HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-02-26 (Special) Meeting Minutes138
SPECIAL MEETING.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
FEBRUAllY 26, 1968
The City Council of the City of EDglewood, Arapahoe County,
State of Colorado, met in special session Monday, February 26, 1968
at 8 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Englewood, Colorado.
Clerk.
The following "Notice of Call" was read by the Acting City
"February 26, 1968
NOTICE OF CALL BY THE MAYOR
FOR SPECIAL SESSION OF THE C~TY COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1968 -8:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County,
Colorado, is hereby called to a special meeting in the City
Hall, 3400 South Elati Street, to conduct a public hearing
regarding Paving District No. 17, and conduet other business
as may be appropriate relating to said Paving District.
/s/ Stanley H. Dial
STANLEY H. DIAL
City Manager
SHD/ij.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE
The following persons, all Councilmen of the City of Englewood,
Colorado, do hereby acknowledge Receipt of Notice of the above
special session.
/s/ John c. Kreiling
/s/ Lou Parkinson
/s/ John J. Lay
/s/ Elmer E. Schwab
/s/ Dick Lone"
Mayor Schwab, presiding, called the meeting to order and asked
for roll call. Upon the call of the roll, the following were present:
Councilmen Kreiling, Lay, Lone, Parkinson, Schwab.
Absent: Councilmen Dhority, Fullerton.
The Mayor declared a quorum present.
Dial:
Mayor Schwab declared the public hearing opened at 8:10 P.M.
Following is an outline of the remarks made by City Manager '
PAVING DISTRICT NO. 17 HEARING
1. Paving District background -Paving District No. 6 in 1956.
(a) Since 1956, 284 long blocks, 313 short blocks,
and sixteen alleys have been paved.
2. Petitions for street improvements.
(a) Charter, majority of owners, regardless of residence.
(b) Area does not count.
3. Council -initiated improvements.
(a) Council initiates improvements with funds available.
(b) Legally, City Council initiates all street improve~
ments on the Paving District.
4. Show location of proposed improvements.
(a) Petitioned improvements.
(b) Council-inititated streets.
(c) After public hearing, Council cannot add streets,
but can drop them.
5. Cost.
(a) Depends upon type of improvement, which the Director
of Public Works will explain later.
(b) Depends upon City's share of cost (inter-sections,
arterial widths in residential zones, etc.).
(c) Depends upon competitive bid prices.
(d) Also, includes costs of engineering, title checks,
fiscal agent services, legal publication costs,
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
(e)
(f)
6. City
(a)
(b)
(c)
Minutes of February 26, 1968
printing, mailing notices, interest on money borrowed
during cpmstrictopm. assess,emt cp,~itato_pm. etc/
City sells bonds to lowest and best bidder.
Overlay.
provides certain paving guarantees.
Performance bond during construction.
Two years guarantee on Portland cement work.
Five years guarantee on paving.
7. Assessments.
(a) Engineer will explain computation of assessments
and cost to each property owner.
(b) Assessments will be computed and property owners
notified in January or February, 1969.
(c) Property owners will have opportunity to appear
before Council at a public hearing regarding assess-
ments in February, 1969. (Individual notices will
be sent.)
(d) Within thirty days after public hearing, all or any
part of the assessment total may be paid in cash
at a five per cent (5%) discount on the amount actually
paid.
(e) Thereafter, the property will be assessed with the
General Taxes (beginning in January, 1970) one-
tenth (l/lOth) of the assissment plus six per cent
(6%) simple interest.
(f) May pay in advance at any time at actual accrued
interest.
(g) If a payment is delinquent, then the full balance
becomes due to the County.
8. Before paving, all efforts will be made to see that utility
line replacements are made, and that property owners
tap to the utility lines.
9. Additional street rights-of-way may be needed for specific
street improvements.
10. Sidewalks.
further.)
(The Director of Public Works will explain
(a) Location of walks: The Ordinance provides that the
location of sidewalks will be determined by the Dir-
ector of Public Works and that his decision is
subject to variation as may be approved by the Board
of Adjustment and Appeals.
(b) Width: The City's Ordinance provides that the
sidewalk width shall be determined by the Director
of Public Work•, but does not provide for appeal
from his decision.
