Laserfiche WebLink
J' i <br />MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING <br />HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON <br />HELD MAY 18, 1992 <br />Moorse agreed that parameters need to be established and suggested <br />staff draft criteria to determine if a system is functioning <br />properly. <br />Gaffron noted that various conditions would need to be defined. <br />He indicated that failure would include systems discharging to the <br />surface while non - conforming systems may be a system not <br />discharging to the surface but too close to the water table based <br />on soil borings. He stated that because of the new shoreland <br />regulations, the DNR and PCA are saying that if an existing system <br />is too close to the water table, it is a non - conforming system and <br />must be replaced within a year. <br />Jabbour stated that he understood that the PCA is going to make a <br />conscious effort to pursue enforcement. He stated that if the <br />project had been done a couple years ago when the water table was <br />lower the cost would have been much lower. He reminded the <br />residents that because of the City's good bond rating, the City is <br />able to get a bond at a lower rate. He felt that they have a moral <br />obligation to continue with the project for the base area. He <br />indicated he would like to go ahead with the project excluding <br />Oxford Road and Cygnet Place. <br />Goetten felt that the criteria should be evaluated for areas not <br />to be included. She asked if the trunk charge should be assessed <br />to the two areas excluded. <br />Jabbour asked if a new public hearing would be necessary to change <br />the assessment roll to include only a trunk charge to those areas. <br />Barrett stated the Council has given notice of the project at <br />certain dimensions. He stated that if reduced in scope or <br />assessment, the Council would need to order a reduced project by <br />resolution and that this assessment would be effective to pay for <br />that reduced project. <br />Butler suggested they decide on the time period for required hookup <br />as that may help those opposed to the project decide if they wished <br />to be included. She stated that the price cannot be changed as if <br />more is assessed City -wide to all taxpayers, there will be many <br />more in opposition to this project. She explained that the <br />proposed assessment'wIII mean a $5.00 to $25.00 per year /per parcel <br />for 15 year Increase to all in Orono. <br />Jabbour said he d i d not care If the property was required to hookup <br />if sold. <br />5 <br />1 <br />