The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC RES 89-086RESOLUTION NO. 89-86 A RESOULUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT MAKING CHANGES TO THE WORK AND THE ASSESSMENT IN CONNECTION WITH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 87-1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 10000, et se .) the City Council has confirmed an assessment and ordered certain improvements to be made in connection with Assessment District No. 87-1. Certain owners of property have requested in writing that the City undertake certain work on their behalf which will result in an increase in the individual assessments on their property. Such written requests are attached hereto as Exhibit A. A description of the work and the additional assessments to be levied are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Section 2. The City Council hereby orders that changes be made to work and to the individual assessments in connection with Assessment District No. 87-1 as set forth on Exhibit B, attached hereto. .;. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July, AYES: NOES: BENSON, CRITES, KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: � ,f / . � � /�,. ��" � c C �.:`� 1 SHEILA R. G � ' // �� j � - . � / � i � - `, `i : �� . ,LIGAN, CIT CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 89-86 DATE: T0: FROM: INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF PALM DESERT September 22, 1989 DAVE CARLOS SUBJECT: AD 87-1 How much money is tnvolved 1f these extra assessments are not piaced on the property r�lls? May be ae should remind Mr. Kicak that he is responslble for these and find out if he is Nititng to pay them out of hfs fees. , Carlos L. Ortega Executive Director mh ��-zZ-a��`� ;�-� � —��• �.: � l� .,,► , N �` ► � � �� C: ► I �- Cj. II� r 0 . o �� ( � 2 - �='�� C:�, ,.► �� ...r,,.. � 1 n � � � f�� `= SH 3� . i� �z�S,s� `I Z� 1 . ��1 b !'wt��-- c-�-v �,� /�i �.vn� �1�5 :3 S ��..1 �'; S-�� t �s 3�� S-c y b�t t� Z`� � ► �-��.,vc.� ZZ� =- 3 3 I =- I Zif "`"� y Zy '� �lv�-s� �.. � � � S' , c� t,,1 l��- o c w.ti L�. �J e c��. �c� /�xa � ' r� ,.` � � . S �;�..c J ,:1� •a p . b � � �. �-,�.�w � c �.� S i' �:1 l,•.nr-c Ev S �I.: r,,,,,,t' N.v. }� � v�.c: � I S. �� 1 I� wc �..:�„ l ci c� r�,�4.v.� c � t..v . i- (n {--(� ` f r -� H-+ � �1CS.N •i �' rLKe. v 1'C l t W i ��A LA �'(, �� 7: W �lL� c�.tu �JIJI j W��1.�-t'V �1a� w�n / t..y ; J, 1.� . I � �..� O rw ti .�- .�ls� �ti.� �-e..}c �i �inn., { ..�'"l c� H.u� �v �I"� .�� :So � Z 1 7— '� . l,) � l I S.J �.�vy� P U � N� S„ �` ( � n�c -• f � i-�ti , S _'� �. L. . �o �-L,? �..� :�� lti� l 1 t-l.: C�G..,..A c.,,.,1 �-N►-r, Z V.A.:s ,,,,, t- s 1� L�,�+..t �� w niw 1 w �c. 1 w.c �� w.+ .�- c/1�- � 11. � S�`rl i� S� c E :�f� �vaFJl N:: � � c� p �, i� v. w i�- e.. 7 J� c n w. � S 1 �. a A 1 �� v I a-...� 1 t—o ' ,.w �( a .a.. w � t�+ s J 5 —. , �" � ... �1 �-�,q �.J V I v � �a S r�.i �'�.�,,! 1,�; k,�,` . 1. ��v i- �, }�t � c.,n „ ,v e,,,.�1 ,n_.