Laserfiche WebLink
it would qualify under the petition paving program, the fact <br />that this is a private road and it does not meet our exist- <br />ing ordinance re minimum right-of-way, the fact that it was <br />built at a time when we had provisions for half roads and <br />you can't have a road that is half private and half public, <br />etc. <br />The Board then questioned in detail whether this road <br />would fit in under our petition paving program and whether <br />that program addresses putting in a road bed as well as <br />paving. <br />Commissioner Lyons did not feel that the portion the <br />County pays under the petition paving program addresses <br />itself to bringing a road up to County standards, but Mr. <br />Davis felt that it does as sometimes we start with an <br />unimproved shell road and we have to modify the existing <br />road. He noted this could be a 6 or 8 week job and did not <br />feel the County could handle this along with the petition <br />paving we are doing now. <br />Commissioner Lyons still felt because the road is not <br />up to our standards, this really does not correspond to our <br />normal -petition paving activity, and he did not believe we <br />should penalize the rest of the county by paying out of <br />County funds to bring the road up to the standard where we <br />would participate in the petition paving. Commissioner <br />Lyons felt this should be a two step proposition which would <br />be financed 1,00% by the property owners to a certain point <br />and then 75% to the next point. He asked why we could not <br />set it up to do the job this way and then accept the road. <br />Administrator Wright noted that ..the theory behind <br />petition paving is we maintain the road, and itis extremely <br />expensive; therefore, we pay 25% to take that burden off our <br />back. In this case you do not have a public road so the <br />property owners should pay 1000. <br />50 <br />FE B 8 11984 80OK ?KCI <br />