My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-14-1995 Council Packet Special Meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
11-14-1995 Council Packet Special Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 3:51:35 PM
Creation date
10/6/2023 3:50:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
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
m <br />The City people also stated that they intend to apply to the Met Council for pentiission to expand <br />Ihc sewer service in the community. They further stated they intend to ask the Met Council to <br />expand the MUSA line, which is that boundary in the metropolitan area beyond which the Met <br />Council has decided to restrict infrastructure (sew^er, water, reads) to inhibit "urban spra\vr. <br />The City people state that this kind of request always carries "strings" back into the community <br />in that the Met Council has an agenda for the metropolitan area, including Orono. Granting City <br />requests is one method of obtaining City compliance of the Met Council agenda. For example, <br />the City people intend to request expansion of the MUSA line to incorporate one or two lots, so <br />that sew'cr can be provided to those lots. Sewer is thought to be necessary because the lots will <br />not permit a septic system. The other alternative is a holding tank system tor those lots and <br />would be enormously cheaper than sewer installation and paying for the other "strings ” by the <br />entire population of Orono. <br />In this example, the City people are wil’ing to accept the Met Council "strings" which affect the <br />entire city, in order to provide access to sewer for one or two lots. A ver>* high price to pay, <br />indeed. <br />There are fourteen homes in Foxhill and all are in conformance or have an alternate location lor <br />septic systems on their land. <br />Let's look at the economics of the proposal. <br />1. Septic systems have a life of 25 to 30 years and all of the Foxhill residents have <br />invested in their present systems. At a current price for a septic system of $12,000, with an <br />estimated half life remaining and ten of the hor 'cs in conformance, then $6,000 times ten homes <br />equals a potential lost investment ot $60,000. The City matenal suggests an upgraded septic <br />systems in the four non-conforming homes is estimated by the City people to be $7,500 to <br />$10,000 each, times the four homes; a new investment of $40,000, or less. <br />2. The proposed sewer system would cost each of the fourteen homes approximately <br />515,000, which would be assessed over a fifteen year period, at an annual interest rate of say, 9 <br />percent. The principal and interest cost would be $1,842 annually or $27,626 for the fifteen year <br />period. Each home would need to the connected to the sewer by a plumber at an estimated cost <br />of $4,000. There would be a quarterly sewer charge for each home in an initial amount of <br />$62.00; times four quarters equals 5248.00 each year, assuming no increases, a poor <br />assumption. <br />The total cost for the fourteen Foxhill home owners is $27,626; plus $4,000; plus $248 times <br />fifteen years times the fourteen homes; plus the lust life of the existing systems in an amount of <br />$60,000 totals $554,844... to do a $40,000 job. A sum of our money nearly fifteen times more <br />than the cost of upgrading some of the Foxhill homes. <br />And you wonder why governments are broke and are breaking us. <br />So, what is the real motivation in proposing to spend this kind of "other peoples money".
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.