7/24/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

buying, we set them off and the difference is in cash, but he believed what Director Davis is asking is do we want to apply this policy to U.S.I. because he doesn't have enough cash available to pay for U.S.I. R/W. Commissioner Scurlock thought we established a policy where we decided we will pay everyone for what we take and adjust our impact fees to truly reflect this R/W acquisition. If it is something site related, then there is no credit, but when we take it for just general R/W acquisition, then we should pay for it. Director Davis confirmed that we have done that in the 20 Year Road Improvement Plan. The problem is that the U.S.I. corridor does not show a widening project in the 20 year horizon, and our impact fee ordinance is tied to the 20 Year Plan. Administrator Chandler advised that one of the things staff will bring back to the Board is a projection of the cost for R/W acquisition over the 20 year program; however, not on U.S.I. Commissioner Scurlock felt the question is whether we are going to adjust our impact fees to pay to acquire this R/W along state or federal highways, or are we going to rely on the state or the feds to acquire their own R/W. Director Davis believed possibly there could be a joint funding mechanism to acquire this cooperatively with the City and the DOT. Discussion continued regarding R/W acquisition on U.S.I., impact fees, etc., and Attorney Vitunac pointed out that Attorney Barkett's client is going to pay the $18,000 impact fee no matter whose plan U.S.I. is in, but the question is do you want to buy his 20' of land or not - do you want to buy it now or wait until the time the improvements actually are to be done? Commissioner Bird noted that he does not want to be short- sighted, but he does not want to be unreasonably far-sighted either, and he was not sure it is reasonable to continue to pick up little bits and pieces of R/W along U.S.I. JUL 2.4 1990 29 BOOK 705