Upon the conclusion of Mr. Dial's remarks regarding
Paving District 17, Mr. Kells Waggoner, Public Works Director, briefly
explained tha list of streets in the paving district. Mr. Waggoner
informed Council that all streets to be included in the paving district
were Council initiated, with the exception of the 1000 block on Cornell
Street. He went on to explain the probable cost of construction of
paving overlays, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The general contractor
will guaranty sidewalks for two years and the City would likely assume
responsibility if the sidewalk failed shortly after the two year period
if the sidewalk was installed by a City contractor. Mr. Waggoner went
on to explain how the costs of the paving district are distributed on
the basis of front footage and the formula for determining front footage
of particular pieces of property. Mr. Dial informed the audience that
postcard notices which had been sent to all residences and properties
affected by the paving district are not required by law but are mailed
by the City as a courtesy to property owners.
Mayor Schwab requested that Acting City Clerk Mack read any
written objections to the paving district which may have been filed
with the City Clerk's office. Mr. Mack read two letters, as follows:
"February 20, 1968
Mayor and City Council
City of Englewood
City Hall -3400 s. Elati
Englewood, Colorado 80110
139
140
Minutes of February 26, 1968
Attn: Office of City Clerk
Sirs: I hereby request an individual variance from the proposed
Paving District #17 in a matter concerning existing curbs, gutters
and sidewalks in front of property where I reside and hope to own
if I ever get it paid up.
There are black chalk marks on one 10 foot section of curb and
sidewalk in front of my driveway which apparently means that this
segment is scheduled for replacement at, as I understand, a cost
of $40.00 to me. The apparent reason for this scheduled replace-
ment is a friendly and innocous crack in this 10 foot segment.
-rhis crack commences 7 inches from the north riser on the east end
of this segment and ex>ntinues for 52 inches to a point 44 and one-
half inches from the east end of aaid segment on the south edge of
the sidewalk. As nearly as I can measure, this crack does not pre-
sent more than 11/32 inch difference in elevation at any point along
its length between one side of the crack and the other side. I
notice that in several instances around my neighborhood there are
segments of sidewalk with differences of more than 11/32 inch in
elevation from one segment to another at the expansion joints and
none of these I measured are scheduled for replacement or repair.
I have become very fond of this crack and request that it remain
where it is. I have checked into its background and find that it
has been exactly where it is and no better or worse than it was
seventeen years ago when this hous was built.. Five years ago I
had cement delivered to my residence f6r the .• constructitoh of a
garage, enclosed proch, and driveway and I have seen with my own
eyes a ready•mix truck with six yards of cement back over this
sidewalk at the point where this crack exists. Six yards of cement
in one truck represents approximately 46,000 lbs. of weight.
Considering the fact that this particular crack is no better and no
worse in its seventeen years of life, I therefore submit that this is
a resonably substantial crack and that it does not now, nor should
it in the forseeable future, present a danger to life or limb of
anyone traversing this particular segment of sidewalk and therefore
request tha t it not be included for replacement in this district #17.
I further request that someone form the city take time to advise me
of the outcome of my petition since I will not be able to attend
the public hearing on February 26, 1968.
"February 22, 1968
To City Council
City of Englewood
Englewood~· Colorado 80110
Very truly yours,
/s/ Joseph E. Kelly
4900 S. Pearl Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110"
Whereas, the owners of certain properties in the city of Englewood
have been individually and by public notices, notified of the
intention of the City Council for the establishment of a paving
district to be known as paving district #17.
The owners of the properties on the East and West sides of the
4800 block of South Washington Street, Englewood, Colorado are
both individually and collectively opposed to the paving and the
assessment of taxes for the purpose of improving said 4800 block
of South Washington Street.
Attached herto are the signatures of said owners attesting to
their opposition to this proposal.
It is felt that the present condition of the paving of the 4800
block of South Washington is satisfactory and in no way presents
a hazard to the health of property of the users of said street.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minutes of February 26, 1968
The owners futher specify that this petition in no ways to be
interpreted as an objection to the establishment of the paving
district, except where it is applicable to the 4800 block of
South Washington street.
Received this 23rd day of February, 1968.
Received: /s/ Dean Herndon
(Acting City Clerk, city of Englewood, Colorado)"
(Petition attached to letter in Council Minutes File.)
