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