Loading...
1985-25898-Minutes for Meeting October 09,1985 Recorded 11/6/1985VOL G PAGE 727 85-25898 i; 5 NOY -6 P11 124 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MIARY SUE_: PENHOLLOW OCTOBER 9, 1985 REGULAR MEETING COUNTY CLERK Chairman Tuttle called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Maudlin was present; Commissioner Prante was absent. Legal Counsel, Rick Isham was also in attendance. Amendments to Chairman Tuttle read aloud the amendments the Agenda to the agenda. Possible Signa- Chairman Tuttle opened the Hearing for con- ture of Order No. sideration of Order No. 85-121, certifying 85-121, Certify- assessments for 16th Street LID. ing Assessments for 16th Street Dave Hoerning, Acting Public Works Director, read aloud the amended Engineer's Report for 16th Street LID. Mr. Hoerning stated that the original contract price was $30,990; with various adjustments the final contract price was $28,870. Mr. Hoerning stated that 150 was then added for engineering and admin- istration costs for Bancroft Bonding, bringing the total cost of the LID to $33,201. Mr. Hoerning added that the cost will be assessed against the 17 lots included in the LID at a rate $1,953 per lot. Mr. Hoerning stated that the notice sent to the people was for $2,096.35. This represents a reduction of $143.35 per lot. Gilbert D. Crawford, 9084 16th Street, asked if liens had been put against their property? Mr. Isham stated that Notice of Lien has been put against all properties in the district. He added that they would be finalized as a result of this Order. Dawn Gruetzemacher, 351 H Avenue, reiterated the problem of liens against their property. Chairman Tuttle added for clarification, that there are two options: 1) the assessment can be paid in full within the 30 days of date of notice and therefore would not be a lien; 2) otherwise the assessment will be spread out over a ten year semi-annual payment. -1- Erol 0 ���f; Keith Ferguson, 9031 16th Street, asked why the tax lot was used as a basis for the assessment? Mr. Hoerning responded by stating that in previous meetings to set the districts up, the concensus has been that would be done by tax lot and then everyone would share in the assessment. Mr. Hoerning cited an example - that a person who has 100 foot frontage on the main road and would have to pay the same amount of someone on a cul de sac that has a 30 foot frontage, but still uses the same road. Mr. Ferguson referred to his mother-in-law's property and stated that is two tax lots on the same road and she is getting charged twice. Mr. Ferguson stated that there is no access to her property whatsoever. He added that it accesses the whole length of the Central Oregon Ditch. Chairman Tuttle asked if there was access from any of the improved streets or houses on those lots. Mr. Ferguson stated there cannot be - County and COI Building Permits will not be issued. Mr. Hoerning noted that there were no remonstrances received. Commissioner Maudlin requested further information from Mr. Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson stated that the pavement runs about 70 to 80 feet from the canal. He stated that the County has a 20 foot setback and the ditch company has a 20 foot setback. The lots extend beyond canal. Mr. Ferguson stated that there is access off of F Street; however this road is doing her absolutely no good. Mr. Hoerning stated that he can be sure a culvert can be put in the ditch for a driveway. Chairman Tuttle stated that there are questions to be resolved; therefore the Board can reconvene at 1:30 p.m. to review the concerns. -2- Frank Wilson, 379 G Avenue, stated that he moved into the property he is purchasing approximately two years ago, and none of the road is touching his property and is wonder- ing why he is being assessed. Chairman Tuttle asked if the road abutts his property. Mr. Wilson noted that yes it does, but he doesn't understand why he has to pay. Mr. Hoerning stated that they assessed those who used the road and those who would have access from it. Mr. Hoerning added that they divided the 17 lots equally. He stated that Mr. Wilson can obtain an access permit to his property from the paved road. Mr. Hoerning stated that the assessment is now reduced to $1953.00, and the statements will be forthcoming, giving each person 30 days at no interest to pay in full or to sign the Bancroft Bond with payments starting in six months. Mrs. Gruetzemacher, stated that they are in the process of building a home and to obtain the loan they have to pay this assessment; otherwise, the loan will not go through. Mrs. Gruetzemacher asked if there was any way to arrange to pay it over the ten year period? Mr. Hoerning suggested that their lending company call him so he can explain how the payments are going to be set up. Chairman Tuttle requested further comments on the 16th Street LID. Hearing