9/12/1995 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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