9/5/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP 5 1991 _I BOOK 4 Chairman Bird asked if anyone present wished to be heard in regard to any of the Street Lighting Districts. Commissioner Eggert asked if all the needed adjustments had been made to the Gifford Street Lighting District, and Director Baird advised that the Property Appraiser's Office gave us the needed information and we are hoping to finalize that by the next public hearing. Fred Mensing of Roseland was opposed to the Roseland Street Lighting District. He lives in the extreme southern end of the District where 8 property owners have 5 -acre tracts of land. Five of these tracts have single-family homes on them and the rest are vacant. He felt there is no benefit from the street lighting to people who have vacant, totally undeveloped land. He pays $30 a year for his five acre tract, but he has his home there. He still didn't feel that he should pay'$30 a year for something for which a person up the road pays only $6 a year. Director Baird explained that vacant land in all the street lighting district is charged a per parcel/acre charge because we feel it improves the development and increases the value of the property. Mr. Mensing strongly urged that this inequity be corrected because he didn't feel you could justify charging people for vacant land. Perhaps you could justify the charge for people who have agricultural land that can be rezoned to a higher density, but he believed the change should be made to comply with State Statutes. Commissioner Scurlock noted that this is the second question tonight on agricultural land, and suggested that staff look into that and give a position at the final budget hearing next Wednesday. Director Baird advised that in this particular situation all the lights are on Roseland Road and a lot of the people have been complaining that they do not receive any benefit because they do 32