My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-18-1992 Council Minutes Continuation of Stubbs Bay Assessment
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
05-18-1992 Council Minutes Continuation of Stubbs Bay Assessment
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2019 3:30:48 PM
Creation date
4/29/2019 3:30:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
t1• •J. n <br />MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING <br />HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON <br />HELD MAY 18, 1992 <br />Knight asked if the current trunk charge -of $5,650.00 would also <br />be reduced by the 30% proposed to be paid by the City. <br />Jabbour stated that the 30% was only offered for 100% <br />participation. <br />Goetten reminded them that a future Council may choose not to <br />discount the remaining amount. <br />Callahan stated that if the trunk charge is assessed, that area <br />would need to be made a part of a full project. He noted that the <br />residents have the 30 day appeal time to further study the project. <br />Jabbour explained that the Council has proceeded with its best <br />offer•and would not sreduce the assessment. He stated that it is <br />expected to cost.the City approximately $18,000.00 per house per <br />appeal. <br />Goetten noted that the Council is concerned about the health, <br />safety.and welfare of the residents and stated that if that is the <br />criteria for sewering an area, she hated to exclude anyone because <br />of the cost. <br />Jabbour suggested they order the project to begin, and if at the <br />end of the 30 day appeal period it is determined that there are too <br />many appeals.., drop that portion of the project. <br />It was moved by Butler, seconded by Callahan, to assess the trunk <br />charge to the properties on Cygnet Place, Leaf Street and Oxford <br />Road. Ayes 3, nays 2. Mayor Peterson and Goetten voted nay. <br />Motion failed. <br />Butler explained that when the trunk line is laid along Bayside <br />Road, it will present itself at the corner of Leaf Street and <br />County Road 84, which w i l l make it available for connection for the <br />properties on Oxford Road, Leaf Street and Cygnet Place. She felt <br />that because of that availability, the trunk charge should be <br />assessed to those,properties. <br />Goetten felt that by doing such would be doing the citizens in that <br />area a great disservice. <br />D'eterling clarified that since the -submittal of the petition <br />expressing opposition, the cost has been reduced, the DNR has <br />imposed restric =tive regulations, and many feel that sewer is <br />inevitable. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.