My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-24-1990 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
09-24-1990 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2019 12:28:07 PM
Creation date
4/23/2019 12:28:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 <br />STORM SEWER SYSTEM - NAVARRE HEIGHTS AREA CONTINUED <br />for the City. <br />Cook stated that the surface drainage would naturally flow <br />toward Lot 6. He said, "If water should run over the edge of the <br />swale and damage the property on Lot 6, there is potential <br />liability in that regard. There is minimal risk with the <br />underground system, except in the event of a major storm. It is <br />possible that Lot 6 will still experience water damage and could <br />potentially sue the City." <br />Goetten asked what the cost difference is between the two <br />options. <br />Cook estimated that the underground system would cost twice <br />as much as a surface solution. He said, "It depends on how many <br />trees need to be removed and the type of easements that must be <br />obtained." <br />Peterson asked Cook whether a surface system would prevent <br />further erosion on the west side of the Cuffs' property. <br />Cook replied, "It would be necessary to install a gutter or <br />curb alongside the road to bring drainage to a focal point." <br />Mayor Grabek asked Barrett what legal, financial risks may <br />be involved if the City orders the storm sewer project and finds <br />that a majority of the neighbors oppose it. <br />Barrett replied, "After examining the market impact, the <br />City would want to distribute the cost of the project to each <br />lot. If the property owners objected to that, they could appeal <br />to District Court. If the Court found that the impact did not <br />improve the property values by the amount of the assessment, it <br />could reduce the assessment and the City would pay the <br />difference." <br />Peterson asked how many property owners would share in the <br />approximate $32,000 cost of the project. <br />Cook replied, "I believe we figured the cost to be <br />approximately $700 /lot." <br />Mayor Grabek asked whether the City has a legal obligation <br />to proceed with the project if a 35% petition is received or if <br />it is a matter of how many votes are received for the project. <br />Barrett replied, "It is the latter." <br />Bernhardson suggested that Council could have the plans and <br />specifications drawn and obtain bids. He said, "An Assessment <br />Hearing could take place and the assessment could be ordered. <br />- 4 - <br />• <br />r � <br />U <br />f <br />i <br />l <br />l <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.