none, he closed the meeting. Chairman Tuttle noted that the Board would delay any action until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon. Possible Signature Chairman Tuttle opened the Hearing for of Order No. 85- consideration of Order No. 85-120, certifying 120, Certifying assessments for Special Road District No. 4, Assessments for LID. Special Road Dis- trict No. 4 LID Mr. Hoerning stated that he had directed a memorandum to the Board on October 7, 1985, amending the Engineer's Report. Mr. Hoerning indicated that he met with the Board members -3- VOL FAGE 7120 of Special Road District No. 4 as well as a few people who lived in the district and they expressed a desire to apply the cash balance of their monies held by the Trea- surer's Department to reduce the cost of the LID before final costs were spread. After discussion, in a Public Meeting, Helen Rastovich, County Treasurer, suggested that credit would be issued for the unpaid taxes due the road district. Mr. Hoerning stated that the cash on hand balance, as of October 7, 1985, is $22,564.84,and that the uncol- lected taxes are $4,829.33 for a grand total of $27,394.17. Mr. Hoerning added that this amount will be added to the five days of liquidated damages of $1125.00 to make a final total of $28,519.17. Mr. Hoerning added that they will also adjust the 15% charges to reflect the liquidated damages reduction. Mr. Hoerning stated that the total project cost is $912,774.53. The final cost per assessed lot is $2,716.59. Mr. Hoerning requested that the Engineer's Report and cost adjustment be approved. Mr. Hoerning noted that five letters have been returned and there were three written remonstrances received. Roger Ellingston, Attorney for John Roelke, read the attached letter into the record. Mr. Ellingston stated that regardless of whether the hearing is left open or not, they would like to see a copy of the criteria used to select the excluded lots. Chairman Tuttle asked Mr. Ellingston if Mr. Roelke remon- strated at the time of the original formation of the district. Mr. Ellingston added that he did not know. Jesse Mills, 201016 SE Stark, Gresham, noted that he has lot 100, 200, and 300 in Lazy River South. Mr. Mills stated that he paid $3300 for lot 300, $1300 for lot 200, and $1100 for lot 100. Mr. Mills noted that John Roelke sold him all three lots for $5700. Mr. Mills noted that they did not put a driveway in lot 100 or 200. John Roelke informed him that there was no feasibility on Lot 100 and 200 when he bought the property. Mr. Mills stated that he wanted Lot 300; -4- e o; therefore he had to buy all three lots to get the one he wanted. Mr. Mills stated that lot 300 has the only entrance. Mr. Mills is concerned because he is being assessed for all three lots and cannot build on two of those lots. John Plamondon, 53720 Bridge Drive, is appealing the assessments on both lots 9 and 10, based upon information he received from the County on the flood plain. He stated that both lots fall in the flood plain management zone and consequently are not feasible for septic approval. Also, he purchased lots 9, 10, and 11 from Mr. Roelke in a package price. Mr. Roelke informed him that lots 9 and 10 were not septic approvable and since he wanted to purchase lot 11, he gave him a package price for all three lots. Mr. Plamondon stated that all of the area in Lazy River South is in the flood plain management zone. Mr. Plamondon request- ed the County remove lots 9 and 10 from the assessment. Dale Kerlin, spoke on behalf of his brother Hank Kerlin, stating that he has an objection to the assessment on tax lot 2100 in Lazy River South. Mr. Kerlin stated that the original assessment by the County was based on the Assessor's Office assessment of the lot. Mr. Kerlin stated that Cecil, in the Assessor's Office said he made an error in the assessment on this lot - it was assessed at $3200. Mr. Kerlin stated that Cecil changed the assessment based on what he saw and reduced it to recreational value at $2,000. The corrected assessment is below the road assessment of $2716. Mr. Kerlin noted that all other lots in the Special LID #4 that were valued below $2800 were not assessed and were exempt. Mr. Kerlin stated that he is asking, on behalf of his brother, to exempt tax lot 2100 in the same fashion, stating that an honest mistake was made on the part of the Asses- sor's office and that mistake has been corrected. Chairman Tuttle asked if an original remon- strance was received on this property. Mr. Kerlin stated that yes he had. -5- VOL G PAGE r t�, John Peetsch, 52764 Bridge Drive, addressed the subject of Jay Mobley's lots. He stated that Mr. Mobley lives down the street from him and his lots are better. Mr. Peetsch noted that Mr. Mobley is not assessed. Mr. Peetsch requested reassessment on his property - block 6, lot 1600. Noble West, 52815 Timberline