Laserfiche WebLink
Charles Wilson, 1057 6th Avenue presented some comparisons of impact fee <br />expenditures over the last five years and the last twelve months to support his stance that the <br />County was quickly expending the impact fees to avoid dispensing the refunds. <br />• <br />County Administrator Joseph Baird responded that it takes time to accumulate the funds <br />for big projects, such as jail improvements, and stressed that the projects are needed for future <br />growth. <br />Director Brown explained why there were yearly variations in the impact fee dollars <br />expended for various capital projects, and affirmed that the County is using impact fees properly. <br />Assistant County Administrator Michael Zito noted that the impact fees for the South <br />County Park are not being used to correct an existing deficiency, but to address the expansion <br />and increased demand for the facility since the inception of the impact fee. <br />No Board Action Required or Taken <br />12.H. RECREATION - NONE <br />12.1. PUBLIC WORKS <br />1211 ASPHALT MILLINGS FOR LOCAL ROADS <br />Public Works Director Christopher Mora provided background and analysis on the <br />feasibility of instituting a petition paving program using asphalt millings on unpaved <br />neighborhood streets. He revealed that the County's first large-scale millings project at Blue <br />Cypress Lake Road was holding up well. He reported that the cost of a millings paving project <br />would be around $100,000 per mile, compared to approximately $850,000 per mile for a petition <br />paving project, with the cost split between the petitioners (75%) and the County (25%). He <br />noted that in a petition paving project, the residents are given five years to pay their assessment; <br />however, due to the uncertain longevity of the millings, staff recommended a two-year payback <br />14+2 PG 029 <br />February 7, 2012 18 <br />