�. ` � �.',-v � !1 " \ 1 1 1 �I! ' � i !I ' ! _ I • *. !! ' 1 6.112 $3,163.60 $3,389.80 The reason for increased assessment was a request by the property owner to change the access to his properiy from a standard width drive approach to a full frontage drive approach. Prior to formadon of the A.D. 87-1, Mr. Barton had an area along the frontage of his property which was paved on private property and used for parking cars along the frontage. The parking was perpendicular to the street. Such parking arrangement created a problem, since the rear bumpers of the cards extended into the public right of way. Mr. Folkers and I worked with Mr. Barton attempting to provide a standard drive approach, considerably narrower than the frontage of his property and a parking lot on-site. Mr. Barton tentatively agreed, and the assessment was reduced based on a standard narrower driveway. He subsequendy changed his mind and requested that a full width driveway depression with concrete driveway be provided along the frontage of the property. ' The request came in after the confirmation of assessment. Last paragraph of the letter dated October 25, 1988 (attached) addresses that issue. The assessment was revised accordingly. ' RESOLUTION NO. 89-86 ^ ' /L J • � � � `f z� � ��,..� �.e.,�.�.� ��, , � u �� G��. �s � y�" , �- � C�, �,�,�,.. ,Q . � 6 ; , . ,:� zl. � � ?3_ ,o �,c�(.. Lv oCO� - . � a �-� a . . - �. �6.1�n �t..�.,e.�.1�' �a . y' . ... � � _ �. //2 Q�/.K . �tC.�� al�• n7�o-�j�i�t+� t= z, • _�� Q a9c��'�«,f C;,?� i�t .w�/�.�,��- ��,b�,�✓ �,e� w�r� �. � �, . � � ��. . �9 �y�� ,�,� . . � �. � � �` �� s� ,� �� !� ?� �f�,(� nw. �� a.,�.,C i�- . ��....� � �� G'�' a�.Co�.�_ a�.,,oC �. �i .�.. .�.:�� U�, 7� ��.w , / %`� Q eaJ` o,� �'-4'f-4� a....� .6��J .c..�,a.r`i..CL �,:.,,.�j�.� � C�.�,�..�. e� �sa �; �;,� .��.� �� .�:�.�,�.u. �.,�,�� 0.. ° . � � �`' , `,� .a.�e� a....aC t�..,�' • • � Nu.�.,..� • ot�.�..� ��e� uih.` � .�•�� ct,�...� �-�,GC ��.�1-.�.P �� , • � r �y� �Sa ��c� �, �s.w � � � ��.�w�. �/ �'*- � e..�� .C�'`"�'� �'^.{ r G< L'rn�� I600 •6�-/�.�ut. . . � G�*�r�� ,�' .�.�., � �� '�``� � . n � �� „ . /�- � � a,.�c� �,.� 7CL,,, oi � � . � °�,.�- �, � ° � �6 °,►-( °`^�c.�' . u.Lt- ��C,�, �- �" �- • � Q-•�•� ' f-�,;� `�" a� /�t�.�."``_ . �-L ,G��w �..-�;.L �-o�..G r�Ci � � , � �.�,C 4�2 � �� ' rh,7 `�' �/ . � �-�j. � .�.t..,.. '�-� �",� ,�..�.�'� �,�,�,..,� �.c� �i7� �i h��,C .tn�� • �( �" . ^ �� - �.' � ,�,r( �� ' �it�. c� ;� I-, i�`'�� - . � "7 W . � " �y��Z� �� n �Cd� a��a.�� -b��j � , � ' _ �•b � � G�'• • �» � �� .�. � l.l�! \1 1! .�11"� i 11'! I� � !!'1 9.110 $5,430.16 $5,761.81 Mr. Rice, the owner of the property at 44701 San Jose had two existing driveways. One on San Jose (32' wide) and second DeAnza (12' wide). The standard for design of driveways provided for construcdon and/or replacement of driveways to the width existing prior to the dme of design for A.D. After the confirmation of Assessment, and during construction, Mr. Rice requested that the 12' wide driveway be widened to 16 feet, resulting in additional costs of concrete driveway and the A.C. paved driveway. Mr. Rice was advised by City staff and the inspector that additional costs would result in this widening. Attached please find messages from City staff dated February 16 and February 21, 1989 regarding this request. In accordance with then City policy, the widening of both the concrete driveway and A.C. driveway was completed by City's contractor at additional cost to the owner. As a result of this request, the policy of the City was changed �vhereby ihe Public Works Department required a permit for construction of driveways which were wider than the existing as shown on the plans, with arrangements for additional costs to be made direcdy between the property owner and contractor. ti I �IV <--- pHONE�CALL � ' � � . JR v1RQIl.... �ATf ��' TIME g- $� �;,M�. � M �-k,�l�i��, R1c� .. )F 44- '�I�� w ._u.,.• �...