Laserfiche WebLink
MOF96 F'AGF <br />47 <br />referred to some of the points made by Mr. Barkett and disagreed <br />with Attorney Vitunac's advice that decisions can be split. He <br />advised that cases presented to the County Attorney are on point. <br />Mr. Helfman stated he went to the City Clerk's office today and the <br />plans were not there. <br />Wendy Austin, who lives outside of the assessed area, felt <br />that the assessed area is flawed in two ways. She felt that Berry <br />Groves should be assessed higher because of the greater benefit. <br />She felt that parts of Fellsmere should be included in the <br />assessment. She asked if other areas in Indian River County had <br />been assessed as high as this. <br />Director Davis responded affirmatively and commented some were <br />more. <br />County Attorney Vitunac wished to respond to comments of the <br />lawyers. With regard to the question of Mr. Kahn's being assessed <br />for his own right-of-way, it had been decided that since the County <br />is contributing 25% of the project, which is more than $150,000, <br />that would solve the problem of the constitutional question. As to <br />the special benefit, the County addresses that issue in the first <br />resolution for this project. He reiterated that this group is <br />acting as an equalization board to adjust assessments based on <br />fairness and reasonableness. He explained that the Board has the <br />power to make an adjustment, but there has not been any testimony <br />thus far which would lead them to do so. He asked Mr. Davis <br />whether the property owners would derive special benefit from the <br />paving. <br />Director Davis confirmed that it was his opinion that the <br />assessed property owners will receive a benefit due to the <br />accessibility of the roadway. <br />County Attorney Vitunac asked if the benefit would be more <br />than the cost to the assessed property owners. <br />Director Davis advised that in his opinion the benefit will be <br />more than the cost per acre. <br />In closing, County Attorney Vitunac cited the test, upheld a <br />month ago by the Supreme Court of Florida, which requires that the <br />property has to receive a special benefit and that the benefit has <br />to be fairly apportioned. The Supreme Court had said that it was <br />up to the legislative bodies to decide that and that they would not <br />second guess the Board. <br />Responding to Chairman Macht, County Attorney Vitunac <br />clarified that it would be impossible for any county to do 22,000 <br />acres of assessments because the cost of that process would be <br />greater than the cost of the road. There was a certain implied <br />14- <br />September <br />4 <br />September 12, 1995 <br />a _ � <br />