Upon conclusion of the Acting City Clerk's reading of
written objections filed with the City Clerk's office, the Mayor
requested objections and canments by citizens in the audience.
Mr. Ray Billburg, 2970 South Ogden, expressed his concern
for storm drainage facilities in his neighborhood. He believes
that paving will increase the run-off in his area, particularly
construction to the east of his residence. He stated that he had
lived in the neighborhood for 15 years and has seen the run-off
increase with increased construction and paving in the area.
Councilman Lou Parkinson indicated that street paving
may not intensify the condition. Mayor Schwab asked if Mr.
Gilberts' area was a citizen petitioned area. Mr. Dial replied
that this is the only area in which a petition has been submitted
by the residents.
Mr. Robert Olinger, 3550 South Delaware, expressed his
concern that the vertical curbing proposed in his neighborhood
would not conform to the hollywood curbing presently in the area.
He also said that there wasn't sufficient foot traffic in the
area to warrant sidewalks. He believed that paving in the area
was for the benefit of users of Denny Miller Park only during the
two months of the swmner in which the 1=&rk is used. He also
stated that commercial uses that could come to the area in the next
few years could result in the street being repaved.
councilman Lay asked Mr. Olinger if the City Engineer
told him that the curb had to be vertical. Mr. Oliner replied,
"Yes, on both sides of Delaware." He indicated that he believed
hollywood curb was cheaper and that wooden barriers in the park
would stop any cars from jumping the curb. Mr. Dial indicated
that half of the block is presently conanercial, which requires
vertical curbing, and it would not be feasible to curb the re-
mainder of the block in hollywood. Mr. Oliner replied that the
City is premature in building up this area as the land use will
change. There is presently no traffic. There is no object to
paving at this time, but it is feasible to curb, sidewalk, and
gutter the area.
Councilman Lay asked if it was mandatory to have
vertical curb by all City property. Mr. Waggoner replied that
here it was. Mr. Olinger indicated that Dr. Campbell's office
had vertical curbing and that the Denver parks had hollywood
type curbing. Mayor Schwab replied that Denver can't keep cars
of the grass and that this is one of the problems with hollywood
type curbing.
Bruce Newlon, 3632 South Delaware, asked what type of
curbing would be installed at his residence. He indicated that
he wanted hollywood curb and that vertical curbing in his block
forces water across the street to hollywood type curbing. Mr.
Waggoner replied that vertical curbing was in place on the south
150' of the block and that the City could blend vertical curbing
with the hollywood type. Mr. Waggoner indicated that the west
side of th~lock was proposed to be hollywood style because it
was a residential area. Mr. Dial asked Mr. Waggoner if theJstreet
surf ace could be tipped sufficiently to minimize drainage across
the street. Mr. Waggoner replied that he believed the slope
would be too great. Mr. Newlon indicated that there was a park
across Jefferson Street and wished to know if he, personally,
would have to pick up the tab for paving the full width of the
street. Mr. Dial indicated that the City would pay the park's
share. Mr. Lone asked if Mr. Newlon would prefer hollywood
curbing on both sides of the street. Mr. Newlon replied that he
would. Mr. Lone then asked Mr. Newlon that if both ·-:sides of
the street were vertical, would this curbing trap and CX>nvey more
water than hollywood type curbing and if Mr. Newlon would be opposed
to bringing the sidewalk flush to the curbing. Mr. Newlon replied
that he had to agree to both questions.
141
142
Minutes of February 26, 1968
Mr. Wayne Law, 3526 S. Delaware, indicated he objected
to all improvements in the 3500 block of Delaware at this time.
Mrs. Bill Royce, 4466 South Delaware, presented a
petition from residents in the 4400 block of South Delaware.
The petition contains signatures of ten property owners in the
block. Mrs. Royce went on to indicate their opposition was based
primarily on (1) the paving district would necessitate the removal
of trees in the block, leaving the block without aifficient shade
in the swmner, (2) a survey error on the east side brings the
street too close to a house, (3) the proposed 44' street is too
wide. Mrs. Royce indicated that residents would not object ot the
paving district if the trees were not removed. Mr. Dial indicated
that there was approximately 125' of 44' width street presently
in place in this block.
