Laserfiche WebLink
e� <br />P00K 8'5 f" r ��► d <br />sut <br />DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1992 <br />TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER <br />COUNTY ADMINISTRATO <br />FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT <br />DIRECTOR OF UTILI ERVICES <br />PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST <br />AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS S PROJECTS <br />BY: DEPARTMENT OF TY SERVICES <br />SUBJECT: RESOLUTION III - FIARIDACRES/36TH AVENUE <br />WATER SERVICE PROJECT <br />INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -04 -DS <br />BACKGROUND <br />On January 28, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County <br />Commissioners approved Resolution I (92-20) and Resolution II <br />(92-21). Resolution I contained the preliminary assessment roll <br />describing the project and cost. Resolution II set the date of the <br />public hearing for the subject project. Property owners have been <br />notified of the public hearing by certified mail. Resolution 92-20 <br />was published in the Vero Beach PRESS JOURNAL on January 31, 1992. <br />(See attached agenda item and minutes of the above meeting.) <br />ANALYSIS <br />Design of the water distribution system is complete. An <br />informational meeting was held with the property owners on February <br />11, 1992. Approval of the attached Resolution III will confirm and <br />approve the preliminary assessment. The attached map displays the <br />area to benefit from the assessment project. The project will serve <br />the 14 lots bordering on 36th Avenue. The petition for this service <br />was signed by 10 property owners, 71.43% of the properties to be <br />served. The total estimated cost to be assessed is $44,206.00. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the <br />Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution III, which affirms <br />the preliminary assessment on the subject project. <br />Mr. Chastain added that certified letters were mailed to the <br />property owners benefitting from this water service project. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Pete Musick, 626 36th Avenue, was concerned about the final <br />cost of this project. He circulated the original petition and <br />since that time the estimated cost has doubled. Now he is worried <br />about the reactions of his neighbors. He suggested -that a higher <br />estimate may cause higher bids from suppliers. Mr. Musick asked if <br />the owners have the right to object if the final cost- goes too <br />- <br />high. <br />32 <br />