Laserfiche WebLink
M ® M <br />-Voluntary Petition <br />This method of financing is one of the fairest when it <br />can be used. Under the County's voluntary petition <br />paving program, a valid petition endorsed by owners of <br />property representing at least 66 2/3% of the lots or the <br />front footage along the roadway to be paved must be <br />submitted to the County. Upon validation of the <br />petition, the road will be paved by the County, and the <br />cost will be equally shared by the County (25% of the <br />cost) and the property owners on each side of the road <br />(37.5% of the cost paid by the property owners on each <br />side of the road). The advantage of this alternative is <br />that at least 2/3 of the beneficiaries must approve of <br />the paving, and then all beneficiaries are assessed their <br />proportional share of the cost. In addition, the County <br />participates in the cost of the paving by absorbing 25% <br />of the cost. The major disadvantage of this alternative <br />is the difficulty of obtaining a valid petition. Since <br />this alternative is most often used when the developer <br />has paving responsibility, it is usually the developer <br />who faces that difficulty. One other problem with the <br />voluntary petition alternative is the delay involved with <br />actually getting the paving accomplished.. <br />-Forced Petition <br />Similiar to the voluntary petition, the forced petition <br />road paving financing alternative divides the cost of <br />road paving among the County and the property owners on <br />each side of the road segment to be paved. Unlike the <br />voluntary petition, however, this alternative does not <br />require endorsement of the assessment by the property <br />owners along the to -be -improved roadway. With a forced <br />petition, the County paves the road and then assesses <br />property owners benefitting from the paving; this <br />assessment may or may not include County participation in <br />the cost. While this alternative would be associated <br />with the developer being responsible for securing paving <br />prior to project CO, County Commission action is <br />necessary to force a petition. Advantages of this <br />alternative include improving unpaved roads and equitably <br />distributing the paving costs among the beneficiaries. <br />Disadvantages are that the improvement may be made and <br />costs assessed to property owners not in agreement with <br />the project; the immediate beneficiary will be one <br />developer; and there may be a substantial increase in the <br />number of forced paving requests. <br />-County Funded <br />Another alternative method of financing road paving <br />projects is funding by the County. With this method, the <br />County would improve any unpaved road with County funds <br />when paving is necessitated by a proposed development <br />project. The major disadvantages of this alternative <br />are: inadequate funding available to the County to meet <br />road paving needs; inconsistency with the County's policy <br />of requiring new growth and development to pay the cost <br />of necessary improvements necessitated by increased <br />demands; and a lack of fairness and equity in terms of <br />those benefitting from and those paying for the <br />improvements. The advantages are that unpaved roads will <br />be paved and one entity will have all paving <br />responsibility. <br />35 <br />CT 3 11985 621 <br />