�. " a�+�Eo�'i + �Ne 34�- � .4 ., R(Q�-' �(-JRnrEn� AiiE4 CpDE NUMBER �" `.��► � EXTENSION � .�� x,.,., K. i 3SAGE Tl • V�� -.,. . . ,��„�i�i.t _ �_ ^f�t�1?.� ., `._ .. . . �: ' _.��.�-B�E �- ' - LL> ;S"tFt� �� . � ` D �y - s.� ;�,,,,,�To� � �s�:You.�: � �WANTS TO�� GIGNEO "�S ac� �� C_ :_----�_�'c. . . . . . _ . • - ... „ ^OPS FORM 4003 j t-i �i "^--• ..�-.- � Fa: �'.I ' ! •-, 1. . m � ='� �� ' f �� ,,�,:., ..i �� , � �� etZ �„ � � Q 7¢ W� Ut9 ww Nw a i ii� '�s r� � �Q �N aN � a� � xEs ION N0, 8g-g6. ; . ... . . . .. .' :: , ._ h: i V � " �- � _ 3 ap i i�1 � :� �. �^� •t• v :r,. . � . , iY ' � z w � , , .� � � ° " ` � ` * ... . :. : : .:,.� :. , � .. �-. .. �.: � �. .. �:_: .� ��, . .. a � � � � . . .: . . �; �. . � . _ � ;< � � � t ' '� ` , . r . x % � � �A . t7 , ~�. � � � . , . ., ` ; N: „ 'r t� � '} . � • . Q � � � v\ ' ..... , . ... .. , . _ .•' ,.; ..;. ., y ' �. ' -� o �. A .� ; .. . . -'� :, . • ' ' . (1�w� � � • • . . ' ,' ,�. . : . : ,,, ..• r • �J ] �y� � 1 � . . . . ' , . . � �,f. 2Z �! � p�. �v a � � � � :. -� . �i W � {{� -,.. J � o --� �' U !� ' � ¢ , � ;� \ j► ` C�'� ►�' _ �.i.: ;�` s .�. ` . . . . � � . � � Q � w ' . Q p ui 7 �� Z �. .p � 1b . . � �; �„ o a � ' 4 ��-, _ - --- +`�',�, �.. �: '.,. .. .. �:�:;_. �. . - _. ' �. ' � �' . , ., . . . . -- - .__. . . _ . _. .. .. __-- .. _._ _ . � � � � ..- :�:��. � : . � . . • � � -- � . .. _. , . . . . � - . ... . . , .. ''rJ... � � . � � : . , • . ' _.,:,.r--�--- . t•-.- ' �. � ,.._:r =-=-----`�".�'_ ..._ P H O N E C A1.1- • � � . , .��_-- �a.M• . ' . . . . ,'` , � � � , I�I TIME r h.M• . , . •� . . ' pA'�E i�� FOF1 ' �FHONED, t . , M :YOUR CALL"" ;.,' , . . . . � � �j i: { . �C1.ff��.,L:k �. . . . " �F � � l � .; 3Pl.EQSkCpl,1,�=:x:;;:. exTen+�� '`' : � ., s �.r •<aE9.c.,t r� - M�p v,. . . � , P1-10N� ,�A �� :w�u:;�au. r�► ' . . � . . . . , � � • e�;. : r � � , AG ' y 1�"i K b . MESS . n+�;-� E�1f�V..�.c;:` � • • J •'�,';,`�,�y��:: •• � • pp� A003 T � . ` . i � RESOLUTION NO. 89-86 11' 1 , � 1�.�1 �_! ..l� I�s : 11 ".! �8�215.50 � 1• i 11"! $8,343.50 In accordance with the design standards for the A. D. 87-1 standard concrete driveway approach was provided to subject property. Subsequent to the informal meedngs and confirmation of assessment, the owner reviewed the plans and requested that portion of A.C. driveway which was existing, being removed and replaced as A.C. paving be reconstructed as concrete paving. The actual amount as requested by the property owner was: 1. � Delete - 160 s.f. of A.C. Apron -(1,698 s.f. orig. to 1,538 s.f. final). Add - 160 s.f. of Concrete Apron -(0 s.f. orig, to 160 s.f. final). The differential cost - Conc. Apron A.C. Apron Total addidonal cost - 160 s.f. x 0.80/s.f. _ $2.30/s.f. $1 •SO/s.f• $0.80/s.f. $128.00 This change was requested by Mrs. Stoltzman on August 23, 1988, with the understanding that differential cost would apply. Other than notes on the printout of preliminary detail printout of assessment spread, I have no other documentation for this request. Y ^ n � QF i . t,f I �. 1: l � ` : w , � -: � 3 I� r �.��:��a. �LL4LCL.0 1.�4�• .. . 1��., I . J � � JJ. I � ^ I �.)'. .. -i ... 1 . �- i � 4 � I �v ; � � 1 � J �. W �l2 � i � ti � : I �� i � a i �, � W • �i m�w VI Z I � �• -`�- � ��{� i < � I� J i ' "' � � J` � J i � Wu � W � ; S o ` Q f � Q� , � n . � t O � � V , n .+ ; ' D � � �' � ' � � � W � 6 � C � _ - � L � L � � oo � : �� oe vo�,o a =� : x�m n = n 0 0 o ti /' . o.