Loop, requested the Oregon statute that designates an unbuildable lot. Mr. West stated that the engineer says they are unbuildable because they are not septic tank approved. Mr. West noted that in modern technology there are septic tanks and sewage pumping systems that can be installed in most unbuildable lots. Mr. West expressed a concern at the assess- ment being rated at 12% interest because of recent publication of another road district being rated at 9% interest. It was Mr. West's feeling that the approval of the assessment, based on 80% of the people that lived in the district recommending the LID, is not according to law. Mr. West stated that he did not believe the vote was proper in that the people were not made to understand if they did not answer that it was considered a no vote. Mr. West requested that the letters of remonstrances are recorded where they can be visualized. Jerry Kramer, 53994 Pinegrove Road, stated that he purchased his property in July. The property has always been a single property; however, there are two tax lots. Mr. Kramer stated that the house is built on the line between the two lots - the stables are on one side and the pastures run across the other. Mr. Kramer noted that the property is 3/4 under water until July, and requested the Board to consider reassessing his property. Mr. Kramer added that since he did not purchase the property until July, he was unable to remonstrate earlier. Ruth Corder, 58267 Bridge Drive, submitted a petition with 87 signatures, to establish a speed limit in the Special Road District #4 area. Mrs. Corder requested the Board's consideration of the petition. -6- VEL FAcF 7231 Mr. Hoerning requested a show of hands to see how many people were pleased with the road. Note for the record that approximately 50 people raised their hands. Chairman Tuttle requested further comments regarding certifying assessments for Special Road District No. 4, LID. Hearing none, he closed the hearing. Chairman Tuttle stated that the Board will reconvene today at 1:30 p.m. to consider the testimony received at today's meeting. The Board recessed for ten minutes. Possible Approval Mr. Hoerning stated that the Public Works of Award of Bid Department prepared plans and specifications for the Boyd Acres for the overlaying of existing pavement with Road Overlay Pro- asphalt and concrete. Mr. Hoerning stated ject the project was advertised in The Daily Journal of Commerce and The Bend Bulletin on September 18, and 25, 1985. Three firms submitted bids to the Public Works Depart- ment. The following bids were opened on October 1, 1985: R.L. Coats $31,650.00 Bend Aggregate 33,290.00 Central Oregon Pavers 35,073.00 Mr. Hoerning noted that the Engineer's Estimate was $32,000.00. Mr. Hoerning stated that the Public Works Department recommended the contract be awarded to the low bidder, R.L. Coats in the amount of $31,650.00. MOTION: MAUDLIN moved to award the bid to R.L. Coats in the amount of $31,650.00. TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Consideration of Postponed. Contract Modifi- cation of Mentai Health Division for New Child . and Adolescent Monies Possible Signature MOTION: MAUDLIN moved to appoint Linda of Letter of Ap- M. Gross to the Deschutes County -7- pointment for Linda M. Gross Deschutes County VOTE: Planning Commission Planning Commission. TUTTLE: Second. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Vf L i7 FA�F 724 Possible Signature MOTION: MAUDLIN moved to appoint Lee of Letter of Ap- Clinton as Labor Representative pointment of Lee on the Central Oregon Business Clinton as Labor Advisory Council. Representative on TUTTLE: Second. COBAC VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Possible Signature MOTION: MAUDLIN moved to sign the applica- of Application for tion for Business License for Ace Business License for Auto Center, Inc. Ace Auto Center, Inc. TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Possible Signature of Agreement with Burlington Northern Railroad for a Crossguard Signal Possible Signature of Intergovern- mental Cooperative Agreement Between Deschutes County an Family Services Di- vision for Child Support Enforcement Postponed. MOTION: MAUDLIN moved to Chair to sign the Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement between Deschutes County and Family Services Division for d Child Support Enforcement. TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Possible Signature MOTION: MAUDLIN moved to sign Order No. 85 - of Order No. 85- 119, Refund of Taxes. 