My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/18/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
1/18/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:23 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 1:41:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/18/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Bird explained that the project cost begins at <br />the road and the assessment area begins at the property line. <br />Commissioner Eggert noted that Mr. Kirrie is going to pay for <br />the 26 additional feet with fresh dollars at the new cost. <br />Mr. Kirrie emphasized that if he had invested the $4,275 <br />rather than having it in escrow all this time, he certainly could <br />have paid for the project twice. Mr. Kirrie believed that a check <br />of the assessment calculations would reveal a minor discrepancy. <br />Commissioner Bird understood that we are making up the <br />difference from what Mr. Kirrie's money would have bought in 1988 <br />and what his money will buy today. Other than that, we are <br />treating this project exactly the same as we do any other paving <br />project, which is the cost of the project divided by the area of <br />ownership of land fronting the project with the owner paying 75 <br />percent and the County paying 25 percent. <br />Mr. Kirrie next requested that the money he has in escrow for <br />the construction of a sidewalk in front of his property on 128th <br />Court be applied to the cost for paving the extension to his second <br />driveway. He asked to be assessed for a sidewalk at the time it is <br />constructed, if ever. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that it would be legal to do that. <br />He felt it would be a good idea to review the County's escrow <br />policy now that we have a very good assessment program in place.' <br />He stressed that there is no need for an escrow as long as there is <br />a piece of property that we can assess. <br />Mr. Kirrie reiterated his frustration about having to escrow <br />such a large amount of money for over 6 years, emphasizing that the <br />escrow was a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. <br />Commissioner Bird suggested that the Board authorize Mr. <br />Kirrie's sidewalk escrow to be applied to the costs of extending <br />the pavement to the second driveway. <br />There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman <br />closed the Public Hearing. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to <br />review the County's escrow policy; approved the <br />application of Mr. Kirrie's paving escrow to the <br />$4,275; approved the application of Mr. Kirrie's <br />sidewalk escrow to the $868 cost of extending the <br />paving to his second driveway; and adopted <br />Resolution 94-16, confirming the assessment roll for <br />certain paving and drainage improvements to 128th <br />Court, 236 L.F. North of 79th Avenue (Elaine <br />Street). <br />11 <br />Box 91 Ft1 c 549 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.