Mr. Waggoner indicated that both blocks on either side
of this particular block are 44'. Mr. Waggoner confirmed that
the proposed improvements would require tree removal to obtain the
necessary 44' street width. Mrs. Royce asked when a water line
would ~e going in on her street. Mr. Waggoner replied that, pre-
sently, this street has a 4" line. No plans are envisioned to
enlarge this main. Most of the taps on this main are 5/8" taps
and their size creates a pressure problem rather than the main
size. Mr. Waggoner indicated that the water pressure program
which would be instituted this summer within the City may
help affected properties in the area, but the major problem re-
mains to be the small tap size. Mrs. Royce asked what 6%
interest would be based upon. Mr. Dial indicated the unpaid
balance due to the property owner. Mr. Waggoner indicated that on
the north end of this block there presently exists 175' of vertical
curbing and the street was 44' wide. He indicated this vertical
curbing will be extended south.
Mra. Royce asked if the tree removal cost would be in-
cluded in her assessment. Mr. Criswell indicated that these costs
will be borne by the City. Mrs. Royce stated that her research
indicates the removal of trees sometimes decreases the temperature
by as much as 20° and that the addition width of the street to
44' will increase the traffic speed in her neighborhood.
Mr. Robert Olinger was recognized. He stated, "same
person, same ideas."
Mr. W.G. Wright, who lives at 6088 South Lakeview,
Littleton, and has property in the 3500 block, South Elati,
indicated that he believed the paving district proposal for his
area was premature. He indicated that he intends to move seven
houses in the block and redevelop the area. He believes that he
will have to duplicate t~e coat again when he redevelops his
property. Mr. Dial indicated that the area as a whole should
be improved or not improved, rather than sectionally, because
drainage problems in the area affect the entire area.
Mr. Al Kulp, 3639 South Fox Street, indicated that his
street was paved. He indicated that water settles on his street
and that drainage correction in his area took first priority,
rather than paving.
Mr. Dale, 3595 South Cherokee, indicated that vertical
curbing went in his area last year and changes into hollywood type
curbing at a corner. He indicated that only three persons walk
on this sidewalk each day and that it is premature to consider
paving in his area at this time.
Mr. Bill Bunnish, Park Floral Co., west side of Jason
from Hampden to Kenyon, asked if both sides of his street would
have to have curb, gutter and sidewalk in addition to paving.
Mr. Dial indicated that tibia has been the previous policy of the
Councils. Mr. Gunnison indicated that he objected to curb and
gutter on the west side of Jaaon. He indicated that almost 1000
feet of curb and gutter would be necessary and that he was the
only owner of property here and that there was no traffic in the
area. The only convenience curb and gutter would serve would be
for members of the Elks Club. He also indicated that he had no
idea where future curb cuts would be on his property.
Mr. Earl Warnke, 3225 South Sherman, asked if the
3200 block of Sou'fih ·· Sherman wuld be widened to the same width
as the 3300 block. Mr. Waggoner said that thi~block would
not be widened, but that some curb and gutter would be replaced.
Mr. Warnke asked at what price per square foot. Mr. Dial indicated
that some examples of costs were presented earlier in themeeting
and that certainly Mr. Waggoner would assist Mr. Warnke in the
particular cost for any particular property. Mr. Waggorer said
I
I
I
I
I
····1
I
I
'
Minutes of February 26, 1968
that any residents can have their own contractor put in curb and
gutter as long as a building pennit is taken out prior to April 1.
Sr. Waggoner stated that if anyone wanted to call of visit his
office, he would be happy to figure up specific costs for specific
improvements on specific lots. He then proceeded to give some
typical costs for a 50' frontage, i.e., curb, gutter, sidewalk,
and paving, $345: paving only, $212. Mr. Olinger asked when he
would know if his block was being dropped faxn the paving
district. Mr. Dial indicated that the administration would desire
a Council decision nezt week in order to get better bids during
the construction season lull.
Mr. Trager, 3881 South Sherman, asked about one-way
streets and if one-way designation of his street was the basic
reason for the required paving. Mayor Schwab indicated that,
certainly, the one-way street pattern was one reason for paving.
Mr. Glenn, 900 West Tufts, indicated that he was pre-
viously assessed for paving on Inca Street and asked if he
could be assessed again for paving on Tufts. Mayor Schwab indicat-
ed to the affirmative. Mr. Dial said that such assessment would
only be for the frontage on Tufts. Mr. Glenn stated that the
reason for the paving was that the City had allowed the streets
in his area to deteriorate without preventive maintenance. Mr.