119, Refund of Taxes TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. The meeting was continued until 1:30 p.m. Chairman Tuttle called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Commissioner Maudlin was in attendance; Commissioner Prante was absent; Legal Counsel, Rick Isham, was also in attendance. Chairman Tuttle noted the purpose of this meeting is to have Board discussion related to Order No. 85-120 and Order No. 85- 121. Possible Signature Commissioner Maudlin stated that the of Order No. 85- only question on 16th Street LID, is re - 121, Certifying garding Grace Greg's property, wherein Assessments for there is a canal splitting the lots in 16th Street LID half. ME V0� rt,J FAUN 9135 Chairman Tuttle asked if Grace Greg remon- strated at an earlier meeting. Mr. Hoerning stated that Grace Greg had remonstrated earlier. After reviewing the map, the Board determined that 16th Street LID did indeed benefit Grace Greg's property. MOTION: MAUDLIN moved to sign Order No. 85-121, Certifying Assessments for 16th Street LID. TUTTLE: Second. Chairman Tuttle noted that there were three remonstrances to the 16th Street LID. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Possible Signature The Board reviewed the previous remon- of Order No. 85- strances. Chairman Tuttle noted that there 120, Certifying were 11 remonstrances to the assessment. Assessments for Chairman Tuttle stated that there were Special Road Dis- two issues discussed at this morning's trict No. 4 LID meeting that needed to be addressed. The case of Mr. Plamondon and Mr. Mills, who purchased three lots and only one was buildable; and the issue of buildability. Chairman Tuttle noted that at the first hearing, a number of people testified that their lots were not buildable and their assessed value reflected that fact. Chairman Tuttle stated that it was his recollection that no one came forward and indicated any objection on the proposed assessment based on the fact that there were multiple lots under one ownership, with separate tax lot numbers. Chairman Tuttle stated that the dilemma the Board is left with is that the remonstrance process has passed; that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the amount of the assessment. Chairman Tuttle noted that he is uncertain that the Board can unravel the multiple lot issue because there was a opportunity to express that at a prior time. Chairman Tuttle stated that it is his recommendation that the buildability and multiple lot issues are passed and therefore not an issue at this hearing or of this order. -9- VOA PAU, Commissioner Maudlin stated that he agreed, and this same problem arose in Road District No. 1. Commissioner Maudlin stated that lot owners would come in, after the fact, and state that they cannot build on their lot - that a septic permit could not be obtained. however, they were still being assessed. Commissioner Maudlin stated that an effort to obtain this type of information was made in January of this year; however, the Board did not received the information until today. Mr. Isham stated that it would be beneficial to look at the 11 remonstrances that have been received today and review the remon- strances that were presented at the original hearing. Mr. Isham stated that the Board can see if the same issues were raised at the original hearing; therefore entitling those remonstrances consideration in their objec- tions. Mr. Hoerning stated that he has copies of all the remonstrance letters and a list of those who remonstrated at the initial hearing for the Board's review. Commissioner Maudlin stated that Mr. Hoerning should check to see if a letter was received from Mr. Roelke. Mr. Isham noted that Mr. Roelke is objecting to the original Engineer's Report which contained the recommendation from the Engineer setting forth the scheme of the assessment. Mr. Isham added that if Mr. Roelke had not brought that issue forward at the time of the original hearing then he has waived his right now to complain. Mr. Hoerning stated that he has a list of those letters and also of people who spoke at the first hearing and he does not find where Mr. Roelke testified or submitted a letter. Mr. Hoerning requested the Board to recess to review his remonstrance file. Chairman Tuttle continued the meeting to October 10, 1985 at 1:30 p.m. -10- Dale Kerlin asked the Board to take into consideration a third issue relating to his brother's property - tax lot 2100. `dL 69 Mr. Kerlin stated that the method used to exclude certain lots would have also applied to tax lot 2100 due to an error in appraisal by the Assessor's Office. It is his brother's contention that since the property has been reappraised, that tax lot 2100 should be removed from the assessment. Mr. Isham stated that Commissioner Maudlin mentioned an issue regarding exclusion of lots on a prior road district, he was alluding to the fact that some individuals had reappraisals of their lots in the interim period and that those issues had not been raised during the remonstrance hearing. The Engineer's Report therefore went on file and the project went forward based on the objection of property reappraisal for the purposes of exclusion from the district. Chairman Tuttle stated