My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/21/1980
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
5/21/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:53 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:27:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/21/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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
COMMISSIONER WODTKE WONDERED WHO WOULD BE PAYING FOR THE <br />ROAD TO THE SCHOOL. HE FELT THAT IF THE ROAD WAS AN EXTENSION OF <br />20TH AVENUE, THE COUNTY COULD JUSTIFIABLY PARTICIPATE. <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS CONCURRED WITH THE PLANNING DEPART- <br />MENT THAT 20TH AVENUE SHOULD GO THROUGH. HE THEN GAVE AN EXAMPLE <br />ON 43RD AVENUE WHERE THE COUNTY HAD TO BUILD A ROAD QUICKLY AFTER <br />THE SCHOOL BOARD BUILT A SCHOOL THERE. <br />COMMISSIONER LAY STATED SHE WOULD LI -KE TO ASSIST THE SCHOOL <br />BOARD AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE COUNTY HAS BEEN PRIVILEGED TO <br />KNOW THE LOCATION OF A PROJECT BEFORE IT IS BUILT. SHE CONTINUED <br />THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE SCHOOL BOARD GO ON RECORD AS TO <br />THEIR PARTICIPATION. COMMISSIONER L.OY COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD SHOULD <br />UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE BEFORE ANYTHING IS APPROVED. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED THAT THE BOARD MUST KNOW THEIR <br />FINAL PLAN. HE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SOLID RECOMMENDATION FROM <br />THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE TRAFFIC NETWORK. COMMISSIONER <br />LYONS EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT WHAT THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY REALLY <br />IS, AS HE DOES NOT FEEL QUITE COMFORTABLE ABOUT THE MATTER YET. <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE PLAT FOR <br />THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS PUT ON RECORD, IT WAS JUST TO BE FOR <br />RECREATIONAL, PUBLIC OR SCHOOL PURPOSES ONLY. - <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT SUGGESTED -THAT THE BOARD SHOULD BE SURE <br />THAT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE THAT ANY COOPERATIVE EFFORT FOR COMMUNITY- <br />WIDE FACILITIES IS PROPOSED, THAT IT IS RECOGNIZED AS THE OWNERSHIP <br />OF THE COUNTY, IN OTHER WORDS, ANY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT <br />OF THOSE FACILITIES SHOULD BE CREDITED TO THE COUNTY. <br />WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, FELT THE SCHOOLS SHOULD <br />STAND ON THEIR OWN AND NOT BE SUBSIDIZED BY THE COUNTY IN ANYTH.I.NG <br />THEY DO; THE COUNTY LEVIES AD VALOREM TAXES FOR THE COUNTY, NOT FOR <br />THE SCHOOL. HE ADDED THAT HE FELT THE SCHOOL HAS THE TAXING POWER <br />AND SHOULD TAKE CARE OF ALL THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND NOT ASK <br />THE COUNTY - IT WOULD BE A GRAVE MISTAKE FOR THE COUNTY TO TAKE THIS <br />ON. MR. KOOLAGE POINTED OUT THAT IF THE COUNTY IS GETTING BACK <br />RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN EXCHANGE, THEY MUST DECIDE WHAT THEY.ARE <br />GETTING, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, FOR THEIR DONATION. <br />43 , p� 543 <br />MAY 2 11980 -41- eQOK <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.