- O �I m N ♦ / e � p J N 1 Iy ! . � • �, � �+ PI h • rt/ PI o� . % a nl � a IN ` tW.f �O 1 Y 1` O Q t7 ' OI •' I m � M� '. ,: O R� N P li .mi �� N.. � N�.��a O Q o � 1 aE r ~ a ti 1 N ■ W N �� N N {O f �� 1 � W F � W'N ~ n� • 1 4 h 1• � N V 1 I ' � N � � N 1 N� � N.N I 1 u ; � M � t � t � \ f o O O p � O o o p O o o j � O ' o o O O 10 � ¢ o o a o 0 0 �� Q � 6 W O p rWn oexn � w �f. �or�oo a '+ u r o o� � m ,� rr N m .� N�� m i m `�r u n�� . .� M • . � p�+ • O � �. i �~..7 M • W♦ 10 / 7 �� M� Q O • . � � � 1-♦ '�W � YN � _ � A ��. " � �- ♦ I� r m � b 6 b Id i L� M�� • b�1 � b d � N�� I; y' � �y � m � � m � m rr'�` t V` ; N IyLL1�+►LLIL 4 / W I� W 4I,` M J �tll W L I � Q •; » J N H bl 0 J J � ; t I M ; ` I 1�- J� �-rleoa� I � I 1 � i o e p o p o i � w �i ' I z n o � z e e o o r a � � « �� c � QNN"'"m I� � � �nui� rEi� , i � a� I I t � �.rim pv �I � ~ +j � ! � � I N � I : I I u �i j I �I . � I I I i � ,� I I �� I� I � K�` � � �� I 1 /� n i� � I I M W � I � I u,� fI� I �I � J M W � � ' r • ` � a 'm + � J � � 1-� I� I f� / • � � ¢ W 0 Z I � Q I �� I o � a'yaj ' tF n i IW- �- +I rW" J 6 j. 4 I� I f iF� �'I +� J� � I � 1 �? t � � � � 7IJ . � M N � � � j � r u = � y J ■ N ' 0 � / l!' 6 � N Z � �O I � L� � � If N rOa� �1-Y I � W ~ � IN � r� ,� y SP f►W-�Y � MY P RS�� .�i W W I i w L li e�a 1�- ~ �-��w t f t ►-�M W ¢ W U j t�J � i 3� y S's � u��„ r • �r UI �a �p� zO�z .'� _ I. �•U Q�. �aa I �n��lrgcm u i,wrm o ii�i, Ni�r oa,�.`+»a �a�^oaf iner-n►.P �uroa z ��- wmr. y� �¢ � W t W H �� w �% 6� �W � 714 , I � a W~� �. � L� 7t W I � � U 2 U 2�� r 7t C M j= t`j ,y u� � � N N� O s . p . p �Q M p a �Z m m � b 0 t U C N �^ N ��W 0 N M � o' � �m i� � � � O b O J I + � L M � O��_ � � I �� N � N N 0 6� �~�� O ♦ ;� n G i n r IIn pW.. .�. � ! � � �3 f �� II 'J_L: -1«C'� :IJ.:� ��i � ='. c�� r�� - : x b x a r. a � „ � 1� ; i sl�_ . l �[�.l� .. I. 1,.. �` �.;:1::. ; t, �;, .J„l n.�f :J': �1., c c� c t c �� . < <:� � �.. "� � �,� r, �� . - �a•e n�►� • 1 I ` II I � � I � ' � � I I I i ; � I I �. , I . , ► � ; � I � � i �i :y � �J ` h � y � � � � � � : �� % {'R� N t t� � bl � O Q � ��pyq i �- n � b1 N � � V ■ � I � � � / � � C / ; q n % ~ O. � � � � . � M ~ Y � t i i � r � � � c r � I � � � � � � � � t � � j I I � I / � � � � � � � I / ' w I i f � � f � ; w I . . ' � � �� u i o � . � Q T b � t 4a Q1u . i U Yry M %ap0 � O Q = .��i�� ile7r ' �I �� l 1 RESOLUTION NO. 89-86 � Assessment No. Confirmed Assessment Final Assessment 12.087 54,261.09 $4,690.29 This increase to Assessment No. 12.087 resulted from several factors: 1. In reality, there was no increase to total combined amount of assessment for the parcels Assessment No. 12.087 and 12.086. 2. Assessment No. 12.086 was shown as APN 625-093-004. Assessment No. 12.087 was shown as APN 625-093-005. 3. Preliminary Notices were sent out to each individual parcel as follows: 12.086 - $2,476.40 ' 12.087 - $4,692.19 Total for both parcels $7,168.59. 4. Assessor's O�ce at the time of approval of Engineer's Report indicated those as two separate parcels. (Our obligation was to assess each parcel as shown on the Assessor's Roll. ) 5. The two parcels - Assessment No. 12.086 and 12.087 were combined into a single parcel. Certificate of Compliance Rec. 3/ 14/88, Instr. No. 66022, however not shown on the Assessor's Parcel Maps as merged. 6. Owner requested re-assessment of the parcels as a single parcel as per approved merger. 