Dial indicated that, previously, some streets were only asphalted,
not paved. Mr. Glenn indicated that the City did not provide
services in the Centennial Acres area.
David Parker, 4620 South Sherman, indicated the paving
district was of no benefit to his residence.
Mr. Nonn Furlund, of Tufts and Lipan, asked what plans
were being made for his street. Mr. Waggoner outlined the pro-
posed improvements. Mr. Furland indicated that the two blocks
on the north side of Huron to Mariposa have curb and gutter and
wanted to know how he would be affected. Mr. Waggoner indicated
that Mr. Furland asked if the County would close the railroad
crossing and pave Pecos. Mr. Dial indicated that there is some
reluctance on the part of the railroads and PUC. Mayor Schwab
indicated that he had talked to County Commissioner Christensen
on the problem. His belief was that the railroads wanted to close
all railroad .c rossings and not reopen any. He indicated that
railroads are only obligated to participate up to 10% of the
cost. John Criswell indicated that the PUC would like to close
Tufts and open no other crossing. He affirmed that the railroad
and PUC do not desire to have any other new crossings. Mr •.
Waggoner indicated that Tufts was not an arterial street but a
collector street. Mr. Furland stated that a newspaper had said
that the City would be receiving an additional $1,500,00.00 from
Cinderella City. Mr. Dial indicated that not all of the proceeds
from the new shopping center would be received in this year.
In fact, the City anticipates only $200,000 in proceeds from the
center this year. This money is already eannarked for certain
projects, such as central garage, additional police officers,
an aerial ladder truck, and other items.
Mrs. Harder, 1020 West Tufts, asked why the City desired
to open Union. Mayor Schwab stated that from a safety standpoint
it was necessary. Mrs. Harder indicated she felt her area needed
curb and gutters for the children on their way to school.
Mr. Warren Barnard, 4603 South Sherman, asked if his
sidewalk would be abutting the curb. Mr. Dial indicated that it
would. Mr. Barnard indicated that his neighbors on the southeast
corner of Tufts and Shennan were concerned about grading because
of the drainage problem in their area and asked if the grade
would be adjusted to help relieve the drainage problem. Mr.
Waggoner stated Tufts would have a vertical curb and gutter.
Mr. Joel Barlow, 4596 South Pearl, said that there was
one b~g hole in front of his house. Mr. Dial indicated thef'iole
will be filled. Mr. Sagrillo indicated that this street has
never been paved and was left out by the developer.
Mr. Dennis Kelly, 2323 West Warren, asked if curb and
gutter in his block would approximate $4.25 per foot. Mr. Wag-
goner indicated it would. Mr. Kelly stated that he has contact-
ed some neighbors and some are in favor and some are not. He indi-
cated that his neighbors had objected two years ago and there was
presently more opposed to this paving now than two years ago.
144
Minutes of February 26, 1968
He also gave examples of the possible assessments of , his . neigh-
bors and their personal circumstances. He indicated most people
in the neighborhood were against this paving, but that he couldn't
speak for them all or contact all. He stated that he believed
the City has attempted to keep taxes down and that the school
board was primarily responsible for the increase in taxes. He
submitted a petition of ten signatures requesting that the City
Council delete his street from. the proposed paving district
program.
Mr. William A. Moody, 2900 South Clarkson, asked the
Council what was going to happen on his street. Mr. Waggoner
listed specific improvements proposed and indicated that his
office would contact Mr. Moody to find out if. he wanted· curb
cuts. Mr. Waggoner indicated that the curb and gutter would
be vertical type and that Mr. McMurtry would have to move his
fence in order for the City to gain the necessary widthfor the
proposed street improvement. Mr. Moody indicated he was in favor
of the P.aving.
Mr. Clifford Burge, 2961 South Clarkson, indicated there
was relatively no traffic on his block, that the City does not
own the street, and that the street will come to within 5 feet
of his door. Mr. Criswell replied that Clarkson has been a
County road and the City does believe that its owns Clarkson.
If it does not, the City will have to obtain this street .through
eminent domain or through agreement with the property owner.
