Laserfiche WebLink
this area. Mr. Davis believed the cost of the study could <br />be as low as $5.00 a parcel, and noted they have prepared <br />the implementing ordinance for the MSTU. <br />Chairman Bird understood the purpose of the MSTU would <br />be to generate additional revenue primarily for drainage <br />and, secondly, for road maintenance, which can come later, <br />and paving could be provided under the County's petition. <br />paving program. <br />Commissioner Scurlock agreed that it is necessary to <br />address this situation now even though there is a lot of <br />opposition. This is one of those uncomfortable situations <br />where the Board must do what it has to do. <br />Commissioner Lyons questioned Attorney Brandenburg <br />about the County's legal obligation re subdivisions that <br />were built without satisfactory drainage, and Attorney <br />Brandenburg advised that the County does not have a <br />responsibility outside of responding to their needs, like <br />any other citizen in general. He noted that a large portion <br />of these lots are still owned by the original developer. <br />The Attorney explained that if the Board does adopt the <br />Ordinance today, it does not mean that the County must <br />levy any taxes. The law states that a MSTU must be on the <br />books by January lst, and the decision to levy taxes, if it <br />becomes necessary, can be made after that time. <br />Some discussion ensued regarding the possibility of <br />replatting or of imposing a moratorium on building in the <br />area, and Attorney Brandenburg believed the County could <br />legally impose a moratorium on all those lots out there <br />until the drainage is squared away. <br />Commissioner Bowman reported that she had received a <br />petition containing signatures of 80 people who are opposed <br />to the establishments of a MSTU. <br />SAID PETITION IS ONE FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK <br />51 <br />DEC 7 1983 <br />