HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - March 10, 1982 (41)... ^c �• _w.: .0
.. ., ..,e. .s-. -9t� '^' r ;�"�.::'h tet, u,2
Staff asked•Council for a clarification of
Council's February 24, 1982 direction to construct
t
I
Turner Road (at Cldff Avenue) to its ultimate
width.
The exact motion, moved by Pinkerton and seconded
by mi rphy, is as follows:
?;.. .
"That we try to acquire the property so we can
4.
continue the streets and tie it into the existing
a
contract and get it done at a reasonable price so
it's done, out of the way, and so we have a
development with an access to the industrial area
of the City of Lodi."
Because of the exact wording of the motion, the
Staff., feels that clarification is needed on the
following items:
1. Is it the Council's intention to acquire the
required rights-of-way from Snell, Jerome, and
Anagnos?
For Council's information, it has been past
practice of the City Council to use their
condemnation power where portions of future '
street alignments were needed as part of a
�..
proposed development for installation of
utilities, additional street width, drainage,
etc. However, it has been in the past, the
developer's responsibility to pay for the
appraisal, condemnation, and any litigation
costs, the right-of-way needs and to make the
necessary instailatons required for his
_
development.
For Council information, the appraisal work
will cost $3,000 and the rights-of-way costs
and preliminary construction estimates as
follows:
e
-7-
-appear that we will be able to do the additional
work on Turner Road in Conjunction with the
Assessment District contract. It is assumed
that the Council doesn't want to delay the
District work.
5. If it is the Council's intent for the City to I
be responsible for the construction costs,
does the Council want to consider reimbursement
at the time the properties develop and convert
to a higher use?
6. If it is the Council's intent for the City to
pay for the right-of-way and the additional
street construction, does the Council have any
preference on what City funds should be used?
`u
7. If Cal -Cushion does not develop (the City has
no guarantee) is it stili the Council's intent
to widen Turner Road?
CONFIRMATION OF
Following discussion, Staff was informed by the
COUNCIL DIRECTION
Council that it was Council's intention to acquire
ON TURNER ROAD
the required rights-of-way from Snell, Jerome, and
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Anagnos. Council further directed Staff to proceed
with the appraisal work at an estimated cost of
$3,000.00 which cost will be paid by the City of
Lodi.
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO: City Council
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: March 5, 0.12
SUBJECT: Clarification of Staff Direction to Construct
Turner Road (at Cluff Avenue) to its Ultimate Width
The exact motion, moved by Pinkerton and seconded by Murphy, is as follows:
"That we try to acquire the property so we can continue the
streets and tie it into the existing contract and get it done
at a reasonable price so it's done, out of the way, and so
we have a development with an access to the industrial area
of the City of Lodi."
Because of the exact wording of the motion, we, the staff, feel that clari-
fication is needed on the following items:
1. Is it the Council's intention to acquire the required rights -of -wade
from Snell, Jerome, and Anagnos?
For Council's information, it has been past practice of the City
Council to use their condemnation power where portions of future
street alignments were needed as part of a proposed development
for installation of utilities, additional street width, drainage,
etc. However, it has been in the past, the developer's responsi-
bility to pay for the appraisal, condemnation, and any litigation
costs, the right-of-way needs and to make the necessary installations
required for his development.
For Council information, the appraisal work will cost $3,000 and
the rights-of-way costs and preliminary construction estimates
are as follows:
Right -of -Way Costs° Construction Costs Total
Jerome $ 700 $ 8,000 $ 8,700
Snell 5,500 11,000 16,500
Anagnos 10,800 341000 44,800
TOTAL $17,000 $53,000 $70,000
*Based on $0.50 per square foot. No value given to severance.
2. Is it the intent that ;he City pay all of the above costs?
This is questioned based on the memo that was in the last Council
packet from City Attorney Stein. From this memo it appears the
City Council
March 5, 1982
Page 2
developer has indicated to the City Attorney that they would be
willing to pay for the improvements in front of Snell and Jerome
properties if the City purchased the rights-of-way.
3. is it the City Council's intent to construct all of the street
Improvements, including parking lane, curb,gutter and sidewalk,
or only those improvements necessary to provide the ultimate
four (4) travel lanes?
4. It was clear that the Council wanted this work done in conjunction
and together with the work under the Assessment District. Since
the Assessment District contract has been let and it is the con-
tractor's intent to install the underground utilities and do the
roadway construction on Turner Road first, it doesn't appear that
we will be able to do the additional work on Turner Road in con-
junction with the Assessment District contract. It is assumed
that the Council doesn't want to delay the District work.
5. Ifit is the Council's intent for the City to be responsible for the
construction costs, does the Council want to consider reimbursement
at the time the properties develop and convert to a h-igher use?
6. if it is the Council's intent for the City to pay for the right-of-way
and
and the additional street construction, does the Council have any
preference on what City funds should be used?
7. IfCal-Cushion does not develop (the City has no guarantee) is it still
the Council's intent to widen Turner Road?
Jack L. Ronsko
Publi Works Director
JLR/eeh