that the Board would recess to compare the original remonstrance list and the original hearing related to the formation of the district and the reasons given for a remonstrance at that time to those who remonstrated on the assessment itself, and see how those match up. Commissioner Maudlin stated that the Board would also consider the issue related to the error on the part of the Assessor's Office. The meeting was continued to October 10, 1985, at 2:30 p.m. Chairman Tuttle opened the continuation of the Board of Commis- sioner's Meeting from October 9, 1985. Commissioner Maudlin was in attendance; Commissioner Prante was absent; Rick Isham, Legal Counsel, was also in attendance. Chairman Tuttle noted that the meeting is being held for the purpose of resolving and identifying the specific remonstrances for the amount of the assessments. Chairman Tuttle noted that this is not a public hearing so therefore, no public testimony will be taken. Mr. Hoerning noted the following: Roger Ellingston, speaking on behalf of Mr. Roelke, spoke at the second hearing only (October 9, 1985); -11- Jesse Mills, S.E. Stark Street, in Portland, spoke at the second hearing only; however, did write a letter on August 27, 1985, asking if some of his lots that were combined could be dropped. VOL f,;� FACE�� Mr. Isham asked when the district was formed? G Mr. Hoerning noted that the Order setting the district was signed on March 13, 1985. Mr. Isham noted that the letter from Mr. Mills, received on August 27, 1985, was five months after the district was formed. Mr. Hoerning stated that he had explained to Mr. Mills that since the first process had passed and the properties assessed at that time, it had to remain in the assessment. Mr. Hoerning added that any combination of lots had to be done prior to that date. Mr. Hoerning stated that John Plamondon was at the second hearing only and stated that he owned lots 9, 10, and 11. Mr. Hoerning noted that lot 9 was assessed at $11,150; lot 10 shows a different owner; lot 11 is $72,215. Mr. Hoerning stated that Dale Kerlin, spoke on behalf of his brother Hank at the second hearing. Mr. Hoerning noted Hank Kerlin sent a letter in at the first hearing. Mr. Hoerning read the following letter, received from Hank Kerlin on February 5, 1985, into the record: "Dear Sirs, please file our objection to improvement project Special Road District No. 4 LID." Mr. Hoerning stated that properties 2110 13 B 500, 2110 13 B 100, 2110 13 B 2100, are the three lots that remained in the assessment. Mr. Hoerning noted that one of his lots had been dropped because it had been appraised as unbuildable. Mr. Hoerning noted that John Peetsch was spoke at the first hearing and spoke at the second hearing. Mr. Hoerning stated that he did not submit a letter of remonstrance; however, Mr. Peetsch spoke up and stated that he did send in a letter. Chairman Tuttle noted that it would be registered as a remonstrance. Mr. Hoerning stated that the minutes, recorded at the first hearing, indicated the people that expressed their opposi- tion at the formation of the Special Road District. -12- 739 Mr. Hoerning stated that Noble West spoke at the first and second hearings, and did submit a letter at the first hearing. Mr. Hoerning read the following letter into the record: "Please record us as owners of property designated as 2110 26 B 3000 as being negative of improvements of roads to be paved for the land owners. Where is gas tax money and federal grants when this type of project is needed. Respectfully, N.G. West". Mr. Hoerning stated that at the meeting of February 27, 1985, Neil Hudson, former Director of Public Works, clarifi- ed the issue of unassessed lots, stating that if the value of the lot was less than the value of the assessment, the bonding company would not underwrite the selling of the lots. Therefore, those lots cannot be included in the assessment for the road improvement distirct. Mr. Hudson also stated that there were 88 people (26% of the lot owners in the district), who remonstrated. Commissioner Maudlin addressed the claim of an error on the part of the Assessor's Office. He stated that if there was an error in the assessment of Mr. Kerlin's lot, that it was called to the Board's attention well after the roads were finished. Commissioner Maudlin stated that he researched this situation and found that Mr. Kerlin's property (Tax Lot 2100) and a Mr. Keefer's property were appraised on May 13, 1985 at $8500 each. Commissioner Maudlin added that an assessor went back out to the lots on September 26, 1985 and reviewed these two lots and noted that they were "wet". He then lowered the value for January, 1986, to $2,000 each. Commissioner Maudlin stated that at that time the roads were already paved and there was no prior communication to the Board that there was anything wrong with this particular area. Mr. Hoerning