5/18/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alternative No. 2 Accept the developer's contribution of $818 and approve a District which includes. the area on both sides of 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue. The cost per lot will be $17.23 per year for the first two years and $22.77 per year thereafter. The Indian River Heights Property Owners were not supportive of a $30 per lot per year assessment. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff is of the opinion that Alternative No. 2 is the most equitable alternative since both sides of each street will benefit from the lighting. The cost per lot is less since seventy lots will be in the benefit area. Staff recommends Alternative No. 2. The draft ordinance should be approved as written. Funding to be from the established Street Light District. Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that staff is recommending Alternative No. 2 which would be to accept the developer's contribution of $818 and approve a street lighting district which includes the area on both sides of 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue. Seventy lots are in the benefitted area, 34 in Whispering Pines and 36 in Indian River Heights. The cost per lot will be $17.23 per year for the first two years and $22.77 per year thereafter. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Tom Logatto, representing John Cagney and Janice Horton, asked what happened to the suggestion made at the last meeting to install the lights on just one side of the street. He also questioned the funds Mr. Mitchell escrowed for street lighting. Director Davis explained that staff feels it wouldn't make sense to light the street and include only one side of the street in the benefitted area. Mr. Mitchell, the developer, agreed to pay $818 for the installation of the lights, but the energy costs are the responsibility of the property owners. To his knowledge, Mr. Mitchell didn't escrow costs for the lighting, but did request that the County set up a street lighting district similar to ones in other subdivisions. Mr. Logatto recalled that at the last meeting Mr. Davis had said there was an escrow fund and that it had been returned, but had not given any plausible reason why it was returned. He also recalled that Commissioner Eggert had said that she was shocked to hear that the escrowed funds had been returned. Director Davis explained that there was an escrow for the street paving and Mr. Mitchell did contribute to the paving of 21st and 22nd Streets. 22 MAY 18 1993 Bou 89 rAGF 63