Laserfiche WebLink
r�_ <br />OCT 31 1985 BOOK 62 PAU620 <br />-Developer Financed; Installation Prior to CO <br />This alternative is related to the developer alternative <br />of the responsibility component. The developer financing - <br />alternative would require the developer to pay the cost <br />of road paving and have the paving in place prior to <br />obtaining a CO for his project. With this alternative, <br />the major disadvantage relates to fairness/equity. since <br />the developer may pave roads where other property owners <br />will derive benefits but not incur costs, this <br />alternative does not ensure that costs are distributed <br />fairly. Also, the cost may be prohibitive, making many <br />projects infeasible. There are, however, several <br />advantages to this alternative. Roads impacted by <br />development will be paved; administration by the County <br />is simple; and developer has the incentive to work with <br />other property owners to accomplish the paving. <br />-Developer Financed; Installation Prior to CO; <br />Reimbursement <br />As with the first alternative, this alternative requires <br />the developer to install paving at his expense prior to <br />obtaining a CO. The difference is that the developer will <br />be reimbursed for those costs which exceed his portion of <br />the overall paving cost as other properties develop and <br />are required to contribute to the paving as a site plan <br />condition. This alternative ensures that roadways will <br />be improved in conjunction with demand, and it requires <br />the developer to pay a premium for developing prior to <br />installation of the infrastructure by fronting the cost <br />of the infrastructure improvement. However, this <br />alternative also ensures fairness by requiring a <br />contribution for paving from future developers on the <br />roadway being improved and reimbursement of the original <br />developer from those funds. The primary disadvantage of <br />this alternative is the difficulty and the cost of <br />administration which would be incurred by the County. <br />-Developer Escrow Funds; Paving Installed in Future <br />This alternative involves payment by the developer of his <br />proportionate share of the paving costs of the applicable <br />roadway. The road, however, would not be paved until a <br />sufficient amount of money_had been escrowed or the <br />paving was accomplished in some other manner. The <br />principal disadvantage of this alternative -is that the <br />paving is not installed when the project is CO ed and <br />creating demand; no specific timeframe is established for <br />the paving to be accomplished. In terms of <br />disadvantages, it is comparable to no paving. There are <br />advantages to this alternative, particularly when this <br />alternative is applied to small projects having minor <br />traffic impacts when the project is located on an unpaved <br />road a substantial distance from a paved road. In those <br />cases, escrow of paving funds would be appropriate and <br />acceptable. In all instances, this alternative would <br />meet the fairness/equity objective by requiring all <br />beneficiaries to share in the cost of the improvement. <br />34 <br />- M <br />