stated that is the extent of the people who spoke at the remonstrance on October 9, 1985. Chairman Tuttle noted that it would be his recommendation that the Board not make any alterations to the assessment based upon the assessment of the lots or questions that occurred after the formation of the district prior to March 13, 1985. Commissioner Maudlin agreed. Chairman Tuttle stated that the Board cannot, at this point, for the purposes of the assessments, go back and combine lots to a single lot that were clearly separate tax lots as of March 13, 1985. -13- VOL Q Commissioner Maudlin stated that a letter was received from Attorney Dan VanVactor whose agent is Roger Ellingston, who represents Mr. Roelke. Commissioner Maudlin stated that it is Mr. Roelke's concern that there was no criteria for the exclusion of lots in this district. Commissione Maudlin stated that he believes that was answered by the fact that the bonding company would not accept these properties because they were assessed below the value of the assess- ment. Commissioner Maudlin added that in checking these assess- ments, there were a couple of items called to the Board's attention. Commissioner Maudlin stated that two lots owned by Jay Moberly were assessed at $220 each. Commissioner Maudlin stated that those lots had been put on farm deferral and records are not kept beyond 1979. Commissioner Maudlin stated that at the time the lots went on farm deferral, they were assessed at $3445 and consequently they were not picked up and should have been assessed. Commissioner Maudlin stated that Tax Lot 2100 23 Lot 400, owned by Duane Hafdahl, was assessed at $3,060 and was not assessed. Mr. Hoerning stated that they dropped the assessments at $3000 because their initial assessment was $2800 prior to the bidding process and it was felt that it would be very easy for the cost to adjust up to $3000. Mr. Hoerning added that there was just one lot assessed at $3000 and the the rest jumped to $3200 and $3400. Mr. Hoerning added that it was felt that if the cost of the assessment went that high that the project would not go through; therefore the one lot was dropped from the assessment. Chairman Tuttle stated that it does not fit the criteria; therefore, needs to be included in the assessment. Comissioner Maudlin stated that these three lots should be included in the assessments. Mr. Isham noted that a reduction of the amount of the aggregate assessment is for the purpose of recalculating the lot. Chairman Tuttle stated that the amount will be spread over the lots on a prorated basis which will be reduced by the aggregate amount of $8149.59. Mr. Isham stated that he was notified that publication of the notice of the 16th Street LID would be delayed. Therefore, Mr. Isham suggested that the date of publication -14- 6 ?4z VOL FAu� for both 16th Street LID and Special Road District No. 4, be extended to October 17, 1985 for the first publication and October 24, 1985 for the second publication of notice. That will allow 30 days for submittal of the application for the assessment. Mr. Isham stated that would set November 18, 1985, as the date to submit an application or submit a payment. Mr. Hoerning stated that $8,149.77 is the adjustment for the three omitted lots. The Board recess for discussion of the situation. Chairman Tuttle noted that an amendment to Order No. 85-121, changing the publication dates for 16th Street LID to October 17, and October 24, 1985 is being considered. MOTION: MAUDLIN moved to adopt and sign Order No. 85-122. TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Chairman Tuttle indicated that there were 11 remonstrances to the proposed assessments. Chairman Tuttle noted that the Public Works Director shall mail on or before October 17, 1985, notices of assessments. Publication dates shall be October 17, and October 24, 1985, and the public notice of assessment shall indicate that the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes County at its regular meeting of October 9, 1985, and continued October 10, 1985 adopted Order No. 85-120, assessing the properties in the exhibit and application for payment installments shall be made by November 18, 1985 or paid in full by that date. Chairman Tuttle stated that the Engineer's Report will read that the total cost of improve- ments - $912,774.53, and shall be spread over a total of 339 lots making the individual assessments $2692.55. It shall be noted of $2692.55 is based on adding three lots to the assessment district not included in the notice of assess- ment. MOTION: MAUDLIN moved to adopt and sign Order No. 85-120. TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. The meeting was adjourned. -15- DES HU ES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS -av� LAURENCE A. TUTT E, CHAIRMAN LOIS B ISTOW PRANTE, COMMISSIONER DICK MAUDLIN, COMMISSIONER BOCC:kbw 85-102 -16- VOL 69