01/19/76 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR TWEETING JANUARY 19, 1976 1 Mr. Palfi that the City holds the Maintenance Bond for the contractor and that Mr. Hamilton will be .asked to correct this situation as soon as the frost is out of the ground. Mr. McMahon said the City is aware of the problem. Mrs. John Marroni, 901 Widener Lane, asked how the property owners would have to pay for the sewers. Mr. Farrand explained that the Treasurer's, Office would send each property owner a letter advising them of the amount of their assessment and also advising them that they can pay the cost.in full within thirty days or that they can come in and sign a waiver electing to pay the cost in five yearly installments at 6% interest, payable at the time they pay their real estate taxes. Mrs.. Marroni asked how the assessment was figured and why it was not figured on the front footage. Mr. Farrand said the method of assessment is set by state statute and they are required to use square footage. He said the Board does not have any option as to how to figure the assessment. Mrs. Marroni asked Mr. Far -rand if the Board could delay the assessment until they,are sure that all the property has been restored to the condition before the construction; Mr. Farrand said the City holds the Maintenance Bond for the project and that the contractor, Marion Hamilton & Son, Inc., would not receive 100% payment on the contract until all the.work has been completed satisfactorily. Mrs. Marroni said they were not notified prior to the construction of the sewers and she asked why they did not receive notice. Mr. Farrand said the Board is not required to send private notice to the property owners. All the Barrett Law requirements were met and those requirements are set .by State statute. Mrs. Maroni asked if, when this area was annexed into the City, any money was put aside for the sewers. Mr. Farrand said no but he said the 50%.of the City's share of this project comes from the Cumulative Sewer Fund to which these residents have not contributed. Mr. John Abraham, 502 E. Widener Lane, said he did not want to comment on the assessment but on the sewer construction itself which was a traumatic experience for the property owners. He said the men who were sent out to deal with the property owners did not use any finesse or expertise. Mr. Abraham said residents could not drive their cars to their homes, there was much inconvenience and many mufflers were damaged by cars having to drive over rough unpaved surfaces. Mr. Abraham said he was to be consulted as to where he wanted the tap placed on his property and he found out that the tap was put out at the corner of Widener Lane and Fellows Street and not at the property line. The tap is actually on City property. Mr. Abraham said he spoke to one of the workmen and was advised that this was done for the contractor's convenience because they did not have the right length of pipe. Mr. Abraham said he talked to a gentlemen in the Engineering Department, he believed was Mr. Wells, and was advised to tell Mr. Hamilton to move the tap in to the property line. Mr. Abraham said the tap was not moved and he.has photographs showing its location. Mr. Abraham said should the sewer clog up, he will come back to the City. Mr. Farrand asked that he be sent a.memo regarding this situation and said he would have it checked. Mr. Louis Campanaro, 722 E. Widener Lane, said he had an assessment of $1,001.31 against his property. He said this assessment included an easement on his property and he does not feel he should be assessed for the easement since he cannot ever build on that property. Mr. Farrand noted that the assessment is based on the requirements set by state law and the law makes no exception for easements. He said the Board has no discretion in the matter. Mr. Campanaro said he cannot keep people off the easement property and Mr. Farrand said he could fence the property if he wished. Mrs. Hildred Widener, 4829 Miami Road, said a fence was taken down to allow the Fire Department access to Widener Lane in case of an emergency during the construction period and the fence has not been replaced. She said the fence was to be replaced to keep traffic off their property. She also questioned the metes and bounds assessment for the property on the south side of Widener Lane. She said this property is in the process of being condemned by the State of Indiana and it will never be used for, residential purposes.. Because of this, she said she feels the metes and bounds assessment is rather high. Mr. Farrand said there is a different procedure used for metes and bounds assessments, but in this case also the Board has no discretion in that area with regard to how the assessment is figured. He said this improvement will place a higher value on the