The City W>uld pay for all right-of-way acquisition.
Manuel Gallegos, 735 East Cornell, asked the Council
how the Clarkson improvements would affect his property. Mr.
Waggoner indicated that he would check the map to see and inform
Mr. Gallegos.
Mr. John G. McMurtry, south Clarkson, indicated he would
go along with his neighbors. He asked what the differences were
between a collector and arterial street. Mr. Dial explained
that there were no differences, but the depth of the paving would
differ for the amount of traffic. He indicated that Mr. McMurtry's
dytrry eoulf nr 11• deep, 44' wide. Mr. McMurtry asked if his
fence was on City property and indicated that he didn't want
to move trees on the east side of the ditch. Mr. Waggoner stated
that the fence was on City property and the trees must come out.
Mr. McMurtry asked why the City was paving these blocks. Mr.
~aggoner explained it was being done so that traffic could move
from Yale to Highway 70. Mr. McMurtry indicated that one of his
neighbors was opposed to the paving because it would increase
run-off in the area. He stated he was not in favor of paving at
this time until the drainage problem is resolved in his neighbor-
hood.
Mr. Earl Wood, 2960 South Clarkson, asked an inaudible
question. He and Mr. Waggoner dealt with the question.
Mr. Ken Wetterstrom, 3850 South Sherman, said that City
funds had previously been transferred from Dry Creek Bridge to
paving. He indicated the City was paving South Sherman only be-
cause of the one-way pattern. He indicated the owners in the area
have paid for many improvements and that deterioration of the streets
was due to improvements under these streets. He also indicated
that the storm drainage passage under the shopping center would
not be adequate for a big storm. He presented a petition of
seven names of individuals opposed to paving the 3800 block of
South Sherman.
At this point in the meetin, Mayor Schwab stated that the
Council would entertain comments and objections fran persons affect-
ed by the proposed overlay program. Mr. Waggoner indicated the
cost of a 36 1 wide street would be approsimately $2.50 per frontage
foot for overlay.
Darwin Smith, 4960 South Sherman, asked if the water would
not undermine the overlay and indicated streets in his area were
over 15 years old. Mr. Waggoner indicated that the overlay will
overlap the gutter and there was probably cpod design on the
b~se of the streets in Mr. Smith's area. He indicated that some
streets in the area only have a 4" base.
An unidentified individual in the audience indicated
that it was criminal neglect th~ay the City had originally con-
structed the streets. The Mayor indicated that professional
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Minutes of February 26, 1968
engineers now reconunend what should be done with streets. He
~tated that the individuals shoul• OCD•~-1lecs i ih iiYee Jears Hand tated
eha~ge ~ alteasance when the Council doesn't take professional
advice. Councilman Kreiling indicated that the Highway Department
believes overlay is adequate, that this is the City's fourth
year of overlay and there have been no basic problems. He indicat-
ed that the Highway Department had had a 15 year life of two inch
mats on highways. Mr. Smith indicated that the 4700 and 4800
blocks of South Lincoln had been left out of this year's district
and that they should be included. Councilman Lone indicated that
it would be ill advised to pave these streets because of specific
drainage problems on those blocks. Mr. Waggoner indicated the
4700 block would be proposed in the 1969 paving district, but
not the intersection.
John Shriner, 4900 South Grant, indicated that when
he had build the area was in the County and that 'the County
Code at that time was stronger than the City Code. He indicated
that he desired no overlay in his area and that seal coat with
gravel was desirable and sufficient. He had no opposition to
improving the streets in his area.
Robert Brown, 260 Chenango Circle, indicated that
drainage water will wash out the overlay as it rushes around
the northwest corner of Chenanqo Circle and South Sherman. He
desired seal coating.
