Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7142 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No 7142 "'OTtA,0 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council August 12, 1986 Subject: PROPOSED ASSESSMENT PAVING OF SOUTH HAMPSHIRE BOULEVARD TIERNEY ROAD TO WEILER BOULEVARD On July 29, 1986 (M&C G-6749), the City Council conducted a benefit hearing on the proposed assessment paving of Hampshire Boulevard South from Tierney to Weiler. Property owners raised questions about the vroject, and the City Council delayed action for two weeks to obtain additional information. The following history of the project is provided as background: The Water Department replaced the 16 inch water main in South Hampshire between Edgewood Terrace and Weiler Boulevard in the Spring, 1983. Although it was anticipated that the street might be repaired, Transportation and Public Works engineers determined that complete reconstruction of the street was unwarranted at that time. The contract for water line replacement was awarded on May 31, 1983: and permanent pavement repair was made over the water line trench. In response to citizen complaints about the street's condition, City staff wrote the property owners in February, 1984, explaining the assessment paving program. A poll card survey was conducted at that time; the letter that was sent to the property owners stated that no response would indicate no objection to the project. The following responses were received: Favored Assessment Paving- 38.7% Opposed: 29.5% No Response: 31.8% Sixty-six property owners were polled. On the basis of the poll card survey (and the City's policy that no response signifies no objection and is counted as "favoring the project") , the City Council authorized the Transportation and Public Works Director to have the project designed and to advertise for bids on April 17, 1984 (M&C G-5966). In accordance with standard procedures, upon completion of the design, on September 3, 1985, the staff informed the utility companies of the proposed project. Two companies had facilities that would have conflicted with the proposed construction. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company moved lines at a cost of $1,415.00; Lone Star Gas spent $25,683.00 moving its lines and placed a temporary surface over the repair cuts. In addition, the City had spent approximately $10,000 on the design of the project. Bids were received in May, 1986, and the property owners were notified of the amounts to be assessed based on bid prices. (Residential property is proposed to be assessed at the residential rate in effect is 1984 at PPOI project inception.) In response to the June, 1986 letters to property owners indicating the approximate assessments, property owners representing 16.3 percent of the front footage have objected to the paving. LISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7142 - 2.2 ,"'Wrtot", August 12, 1986 u f 0 ft'. To the Mayor and Members of the City Council 3 Subject: PROPOSED ASSESSMENT PAVING OF SOUTH HAMPSHIRE BOULEVARD TIERNEY ROAD TO WEILER BOULEVARD The actual percentage responses for the front footage were: Favored: 16.8% Opposed: 16.3% No response: 66.9% Individual property owners raised specific questions at the July 29, 1986, benefit hearing: 1. Mr. Steven Holtz, 5213 South Hampshire stated his belief that he once had curb and gutter in front of his property before he resided there (and that his neighbors had said that the curb and gutter was destroy- ed in the replacement of the water main) . Staff Response: Since no City records (Transportation and Public Works Department nor Water Department) indicate that curb and gutter ever existed at this address and since there is no visible evidence that would indicate the existence of curb and gutter, staff has requested that Mr. Holtz provide a notarized affidavit from- his neighbor stating that the curb and gutter did exist and were destroyed in the water line installa- tion. Upon receipt of this affidavit, Mr. Holtz would be given credit for the new curb and gutter construction. 2. Mr. Lucius Smith, 5418 South Hampshire, presented 24 letters protest- ing the assessments on the grounds that (1) the Water Department and the Lone Star Gas Company line relocations (performed since 1984) had destroyed the street and (2) the assessments were too high. Staff Response: The City's records indicate that at the time of the water line re- placement the street was in satisfactory condition by City standards and the pavement repair over the water line trench was accomplished in compliance with contract specifications. The gas line relocation was performed in response to the City's request in preparation for the paving project. The assessment rates proposed for the residential property owners are the rates that were in effect and quoted to the property owners at the time of project inception. The rate in effect at that time was $21.35 per front foot. 3. Mr. Bob Rogers, 5219 South Hampshire, questioned the sequence of the water line replacement, the paving schedule, and the specific City policy regarding the age of the street. LISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS / INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7142 - p.3 PT August 12, 1986 'fob, To the Mayor and Members of the City Council X Subject: PROPOSED ASSESSMENT PAVING OF SOUTH #oil HAMPSHIRE BOULEVARD TIERNEY ROAD TO WEILER BOULEVARD Staff Response: The City's policy has been in effect prior to 1960 that any street that has never been built to City standards must be paved on an assessment basis. Although policies adopted in 1982 and 1986 provide for granting credit for the reconstruction of deteriorated streets originally constructed to City specifications, South Hampshire was not originally constructed to City specifications. 4. Mrs. Sue Franzel , 901 South Tierney Road, requested that a wheelchair ramp be constructed by her property. Staff Response: Although the location does not meet standard City location require- ments, staff recommends that this ramp be included in the plans. Staff Recommendation: op" The procedures for this project were standard. The only exception is the length of time between the initial notification to property owners and the benefit hearing notice which stated the estimated assessments (almost two years). It appears that citizen support of the project changed during that The utility relocations and improvements made (totalling more than $37,098) were made in preparation for the actual paving. Staff has attempted to address and accommodate the concerns/requests of individual citizens as much as possible. It is recommended that the assessments be levied as proposed and the benefit hearing be closed. Should the Council desire any additional information in this regard, the staff will be pleased to provide it upon request. uglas Harman ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS