05-18-1992 Stubbs Bay Sewer Public Hearing Agenda

Home Browse Search

■"'7T'.-rr '. ,'■■ s,:"'1AIf- u I: M' rv It ?*' •■' |!-* / e' »' ' '. e'“ v» ■ : 0^. p:^0fy: ' ■ ivv';/.. ^= “•>«ES» t'** •-’ ;■ ■' » HP'-'-m‘t ..f ■ r‘: ^ > ■ pi; ::;.:e^ 'm%: ; 4- ■^‘ % M HINUTES OF Tit CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD MAY 18, 1992 Moorse agreed that parameters need to be established and suggested staff draft ci'teria to determine If a system Is functioning proper Iy. Qaffron noted •■nat various conditions would need to be defined. He Indicated tnat failure would include systems discharging to the surface while non-conforming systems may be a system not discharging to the surface but too close to the water table based on f jl I borings. He stated that because of the new shoreland regulations, the DNR ana PCA are saying that if an existing system is too close to the wate^ table, it is a non-conforming system and must be replaced within a year. Jabbour stated that he urderstood that the PCA Is going to make a conscious effort to pursue enforcement. He stated that !f the project had been done a couple years ago when the water table was lower the cost would have been much lower. He reminded the residents that because of the City’s good bond rating, the City is able to get a bond at a lower rate. He felt that they have a moral obligation to continue with the project for the base area. He Indicated ns would like to go ahead with the project excluding Oxford Road .:‘'d Cygnet Place. Qoetten felt that the criteria should be evaluated for areas not to be Included. She asked If the trunk charge should be assessed to the two areas excluded. Jabbour asked If a new public hearing would be necessary to change the assessr: t roll to Include only a trunk charge to those areas. Barrstt stated the Council has given notice of the project at certain dimensions. He stated that if reduced in scope or assessment, the Council would need to order a reduced project by resolution and that this assessment would be effective to pay for that reduced project. Butler suggested they decide on the time period for required hookup as that may help those opposed to the project decide If they wished to be included. She stated that the price cannot be changed as If more is assessed City-wide to all taxpayers, there will be many more In opposition to this project. She explained that the proposed assessment wl I I mean a $5.00 to $25.00 per year/per parcel for 16 year Increase to alI in Orono. Jabbour said he did not care If the property was required to hookup If sold. i ■A