Laserfiche WebLink
who want to improve their community and are willing to pay <br />according to their limited ability. <br />Mr. Wiggins repeated that the residents don't want the <br />County to give them something free, they just want the County to <br />make it affordable. <br />Director Davis stated that there is $50,000 set aside for <br />road materials and another amount for asphalt materials, but <br />they usually wait until the last quarter or half of the fiscal <br />year to recommend to the Board where that money is to be spent. <br />He felt that this project would probably cost about $20,000. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously <br />agreed to keep the petition paving program intact <br />as far as funding that program and the program being <br />self-sufficient; and approved the petition paving of <br />10th Court SW with the residents paying 25% and the <br />County paying 25%, with the remaining 50% of the costs <br />(approx. $10,000) coming out of the road paving fund <br />and being transferred to the petition paving account. <br />Administrator Wright understood then that the Board has <br />decreased the number of roads that would be resurfaced this <br />year, causing the paving program to fall behind. He felt <br />certain that more money would be needed before the end of the <br />fiscal year. <br />Director Davis recommended that they use an alternate base, <br />rather than go with the soft concrete, in order to keep the <br />project at $20,000. The property owners would then pay approxi- <br />mately $2.50 a front foot, with the payments spread out over 3 <br />years at the current prime interest rate plus one. The standard <br />special assessment procedure would be followed. <br />Virginia Butler, 956 SW 10th Court, was concerned that <br />survey stakes were right outside her living room window, and <br />46 <br />DEC 19 1984 BOOK FAUF268 <br />