My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-24-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
06-24-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2024 11:14:59 AM
Creation date
6/24/2024 11:04:45 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
607
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
ty <br />I. <br />^Ip <br />r-- <br />'■ ^! <br />V- <br />i - f <br />‘■'a <br />y <br />i'^y' <br />I; <br />P <br />F-‘- <br />m <br />^ ■ <br />-;.'i <br />>i <br />■ - rl\' <br />;.i <br />?:v- <br />i'' <br />&.U-?'^vI-rr <br />»•' <br />VI <br />to decide it after a significant amount of litigation. <br />Issue #2 - Process - The process that was undertaken on the <br />Cr'ystair “Bay project was one in which although the City had <br />discussed a contribution, the City undertook the following steps: <br />1. Hold the public hearing <br />2. Adopt the project <br />3. Adopt the assessment <br />4. Allow the 30 day appeal process <br />5. Have the Courts determine the benefit to the <br />properties (and hence the amount of City <br />contribution) <br />As an alternative process in the Stubbs Bay area a revised <br />process is suggested to limit the City's risk in two ways: <br />a. Avoid the possibly non-recoverable expense of <br />undertaking the plans, specifications and bidding <br />process (which is approximately $20,000-$30,000) by <br />getting a committment to the project by a substantial <br />majority of the people in the area, prior to ordering <br />plans and specs. <br />b. Limit the risk of substantial appeal waivers by; <br />1. Minimizing the actual assessment to an amount <br />similar to the amount determined by the Court for the <br />Crystal Bay project, with the balance being a <br />connection charge- <br />2. Not ordering the project until the risk of appeals <br />has been quantified. <br />^ proposed process to do this are a follows: <br />project Petition ~ Send out a letter which contains <br />the petition and a special waiver. <br />2. Plans and Soecifications - Await receipt of upwards of <br />10€ app^ 1 waiVersI ll a lesser amount is received <br />and it appears that few, if any additional ones are <br />coming in that it be reconsidered by Council to <br />analyze the risk and determine if they want to go <br />ahead with the plans and specification expenditure. <br />If the project does not go ahead the City funds that <br />expense. <br />3. Code Enforcement - As an optional step council could <br />consider further restrictive development controls in <br />the area as to expansion of homes related to both <br />zoning and septic together with giving a deadline for <br />all those with failing or severely nonconforming <br />systems to go on holding tanks. <br />3J
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.