New Search
MEMORANDUM ---- DRAFT - -- <br /> EUGENE <br /> Parks and <br /> Open Space 12/8/2004 <br /> a division of Public Works To: Kurt Corey <br /> 1820 Roosevelt Blvd. From: Johnny Medlin <br /> Eugene, Oregon 97402 <br /> (541)682 -4800 Subject: City Participation Development Jessen Street (Mallard Estates) <br /> (541) 682 -4882 Fax <br /> www.a.eugene.or.us/pw /parks This memo is requesting authorization to pay Poage Engineering & Surveying <br /> $43,884.36 for the City portion of Jessen Street improvements adjacent to the <br /> City owned A -2 channel. <br /> This history on this project began with the developer (Dan Leahy) approaching <br /> Parks Planning staff with a proposal to participate in the project. Without City <br /> participation only a half street would be constructed. Staff replied that we had <br /> an interest in participating but needed to understand the costs. <br /> At the request of the developer, Poage Engineering submitted a letter on May <br /> 11, 2004 estimating the City cost share to be $31,276.00. Staff indicated to <br /> Parks and Open Poage that costs in this range would be acceptable and that it was felt needed <br /> Space Planning administrative approvals could be obtained. In a second letter on May 27, <br /> Parks Maintenance 2004, Poage Engineering stated their office was going to help put together an <br /> agreement between the City and the developer for the additional costs <br /> Urban Forestry associated with constructing Jessen. <br /> Wetlands and Open <br /> Waterways Unfortunately, this is where the ball was dropped by both Poage and the City. <br /> No agreement was ever developed. The project was constructed with the <br /> developer believing he had city participation but having no document <br /> substantiating that agreement. This oversight was discovered when Poage <br /> Engineering began discussions with staff regarding a final amount for City <br /> participation based on actual construction costs. <br /> In recent conversations with Tom Poage, I have agreed that it was city staff's <br /> intent to participate in this project within the scope of their May 11, 2004 letter. <br /> Also I have stated that if the agreement had been developed at the time I <br /> believe it would have been approved. While I feel this was an unfortunate <br /> paperwork omission between Poage and the City, I still feel we should <br /> participate. Since the amount being considered is above the $25K cap that <br /> can authorize I must refer this question to you. <br /> The costs and associated quantities have been reviewed by our Engineering <br /> Division and have been found to be reasonable. In fact, we found that they <br /> had underestimated the length of abutting property under City ownership. On <br /> finding this we asked them to recompute the costs upward to truly reflect <br /> accurate ownership data. This has resulted in greater costs than earlier <br /> anticipated but still within reason. <br /> Please let me know if you need any additional information. <br />