Laserfiche WebLink
OCT 3 11985 BOOK 6 <br />-Beneficiaries <br />The second alternative for this component of the County's <br />road paving policy is to make the beneficiaries of an <br />improvement responsible for the cost of the improvement. <br />Beneficiaries could be defined as property owners having <br />frontage on the road to be improved or could be defined <br />as those property owners within close proximity to the <br />road and deriving benefit from the improvement. The <br />advantage of this alternative are: unpaved roads will be <br />improved and the cost of the improvements will be shared <br />among those benefitting from the improvements. There <br />are, however, several disadvantages. The principal <br />disadvantage is that owners of vacant parcels who have no <br />immediate development plans may be required to share in <br />the cost of paving when the most immediate benefit will <br />be derived from the developer requesting project <br />approval. <br />-County <br />A third alternative would be to assign road paving <br />responsibility to the County. With this alternative, it <br />would be the County's obligation to improve unpaved roads <br />when such improvement is required to serve a proposed <br />development project. While this alternative would meet <br />the objective of improving unpaved roads, it would <br />require the County to absorb the paving cost, not promote <br />fairness and equity, and not relate the payment of the <br />improvement's cost to new development nor the <br />beneficiaries. <br />-Combination <br />The fourth and final alternative is a combination of the <br />first three. Basically, this would involve a shared cost <br />by all groups having an interest in the improvement. <br />Implemented through an assessment, forced petition, or <br />special district program, this alternative retains many <br />of the advantages and disadvantages applicable to the <br />other.three alternatives. While achieving the objective <br />of improving unpaved roads and establishing a fair and <br />equitable method of accomplishing that, this alternative <br />increases costs to the County, establishes requirements <br />for the County; assesses land owners not ready to <br />develop, and specifically benefits the developer <br />requesting project approval. <br />° Financing/Timing <br />The third component of the County's road paving policy is <br />financing/timing. This involves the establishment of a method <br />to pay for road paving as well as a determination of the <br />timeframe within which the paving must occur. Closely related <br />to both the required paving component and the responsibility <br />component of the County's road paving policy, the financ- <br />ing/timing component is dependent upon the alternatives <br />selected from those components. As with both of the other <br />components, there are a number of financing/ timing alterna- <br />tives. These range from developer financing to complete <br />County funding, as well as a number alternatives between two <br />extremes. <br />32 <br />