Resident objects to road-reclamation assessment; council keeps item in consent agenda

At the Sept. 16 Union City Council meeting, resident Dwayne Butorak urged the council to remove charges from a final assessment for a road reclamation project on Galaxy Avenue, saying advanced warning signs and temporary pedestrian crossings were not provided and therefore should not be charged to residents.

"We shouldn't have to pay for [advanced warning signs] that McNamara would have charged the council because I was told that this construction zone was a mobile work zone," Dwayne Butorak said. He added that "None was installed along Galaxy Avenue, which is a 45 mile an hour zone," and that the lack of temporary crosswalks created safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and people with disabilities.

Why it matters: The charges in question would be assessed to property owners as part of a final project assessment. At issue are (1) whether temporary pedestrian accommodations required under accessibility guidelines were provided, and (2) whether advanced warning/traffic-control signage is properly charged to residents.

City staff told the council they could not reduce assessments retroactively for items for which no payment was made. A staff speaker summarized the position: the council can consider isolating a portion of traffic-control costs, but a reduction cannot be made for work that was never bid or paid separately. When asked whether advanced warning signs represented a contract change order, a council member asked for clarification; staff responded that the disputed sign work was included under the project's traffic-control costs rather than recorded as a separate change order.

Council discussion was limited. One council member suggested reminding contractors in future projects to stage work so at least some corners remain passable for pedestrians when feasible, while recognizing that full ADA curb work sometimes requires closing all corners during construction.

Procedural outcome: Councilmember Miss Miller moved to adopt the consent agenda as presented; the motion was seconded and carried. The road-reclamation item remained in the consent agenda and was adopted as part of that vote.

Meeting context and next steps: The discussion took place during the consent-agenda review and originated from a public commenter. The council did not take separate action to remove the contested charges; staff indicated they would need contract documentation showing a separate payment or change order to modify assessed costs retroactively. The item remains adopted via the consent agenda; any further adjustments would require additional staff analysis and a future council action.