I of the project consisted of the construction of Merrill <br /> 11 Creek Parkway, from Seaway Blvd, to the noeth and east, and <br /> Hartleson Road north from 75th St.S.M.approximately 600 linear Peet. <br /> ' Phase II involved the con truction of Merrill Creek Parkway, from <br /> the northern terminus of Phase I co nstruction to Glenwood Ave.and <br /> ', 1Hartleson Road from the northern terminus of Phase I north to <br /> !' Merrill Creek Parkway. <br /> }� Included with the Phase II storm drainage improvements is$d 10-acre-foot detention pond, which w means <br /> by the Washington <br /> 8 State Department of Wildlife of mitigating the <br /> environmental impacts of the fill across Merrill and Ring Creek. <br /> The timate of total project cot given in the formation ordinance <br /> was $7,300,000. The original final assessment roll confirmed In <br /> Perch of 1989 totaled$8,801,824. Due to appeals filed by Merrill <br /> Creek Assoc. end H & MV Associated, the sale of bonds on the <br /> il + s <br /> a original roll x delayed. The total amount of supplementary roll <br /> n { is $464,135. Of this total, $326,000 has been spread <br /> roportionately amD g all the proerty owners the basis of the <br /> special benefit study used in the calculation of the assessment roll <br /> confirmed in March, 1989. Also an additional $138,135 will be <br /> charged to Merrill Creek Associates for the increases in <br /> ) construction and other costs incurred pursuant to their extra <br /> P ' I I drainage work. <br /> The property owners in LID 726 were all advised during the <br /> ,`'I assessment <br /> assessment proceedings for the original ae ent roll that they <br /> would be additionally assessed for extra costs resulting from <br /> esrment appeals. <br /> 1II 1 II,0 <br /> ISNI t <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.