9/12/1995 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mr# 96 PAGE 4 Ms. Laurie, speaking again, on behalf of those who live on the road, appealed for more time to pay the assessment. There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman Macht closed the hearing. Chairman Macht asked County Attorney Vitunac to clarify the Board's latitude. County Attorney Vitunac advised that if the Board wants to go ahead with the road program as presented, it would make a finding that it finds that the properties do receive a special benefit equal to or in excess of the cost to them; it could also make findings as to any wetlands or other properties, based on evidence presented tonight, reduce them or take them off the roll. It can - take other actions including not going ahead with the project, or some other alternative. Whatever the finding, if the Board does assess something, there will be a lien on the property as of tonight. The Board has the power to make spending plans as set out in the resolution or it can offer something new tonight. He suggested they make their resolution conditional on the City of Fellsmere assessing the amounts set forth. If the City does something else, the Board would have to revisit the issue. City Attorney Warren Dill agreed with what County Attorney Vitunac said about the duties and responsibilities of the respective boards. He explained that the Council's role was to listen to the public input, and decide whether the requirements of Chapter 170 had been met, which included a requirement that plans and specifications be on file with the City Clerk at the City Hall at the time of adoption of Resolution 95-X, on August 25, 1995, not today or tonight. He pointed out that while two governing bodies were sitting for their own separate hearings at a joint meeting, they were clearly operating under two different sets of rules. While he could not say whether Mr. Barkett would sue the City of Fellsmere on behalf of Mr. Kahn, if they did and were successful, the City would have to redo the process correcting any and all defects. He recounted that when Resolution 95-X was adopted, the Council had found that there was a direct and special benefit for the improvements. He explained that if the Council decided there was a need to adjust someone's assessment, they were obliged to do it tonight, but if they felt the assessments were fair and reasonable, then Resolution 95 -AA should be adopted. Attorney Dill identified the only potential difficulty was whether the plans were on file on August 25, 1995, and it would be up to Mr. Barkett to prove they were not. 16 - September 12, 1995