7/5/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Scurlock realized that it is hard to pay for the water, but believed when water is available, the property becomes more valuable and tends to develop more quickly. Question arose as to exactly how many are for or against the water. People from the audience spoke out and claimed that a majority of the people are against the water, and Director Pinto believed it was half and half until recently. The Chairman reviewed the history of petition paving which originally required 100% and one person could stop the whole project; then we went to 66-2/3% and now are down to about 50%. Director Pinto noted that the county has proceeded before, particularly with water, based on whether there is a need and not necessarily whether there is a majority. Commissioner Bird stated that he still likes the petition system, and usually it has worked. He did not like to force something down people's throats. Chairman Scurlock agreed, but felt that once we disseminate information re the proposed water, road, etc., we should validate the percentage of neighborhood interest before we incur substan- tial costs with engineering, staff time, etc. Utilities Director Pinto pointed out that determining figures for a water assessment is much different than a road assessment. You can't just pick one street out and say do just this particular street as you can with roads because most of the time in order to get to that street, you have to go to wherever the main water line is to bring in the water and you inadvertently have to deal with other people who have not petitioned for the water. He, therefore, did.not feel it is fair to compare the assessment program for roads to water. Also, construction estimates for water lines can vary considerably if you run into rock, etc. This particular petition has changed back and forth either direction several times, and it has put us in an awkward position. JUL 5 1988 40 B06K