My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/14/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
7/14/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:39 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:11:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/14/1982
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
of this sort, and it was agreed that staff should come back <br />with a recommendation as previously discussed. <br />ROAD ACCEPTANCE - DEARIE PINES <br />The Board reviewed the following staff memo: <br />TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: June 22, 1982 FILE: <br />Board of County Commissioners <br />THRU: Dr. C.B. Hardin, Jr., PhD <br />Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: Road Acceptance - Dearie Pines <br />FROM: James W. Davis, REFERENCES: <br />Public Works Dir ctor <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS <br />Mortimer Parkway Subdivision is an old subdivision north of State Road <br />60. It was platted in 1925. The entire Subdivision was purchased and the street <br />(55th Avenue) was improved but the area was not replatted. However, the name <br />has been changed to Dearie Pines (see Board Minutes 9/6/78). These minutes state <br />that a cash bond was accepted by the County in lieu of completion of the street <br />with the understanding that no drawdown could be made until the road is approved <br />and accepted by the County. Since this time the bond has been released (as per <br />Finance Dept. check released 2/13/79), but there is no record of the road being <br />formally accepted by the County. <br />The Public Works Department has received several complaints in this area and <br />would like to know whether this is ours to maintain or not. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />Alternative No. 1 <br />The County should accept this road for maintenance. <br />Alternative No. 2 <br />The County should not accept this road for maintenance. <br />RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING <br />The Public Works Department recommends Alternative No. 1 since that action <br />seems to have been implied by the Board proceedings described earlier. The <br />new owner/developer would also like this action to be taken (see attached letter). <br />No funding is applicable. <br />Mr. Davis reported that he has received a couple of <br />drainage complaints just recently in this area, but he did <br />not want to do any improvements until the Board 'formally <br />accepted the road for maintenance. Mr. Davis stated that <br />staff's recommendation is that the Board accept the <br />26 <br />JUL 14 1982 BOOK' 50 P -.u 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.