10/31/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M property owners on unpaved roads benefit when the road is paved, in many cases few of the owners share in the cost of the paving. When a development project is required to pave a roadway as a condition of approval, owners of both vacant and developed parcels benefitting from the paving have no incen- tive to participate in its cost. Those owners know that the developer of the project requesting approval must pave the road or not be allowed to develop; therefore, owners of other properties seldom share the road paving cost. Although a developer whose project is located on an unpaved local road may participate in the County's petition paving program whereby the County pays 25% and the property owners on each side of the road pay 37J% of the cost of paving, the requirement to submit a valid petition endorsed by at least 66 2/3% of the property owners on the roadway to be paved can seldom be attained. Another alternative which has seldom been used by developers is to request that the County do a forced petition paving of the roadway. By that method, the cost of paving could be distributed fairly. However, the County would be in a position of forcing a number of property owners, including those having vacant parcels and no immediate devel- opment plans, to pay a portion of road paving costs that in the short term will primarily benefit one developer. Because of the costs and administrative difficulties, a reimbursement program, whereby developers pay the up -front costs of paving and are reimbursed through payments from future developments along the subject roadway, has not been acceptable to the County. For these reasons, the fair- ness/equity issue related to road paving remains prominent. .Since developers have financing options which may provide more equity, the question of the County's responsibility in promot- ing fairness arises. Should the County ensure that property owners benefitting from a paving project pay their fair share, _ or should the requirement for paving a portion of a roadway where others will benefit be considered part of the cost of developing or at least part of the cost of developing in areas where infrastructure improvements do not already exist? ° Specific Issue Summary The County, through various programs and policies pursued'in the past, has addressed each of these specific issues to some degree. By establishing its petition paving program and sharing in the cost of paving local roads, the County has indicated that it believes that -the paving of roads in devel- oping or developed areas of the County is necessary, or at least desirable. Since that program has been targeted primar- ily towards residential areas, it would seem that the County's position would be that the paving of unpaved roads serving non-residential or high density residential uses would be imperative. By preparing an impact fee ordinance, the County has addressed the issue of fairness/equity in roadway improvements on arterial and collector roadways. With the adoption of an impact fee system, the County will be taking the position that roadway improvements should be distributed among those new projects which are creating the impact and necessitating the improvement. The impact fee system also establishes respon- sibility for improvements. While improvements will be the responsibility of the County as determined by its capital improvements plan,- improvements to the collector/arterial system required to serve new development but not consistent with the timing identified in the capital improvements plan become the responsibility of the developer. 29 BOOK 62 FAPF 615