Restoration

Residents complained about how much property damage a 2 lane temp road would bring.  The city said Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 2 way was needed for safety.  There are many less destructive ways to do MOT, including the most popular half width construction where existing pavement is used along with much less temp pavement to maintain traffic. In addition to damage done by the new temp road, other damage would be done by sidewalks and grading on both sides of the street.

When enough votes weren’t present to remove the 2 lane temp road, the city offered to restore our property to something beyond “a tree lawn twig”.   The original idea behind restoration was that many trees would be lost on both sides of the street and that would alter the rural nature of our neighborhood as well as remove needed screening for this busy road.

The first phase of the restoration involved moving trees that could be moved, no agreement was in place for this. Now, homeowners who didn’t act during that short window, are left with draconian and incomplete contracts just to express an interest in getting what was previously promised.

The following resolution passed on the consent agenda (#12) on Feb 1, 2010.

http://www.lpvproductions.com/solon%5Fvideos/getvideo.asp?fn=cc02012010

The restoration program discussion was very short 59:25 to 59:50. Councilman Kraus said “Yeah this gives us the legal authority for assistance to the residents most affected by the 2 way temp road way”.

Important considerations are a limitation of 3 times the OR Colan’s offer,  your consent to the city’s 2 way temp road decision, and acknowledgment that the restoration is dependent upon Council approval.

View this document on Scribd

Behind closed doors

With little fan fare and even less discussion came the final resolution, 2010-36 (shown above).  This was not discussed publicly and may have been decided in executive session with the assumption that it related to eminent domain litigation, that the city is not a party to.

Restoration limitation

Initially no specific cap was put on the restoration (2009-149), other than it couldn’t exactly replace some items (like a 50 ft tree).

In fact the items gathered by engineering had a much larger estimate as seen in the Q&A document on Page 3.

6     Q: In this same area, some feel we have an obligation to the residents to do more landscaping and screening than will be allotted in the project itself. How much would you estimate we should be prepared to spend to accomplish this?
ENG: Depending on the level of landscaping and screening, the City could expect to spend between $5,000 to $20,000 per property.

This resolution limits the restoration, including the installation, to be three times the county compensation for landscaping, not including your sq foot rental (your OR Colan offer is required, for example $100 – $300 per tree would become $300 – $900 per tree including its installation).  Until this resolution was introduced, no such limit was discussed. This limit was not discussed at any public meeting.

Consent

Starting on line 7 of page 3, the city will only do the restoration if you agree with the city’s decision for a 2 way road.  While this may seem like a moot point, it may have legal implications.  At the very least, it is objectionable on grounds of principle and patently inaccurate.  Most residents didn’t support the 2 way road because of the damage it would cause.  Now those same residents are having their arm twisted to “consent” to the city’s decision they protested.

It was thought that the application could be altered to remove this consent, however, Section 1 of resolution 2010-36 (pg 1 above) also states this requirement.

Your consent is unconditional even though the restoration is subject to approval and then restrictions which could leave you with no restoration and no recourse since you “consented” to the 2 lane temp road.

Council approval

At the end of the document, the biggest problem occurs, that the resident must acknowledge that restoration is contingent on Council Approval (presumably of the expenditures).  Given the city’s financial concerns, there may well be a problem with getting Council Approval.

Restricted Restoration

On page 3 line 10 it mentions a “landscape replacement exhibit” that will be used.  It isn’t attached, nor are values given for the landscape items and their installation costs.  While a resident can determine the total value from their county offer, they can not see what the city is offering for that calculated value.

Incomplete Contract

As mentioned above the “application and certification” incorporates an exhibit that was not provided.  It is not appropriate for someone to enter into a contract without seeing all of it first.  The title of the document is also curious.  The resident is being asked to give unconditional consent to the city but seems to be merely “applying” for assistance.   The criteria for “acceptance” of the application is not specified.

Deadline

The application has a deadline, the letter said April 15, the heading said May 1, and now the web site says May 1.  It would be understandable to have a deadline to express interest for the practical reason that they need to see your property before the damage is done.  To that extent the deadline may be too long, damage may be done by then.  But they didn’t ask you to just express interest, they demanded that you commit to giving your consent to the 2 lane temp road for an incomplete uncertain promise with restrictions.

Restoration not for everyone

While the South Side of the street with its temporary 2 lane road seems more unnecessary than other road related property destruction, most people thought the goal of the restoration program was to deal with all those impacted by the project.  In a surprising move it appears that the restoration program is limited to (only south side) residents directly affected by the city’s decision to maintain traffic as 2 way and further that this 2 way MOT be done by a temporary 2 lane road.

Improvements

The MOT resolution 2009-149 mentions a few examples of residential improvements (invisible fence, sprinkler) in the right of way that the city would restore.  No mention of these items is mentioned in this new resolution.  OR Colan offered no compensation for these items, although in their meeting in late 2008 they implied they would take care of it, but in mid 2009 there were reports they wouldn’t if they were in the right of way.  In either case OR Colan may not have offered a monetary amount, so 3 times that would make the city offer zero too.  This would make the two resolutions (MOT 2009-149 and Restoration 2010-36) contradictory.

County Money

In late 2009 the Public Works director suggested that the city would need to receive the county rental compensation so the residents didn’t double dip or get rich off this project.  Residents objected and even Council questioned this move.  There is no mention in this resolution of returning the County money.

In Summary

The Former Mayor and Council promised to restore our property.  This latest Council Action takes nearly all of that away.  Only half the affected residents are being asked to “apply” for a watered downed loop hole ridden hope of restoration at the same time they are required to give their absolute unconditional consent for the city to do the damage.

This is a raw deal, its nothing like what was discussed (or even offered to others), you should weigh it carefully before being suckered into signing it.  You should ask them to explain any of these points you find unclear or of concern.

Advertisement