3/6/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Administrator Wright continued to stress that he did not want to change the formula which was developed only after a lot of work, and Commissioner Scurlock again pointed out that he was not advising that we change the formula but just give some consideration to the uniqueness of this particular road and the possibility that it may have been misclassified. Kathy Rovella, 5090 16th St., informed the Board that she lives on the portion of 16th Street that is already paved, and she does not want to pay for the unpaved portion. Her question is why the petition letters were arbitrarily stopped at her house and none sent to those on the east who would benefit from the road as much as she does. Director Davis stated that the benefited area was the east line of Silver Oaks Estates and the east line of Mr. Perkins' property, and others did not receive a letter because there was no assessment. Mrs. Rovella emphasized that the paving does run the entire length of her property, and she is being assessed, although she personally does not benefit. Director Davis pointed out that Mrs. Rovella owns two lots in Silver Oaks Estates, which subdivision does have frontage on the unpaved road, and we are adjusting the assessment there to reflect only the unpaved 100' frontage. He did believe these people will use the road to go west to the new shopping center. Mrs. Rovella felt the people living an acre away from her will benefit as much as -she does and even with the adjustment still felt it should be shared more equally. Mr. Dritenbas made the point that this being the first such application for this type of road, it will set a precedent, and if the residents are forced to pay under Ordinance 81-27, he wished to know if the so-called specific beneficiaries will have to share in future improvements to this same stretch of road - possibly widening and three laning, bicycle paths, bridge re- placement, street lighting, etc., on a so-called dead end street. 55 MAR 6 1985 BOOK bu p3a 96