Source: http://montgomeryco-md.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_ch49_art5_sec49-54
Timestamp: 2019-09-23 00:51:37
Document Index: 642419439

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 16', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

§ 49-54. Authorization of an assessment of costs for construction; recommendation of assessments to Council., Article 5. County Roads — Authority And Funding., Chapter 49. Streets and Roads.*, Part II. Local Laws, Ordinances, Resolutions, Etc., Code of Ordinances, Montgomery County
§ 49-54. Authorization of an assessment of costs for construction; recommendation of assessments to Council.
(a) If, after the hearing required by Section 49-53(a) is held, the County Executive finds that the public interest requires the assessment under consideration to be carried out, the Executive must authorize the assessment as required in this Chapter.
(b) As soon as practicable after the Executive authorizes an assessment of costs for road construction under this Section, the Executive must forward to the County Council a written report recommending any proposed assessments based on the estimated cost of building the road. The report must describe the work to be done and state, with particularity, what portion of the cost of the construction, if any, should be paid by the adjacent properties and what portion, if any, of the cost should be paid by the County under this Chapter.
(c) The recommendations must be based on the actual costs of publishing notices, conducting hearings, advertising for bids, and engineering, and the anticipated costs of financing to be incurred before the Council adopts the assessment resolution. Each cost assessment must be computed on the basis of linear frontage of adjacent properties, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. The report must also estimate the dollar amount of the cost share to be paid by adjacent properties. (1971 L.M.C., ch. 3, § 16; 2007 L.M.C., ch. 8, § 1; 2010 L.M.C., ch. 3, § 1; 2013 L.M.C., ch. 27, § 1.)
Editor’s note—This section is interpreted in Montgomery County v. Schultze, 57 Md.App. 781, 471 A.2d 1129 (1984).