Laserfiche WebLink
r mI <•, <br />I <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 25.1997 <br />(#16 - Casco Cove Road Maintenance - Continued) <br />Moorse asked Council to discuss the roads noting Dakota Avenue is new and Shore Hills <br />Drive residents may not wish the City to take over maintenance as it is in good condition. <br />Casco Cove, in its poor condition, may require not only maintenance but significant <br />upgrade and correction to some portions and overlay elsewhere. Moorse said the cost <br />would be ngnificant. He noted there is no program in place for major reconstniction of <br />existing streets. The road would be added to the list of roads requiring work. I v. <br />indicated there are other roads in similar condition on the list. <br />Flint said he is of the opinion that the City shou^ not take over roads that are not built to <br />City standards. He noted Dakota Avenue will be to standards but paid for by <br />assessments. Jabbour said the road work was City subsidized. Flint suggested Casco <br />Cove be brought to City standard and then taken over by way of assessment. <br />Jabbour indicated the Comprehen^ve Plan is binding in its action or an amendment wiB <br />be required noting the distinctions made regarding rural and urban roads. He cited the <br />incident of Old Beach Road. Jabbour agreed the City should not take on a liability, but <br />should have brought the road to City standard in 1987 when it was taken over. He noted <br />it could not be brought to airrent standard in the wooded area. Cook concurred. <br />Flint stud he was in agreement with the explanation made by Moorse on why the road <br />was taken over in order to protect access for residences. He indicated the road is still <br />that of those readents and should not be taken over by the City for maintenance without <br />bdng brought to standard. He noted the ownership was done to protect the interest of <br />the residents. <br />Jabbour sdd he agreed with Flint but is of the opinion that the 10 years of subsequent use <br />should be considered and value depreciated. <br />Peterson siud she believes 50% of the life span for the road has been used. <br />Goetten a.sked if the next .step should follow that train of thought. <br />Peterson inquired what the prior standard was for that road. Moorse indicated that not <br />all roads are built to the standard width but should have a good base and 3 ” of <br />bituminous. Kelley noted that the road would then not be to City standards. Flint <br />concurred that the standard was different than what currently exists. Gafifron indicated <br />that the standards adopted with the subdivision code only go back to 1980 <br />Jabbour asked, if the road was taken over in 1987 and built to City standards, what <br />would have been the cost and what depreciation would have occurred. Peterson, while <br />agreeing with this thought, noted the standards would have been different. Moorse <br />indicated the road would have been about 8" of Class 5 and 3" of asphalt but not to the <br />current width requirements.