My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/13/2009 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2009
>
01/13/2009 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2020 12:26:53 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:21:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/13/2009
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4024
Book and Page
136, 549-596
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7326
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
that the Statute requires before litigation can be filed, and that there must be an unconditional offer <br />giving the landowners 30 days to accept or reject it. <br />Deputy County Attorney Bill Debraal said the Resolution of Necessity would soon <br />be coming forward. He conveyed that the consultant completed the corridor study, submitted it to <br />staff last week, and that it would be brought forward in February for Board approval. He felt that <br />30 days might not be sufficient time to bring a suit, due to all the different aspects that must be <br />explored. <br />After a brief discussion regarding the Resolution of Necessity, Mr. Paladin voiced <br />concerns that the system which was put in place for right-of-way acquisition was not working. <br />Attorney Collins believed Mr. Paladin was asking for something that was not <br />obtainable, and he explained how this could not fit into a "rigid time frame" due to all the <br />components, and the complexity of eminent domain. He did not think 30 days would be a <br />reasonable expectation. <br />Chairman Davis acknowledged the emotional drain that individuals encounter when <br />going through the right-of-way process, and because of that, he liked the idea of having an <br />Ordinance in place for reasons of structure and the ability to move forward with a predictable time <br />frame. <br />Attorney Collins spoke about the process, how it cannot be locked into an <br />Ordinance, and the workload of outside counsel. <br />In response to Commissioner O'Bryan's query, Attorney DeBraal affirmed that the <br />property owners had not provided formal responses of accepting, rejecting, or countering the <br />County's offers. <br />16 <br />January 13, 2009 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.