7/28/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" 9 JUL 21� BOOK The total estimated cost of the project is $173,530.97. Seventy- five percent (75%) of this cost ($130,148.23) will be paid by the property owners. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that motions be made to: 1) Adopt the resolution providing for the paving and drainage improvements for the project subject to the terms outlined in the resolution. The applicable interest rate shall be established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time the final assessment roll is approved. 2) Allocate $173,530.97 from the Petition Paving Account #173- 214-541-035.39. 3) Adopt a resolution setting the time and place of the Public Hearing. County Engineer Roger Cain handed out a map of this particular area showing that 56th Avenue is the eastern perimeter road around both subdivisions. A site plan was submitted -about a year and a half ago and it was determined that for this particular site it would not be good to mix commercial traffic with residential traffic. He noted that there have been some negotiations that occurred last Friday regarding some property on 56th and he believed that what was decided on this particular piece of property is to delete it from the assessment because it does not receive the benefit of the improvements. Public Works Director Jim Davis reported that we received a letter from Robin Lloyd, attorney representing Neil Stevens, Plant Foods, Inc., Parcel #28-32-3900001005000003.0 regarding the assessment. The County Attorney's Office and Public Works Dept. agree that the paving would not benefit Mr. Stevens' property because the property would not access the road. Mr. Stevens did donate 25 additional feet of right-of-way along 56th Avenue. The value of the property and the assessment is just about equal. If Mr. Steven's property is excluded from the assessment, it would increase the assessment to 17 cents per square foot from 15 cents per square foot. The County would pay the extra $12,561.38 for the reason that the property wouldn't benefit from the paving. Commissioner Scurlock expressed his concerns about having a policy on this, and Director Davis explained that our policy states that if the assessment does not benefit the property, the property is not included in the assessment. Director Keating explained that we have agreed to readdress the provision in the ordinance in relation to this type of situation. Director Davis reiterated that it is staff's recommendation that we get the $12,500 from either the District Fund or the gas tax revenue fund or some other gas tax fund to make up this $12,500 in this assessment project and go ahead with the assessment as it is proposed which is to assess the property owners as shown in the 79