Laserfiche WebLink
JUL <br />2 8 <br />1987 <br />Discussion ensued <br />re the possible need for a change <br />in <br />the <br />ordinance, and Chairman Scurlock emphasized the need to get more <br />information relative to economic impact when we pass an <br />ordinance. He felt staff should look into this. <br />REQUEST BY VISA BUILDERS RE PAVING UNDER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ORD. <br />The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis: <br />TO: The Honorable Manbers of the DATE: July 15, 1987 FILE: <br />Board of County Commissioners <br />THROUGH: <br />Charles P. Balczun, <br />County Administrator <br />FROM: <br />James W. Davis, P. . <br />Public Works Directc <br />Request by Visa Builders, <br />SUBJECT: Developer, to Contract with a <br />Paving Contractor for Paving <br />and Drainage Improvements to <br />21st Ave - 2nd St to 4th St <br />22nd Ave - 2nd St to 4th St <br />2nd St - 21st Ave to 22nd Ave <br />and Apply Special Assessment <br />REFERENCM�ing <br />Ronald E. Mitchell, Visa <br />dated 7/1/87 <br />Mr. Ron Mitchell, President. of Visa Builders, has purchased a 10 acre <br />parcel of land bounded on three sides by county maintained, unpaved roads <br />(see attached map).-- The developer has submitted a petition requesting the <br />County to pave the three roads and assess him in accordance with the <br />Special Assessment Ordinance. The funding would be as follows: <br />Visa Builders 371 % of cost <br />Other Benefited Owners along subject Streets 371 % of cost <br />(platted & developed) <br />Indian River County 25 % of cost <br />Total 100% <br />The petition is on file in the Public Works Department and staff is of the <br />opinion that due to currently approved projects, the paving by County crews <br />could not be scheduled until mid or late 1988. Mr. Mitchell does not wish <br />to wait that long, so he is requesting that his consultant design the <br />paving and drainage project, a contractor would construct the improvements, <br />and that the County pay 621% of the cost to the Contractor and assess 370 <br />of the cost to the other benefitted owners. <br />ALTERNATIVES AMID ANALYSIS <br />The project will mutually benefit the developer and County residents. <br />Staff has no objection to a cooperative agreement, however, the following <br />program is proposed: <br />Phase I - The Developer would fund the engineering and survey cost in <br />designing the project. The work would be performed by the <br />developer's engineer with review approval by the County. The <br />cost would not be reimbursed. Once the plans are approved, the <br />County would bid the project and identify the construction cost. <br />28 <br />