Donald Bart, 4958 South Sherman, indicated he had contac~
ed the developer of his area and the developer had stated the area
was put in according to the Code. Mr. Bart idicated his belief
that the City was neglectful in not maintaining the street with
taxes. He indicated seal coating would provide protection for
his area and that patchwork has been done. He indicated a street
maintenance mill levy has been done. He indicated a street main-
tenance mill levy would not be undesirable in his eyes. Council-
man Lone asked Mr. Bart if he was in favor of complete repavement
later or preventive care now with an overlay. Mr. Bart indicated
that the decision was a big problem. Mr. Waggoner indicated most
streets in this area were seal coated in 1960 and that the 4900
block on South Sherman has been tested. Thetest indicates
that asphalting and base are not consistent ahd range from two
inches of asphalt and 4 inches of base to l~ inches of asphalt
and 6~ inches of b~se. One inch of asphalt is equivalent to
2 inches of base. '
Mr. Victor Daley, 5030 South Grove, indicated that
his sidewalk has settled of its own accord. He wanted to know
if the City could guaranty mud jacking wouldn't also settle and
what protection he had from another flood. A discussion of general
tax problems ensued. Mr. Waggoner indieated tm-t the City could
not provide a money-back guarantee any more than a private contractor
could. Mr. Waggoner indicated the estimated cost of mud jacking
Would be approximately $1.35 per linear foot versus $3.25 per
foot, plus cost of concrete removal, involved in new sidewalk
construction. Mr. Daley indicated that he didn't desire street
paving and that he has had bad drainage in his area for 10 years.
Mr. Ray Ashbeck, 5026 South Linden, indicated the area
was annexed by the City of Englewood and that the area was now
presently eight years old. He indicated chuck holes were in the
street and it took three years for the City to fill these. The
holes are now presently filled and are sufficient. He then asked
why his street was proposed for overlay. Mr. Waggoner indicated
that the City patches all holes prior to the contractor moving in
for paving and overlaying. Mr. A•hbeck asked why South England
Court was topped and graveled last year without any cost to the
owners when the street was only four years old. Mr. Waggoner
indicated that the City seal coats all streets two years after
they have been paved. Mr. Ashbeck indicated that maybe in three
or four years this street would be ready for overlay.
Mr. Wm. E. Kinney, 3300 block West Monmouth, indicated
that the only time he sees policemen is when he calls one. He
indicated that he doesn't get anything. He believes he deserves
seal coating in order to try out its sufficiency. He indicated
no street repairs had been made in his neighborhood and submitted
a petition containing thirteen signatures of individuals opposed
to Paving District No. 17. He also indicated his belief that
rushing wa t er would curl overlay.
Mr. Phelps, 4849 South Irving, asked if performance
bond would cover contractor could not guarantee the base. Base
145
146
Minutes of February 26, 1966
failure would not be reason for holding a contractor liable.
Mr. Richard Huff, 4830 South Washington, asked who
paid for black topping on Clarkson from Tufts to Quincy. Mr.
Waggoner indicated that Cherry Hills and the City of Englewood
had each paid 50% of the cost and there was no assessment
made against the property.
Mr. Duane Weaver, 4851 South Washington, indicated it
was his belief that Council was sensitive to the desires of the
people. His sidewalk did need work and he further stated that if
professionals believe his street will not last much longer then
it is to his advantage to have it improved. He requested that
his name be withdrawn form a petition he had signed.
Mr. Richard Fenton, 4820 West Washington, indicated he
resented the Acting City Clerk stating that a petition he sub-
mitted "alleges" to have a certain number of signatures. Mr. Fen-
ton indicated that there should be no question in anybody's
mind that the signatures are authentic.
Mrs. Paul Helt, 4821 South Washington, asked who pays
for survey crews on the street. Mr. Dial indicated the City pays
the cost and that surveys must be done in the field before the
administration can make reconunendations to the Council.
Mr. Trompeter, 4901 South Washington, submitted a peti-
tion signed by four residents of the 4900 block on South Wash-
ington protesting the paving district improvements in that block.
Mayor Schwab, requesting further conunents from those
in the audience and ' hearing none, suggested that the hearing be
closed.
COUNCILMAN LAY MOVED, COUNCILMAN PARKINSON SECONDED,
THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. Upon the call' of the roll,
the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kreiling, Lay, Lone, Parkinson, Schwab.
Nays: None.
Absent: Councilmen Dhority, Fullerton.
The Mayor declared the Public Hearing closed.
COUNCILMAN PARKINSON MOVED, COUNCILMAN LAY SECONDED,
THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. Upon the call of the roll, the
vote resulted as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Kreiling, Lay, Lone, Parkinson, Schwab.
Nays: None.
Absent: Councilmen Chority, Fullerton.
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned.
I
I
I
I