7. Owner requested deletion of one lateral provided to A.N. 12.086 and relocation of another to A.N. 12.087. ' 8. Owner requested addition of a driveway to parcel 12.087. 9. Assessment No. 12.086 was deleted from the Assessment District Rolls. 10. Assessment No. 12.087 remained on the rolls assuming the benefit and responsibility for the preliminary assessment of 12.086 and 12.087. � 11. The assessment for the combined parcels of Assessment No. , 12.086 and 12.087 was recalculated by the same formula as utilized throughout the district. 12. Assessment No. 12.087 was greater than previously approved, due to the fact that changes were requested by the owner and/or his representative. 13. Attached is a request and sketches by owners representative for the adjustments made to 12.087. � �� RESOLUTION NO. 89-86 HO Z�FS, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSL.ILTANTS LAND PLANNERS • CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS July 7� 1988 Richaid Folkers Director of Public Worlcs/City Engineer City of Palm Desert 73=51A F=ed Waring Drive PaLn Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Joe Gaugish �! •� �� Re: Our Project No. G16-1 � Cor�ditional Use Permit No. CUP 87-16 Office Building Northw�est Corner Deep Canyon Road and Alessanclro Drive Gentlanen: We are pre�iaring engineering plans for the subject project. In coordinating the project with your office, the planning departrnent and Ricak & Associates Inc., vae have concluded that the following is required from our client, Mr. Dennis Godeke; - 1. An estimate must be prepared for the cost of undergrounding the povaer and telephone lines in Deep Canyon Road along our client's property line. We have requested, in writing, these estimates from GTE and Ddison. We will forward copies of these estimates when we receive them. It is our understanding that our client will sign an agreanent to participate in a future utility undergrounding distiict, and that there will be no bonds or fees _ required at this time. 2. We have given Kicak & Associates sketches showing the location of our proposed sewer lateral in Alessandro Drive and the location of our proposed drive�way in Deep Canyon Road. It is our understanding that these items will be added to the plans for the City's forthcoming improvement district. 3. We will prepare a street i�rovement plan for the north side of Alessandro Drive betw�een Deep Canyon Road and De Anza Way, narrowing the street 74•091 LARREA STREET • PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 •(819) 310-4589 ' . r �� . , 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , to a width of 36 feet. This will be accanplished.by constructing a new curb and gutter 8 feet south of � the existing north curb. , 4. We will prepare a grading plan relatinq the finish floor elevation to the new curb on Alessandro Drive. , 5. Copies of the approved Lot Merger have been given .,." to Mr. Ricak as requested. . We would like to coordinate the construction of the narrawing of Alessandro Drive with the construction of tt�e street wnrk associated with the assessment district. Infoxmation given to us by Kicak Associates would indicate that bonds may be sold in August of this year and construction would start the following Sept�nber. We understand that Massey Sand And Rock is the apparent low bidder. Please coritact our office it there are any other matters '• which must be •ca�leted and coordinated by our firm in connection with Mr. Godecke',s proposed building. � � - Thank you for your assistance.