Laserfiche WebLink
OCT 9 1985 <br />V( 6 Wit •3 <br />Commissioner Bird hoped Attorney Vitunac would be ready to <br />defend the County from a property owner who comes down from up <br />north and says he has been paying taxes on a lot for 15 years and <br />wants to build on it now and expects the County to bring the road- <br />to <br />oad-to him, even though those taxes were minimal. <br />Administrator Wright understood that the Board's direction <br />is to continue with the same policy we have now, use the rating' <br />system and look at these roads on a case by case basis. <br />Chairman -Lyons asked if everyone was in agreement with that, <br />and the Commissioners indicated they were. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Scurlock being <br />absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved staff <br />recommendation not to include the two said roads in the <br />County's grading program, but continue to mow the <br />right-of-ways. <br />Attorney Vitunac believed that the County would never have <br />to go to court because if someone pushes the issue, we would use <br />the special assessment program and go in and clear the road and <br />charge 1000 of the cost to the owner or owners. <br />Commissioner Bird noted that we were heading in the <br />direction of getting all these roads taken care of with the MSTU, <br />but we got sidetracked into drainage problems. <br />COMPENSATION FOR APPRAISALS OF TEN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES FOR 12TH <br />STREET ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/30/85: <br />24 <br />� s � <br />