10/10/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

acquire all the R/W needed for that area for the future, and then do a special assessment by zone to all the benefitting property based on a formula that equitably assigns the value back to that property. Director Davis commented that Commissioner Scurlock took the words right out of his mouth! Attorney Vitunac noted that this was talked about a year ago with the DOT, and we determined that first 60' would not be bought. That is the problem with Mr. Jackson's property. We wanted to set up an MSTU for the R/W over the minimum 60'. Mr. Jackson's 60' minimum happens to be on a collector road, and he thinks that should make it different from any other 60'. Commissioner Scurlock believed his issue is why does the 60' all have to be taken from him and not the owner across the canal. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that even if he was the only house there, he would have to give 60'. The first development anywhere in the "jungle" has to give 60' minimum, and Mr. Jackson is not being treated differently than anyone in any other part of the county. . Commissioner Bird wished to know if, for instance, a house was on a half acre lot rather than 10 acres, is that owner required to give up 30' off his half acre, and then someone who wants to subdivide all the remaining acreage only has to give up 30', and this was confirmed. Commissioner Scurlock contended that is why a special assessment district makes sense. He noted the bottom line is that we don't have sufficient dollars to fund the acquisition of R/W, and we play all these tricks to acquire it. He continued to stress the need for a fair share assessment method if we can do it. Possibly it is too complicated. Public Works Director Davis believed the district concept described earlier, superimposing another layer on the impact fee districting program and levying an assessment in each zone, would be very equitable. He felt further down the road the Sales Tax 18 OCT 10 1989 BOOK