='�' ,-; - � , - S incerely, ��'� � � _ � / � J' j " I. Ha sley, President SL/th xc: Dennis Godeke Holden and Johnson Kicak & Associates G� � �� Y. �C 1 L'N ii .� �. .� � ;:' . i•; A I � �h��'� ��1 � ��.� � ��..� w u.•oie•oo� � 13 � 16 +1 • d' �, �t o= �1P R �ei-v s��oos OLUTION NO. 89-86 e•on•a� � at� •oa� o.so�a o �o�.. �. � r o. �.. , �s.ai� d�, � `� �t�• ( �y. V � •' � . ' � 17 ' , � i * ,}'�' � ,� IC � us�ms�fow 1� ��,• o.�ok � �� Z ` n fi �o�i�= I� _ is.on � � i:.o�� I �4 t» M, � �ze•vre•an ��C 0.30�.. � � i�e' y .� � I 1 . ��,�;,°°i �Q � i:�o s I ,� it.oss `zau.�:°°' le !— �� :9.M' (LL 4' t� � 1�' W g � � �� 10 20 IJ w•o�•ao� � • � �-Te-a��— a4�,,.. -s � �:o ��ooe � �� ses-o�e•ow i:.o�� * �• oso�.. I �t.ot n:.rs � t��Nl /� �ie• �0' N.07 n I ttt.��' I f' b ' b � J � % 8 ;f � �i � � ! 6 .s ( Lll �� a..a.rcw .t.o..�oo. � ace:a.:.00. Z � � o.�o,�e. c.t��.. o.ak � .J q eza•ae�oo� � �ea�aa•oo� �sot� � �t.o��> �t�o�1 •�� } o.a�w o.tla. �d z � i e.o�: i:.o» q 'a I '�i� �p� 1 U r � �f�' �d a.n' , ��i�' ad �a:�` � � t- (� � t -�''�-------.__ .._.�.,_--�'� I� e� I i�.M• �� ,�o *�.s� aar wc� i��r ¢ ' � '� � I • �' I I �t ( I ` �j 1j � 4 ! aze�o+�•as ��teoH•o�i � sd � a=s-as•oos f wa��ow � ae-ws•oo� 0„ awk o.nk o.ti �.. as��.. a�n.. W I it.o�: ie.os� i:.o�o �s.a� +:.o�t W � �r I � I �ee' ».er �'r' �a.� ,� � ORIVE � • � r � t_ _ . - _�� . : . `� �S I Gi � :�(`� � � it �)1 ►Q`I(��i(1�1�� I � �" ' ! J I I �;• I 'i ( /f 1 /� i � � I �1 t 1 � � � � � ' � r I � �--C. �J � I � � 1 + ( J�/�f-1 U� � l I �c� (?tGti (e;► ��.. , - -- . � ENGINEER'S REPORT PALM DESERT ASSESSME�NT DISTRICT 87-1 EXHIBIT B Available for your review is the printout of the parcels that are on the Assessor's Roll for debt service within Assessment District 87-1. The list contains listing of 1,645 parcels on which the assessment still remains. City Council on July 14, 1988, confirmed the assessment, since that time, changes occurred in the amount of assessment from that confirmed. There were four parcels on which, at the request of the property owner, assessment wes reduced because they wanted to perform the work on their property. Subseque�tly, they �equested that the City's contractor for Assessment District 87-1 perform the work on their property previously deleted. This request and the associated additional work increased the assessment amount from that confirmed to the amount now shown. The amount of the assessment as shown did not exceed the amount of assessment stated in the Preliminary Notice of Assessment and the Notice of Public Hearing. Following Assessments were incressed as a result of property owner's request to perform work: Assessment No. 6.112 9.110 10.041 12.087 Confirmed Assessment $3,163.60 5,430.16 8,215.50 4,261.09 Final Assessment $3,389.80 5,761.81 8,343.50 4,b90.29 In addition, during construction of the system there was an exchange of properties between the City and Jack J. and Eunice H. Blume. The assessment on the City parcel was $0.00 a�d o� the Biume parcel was $2,694.72. City Counctl adopted approving the agreement parcel to the other. Assessment No. 11.022 6.140 Resolution 89-6 on January 12, 1989, transferring assessment amounts from one Confirmed Assessment Final Assessment $2,694.72 0.00 $ 0.00 2.694.72 And finally, 65 assessments were reduced from that confirmed, as a result of the property owners performing work on their property, accordingiy reducing the cost of construction and the assessment amount.