Laserfiche WebLink
f <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR NOVTMBER 27, 1995 <br />^ ^ T - tU;..C[LP.xETi?4G <br />0 EC 1 1 1995 f <br />ROLL cmr Of ORONO <br />The Council me! on the above date wth the foDowing members present; Mayor Edward <br />J. Callahan, Jr , Council Members Gabriel Jabbour, JoEIlen Hurr, and Charles Kelley. <br />Council Member Goetten was absent Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron <br />Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Asastant <br />Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Engineer Shawm Gustafson, <br />and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 6 48 p m <br />(#1) ASSESSMENT HEARING - WILLOW DRIVE NORTH - 650’ NORTH OF <br />HIGHW AY 12 INTERSECTION - RESOLUTION #3642 - 6:48-7:10 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />Moorse e.xplained the purpose of the assessment hearing. The Willow Drive <br />reconstruction project was discussed and approved at a prior public meeting. The projevt <br />is now completed and costs and assessment amounts are known The assessment hearing <br />is to provide the two property owners an opportunity to respond to the assessments and <br />ask any questions. The two propeny owners were provided with inlormation regarding <br />the assessment prior to this hearing. One of the properties is zoned commercial The <br />other property is guided by the comprehensive plan as being commercial but <br />undeveloped. <br />Callahan asked what the general plan was based on Moorse said the assessment was <br />based on the benefit to the property owners provided by the reconstruction. <br />John Rice, Attorney for the Orono Plaza property, was present and reviewed the owner’s <br />objection to the assessment A letter outlining the objection is part of the agenda item <br />Rice said the primary concern was their lack ot finding a rational difference between <br />commercial and residential properties in exempting one type of property and not the <br />other when MSA funding is used Rice said he does not raise the issue of value as the <br />property is undeveloped. <br />Callahan informed Rice that he felt commercial properties gained a benefit over <br />residential as the roadway is used by the public to access their properties allownng the <br />commeicial properties to sell products resulting in profit. Rice said he saw the <br />homeowners, the City, and ihe commercial properties all benefiting from the funding but <br />did not see the rationale for assessing commercial property but not residential Callahan <br />responded if both lesidenlial anu commercial gain a benefit fi oiii the stale funding, the <br />commercial gains on top of that with a profit. Rice reminded the Council that residential <br />properties are not assessed for state aid funding projects Callahan said the contribution <br />benefits both but falls more to the favor of commercial properties.