Laserfiche WebLink
>'■ <br />t.kr <br />Jv' <br />6-I <br />Si <br />* <br />MINUTES OF TK . STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING > NOVEMBER 20. 1991 <br />Esters felt that a compromise could be made that 50% of the <br />project be paid by all at first and then as hook ups are made as <br />systems fall, the additional 50% be paid. <br />Butler felt It would be hard to convince the bank that the bill <br />would ever get paid. <br />Esters noted It would be easier for property owners if the cost <br />were segmented. <br />Gaffron reviewed the fees: trunk and lateral fees to be <br />assessed, SAC charge to be paid when hooked up, permit fee and <br />contractor cost for connection. He felt that deferring <br />connections would lead to the City requiring hookup as systems <br />fall and the property owner claiming they do not have the money <br />to hookup at that time. <br />Jabbour noted the City doesn't have the money to fund <br />project, and would sell bonds which need to be repaid from <br />assessment Income. <br />the <br />the <br />Tom Kuehn, Finance Director, said a general obligation bond can <br />be assessed at a certain percentage, with the rest being levied. <br />Additional charges could be assessed later. The City In effect <br />could defer those costs. <br />Levering suggested a deadline of hookup within 10 <br />project has been started to Insure compliance. <br />years after <br />Blanch felt It would make the project more palatable. <br />Jabbour asked what would happen If a person protests the <br />assessment at a later date as not receiving any benefit. <br />Callahan felt that maybe It could be worked out. He felt they <br />need to balance the financing to make It generally fair to all <br />affected owners. Perhaps It could be deferred If the need was <br />not current. He noted the City does have restrictions when they <br />levy a bond and It cannot be tailored to Individual needs. He <br />noted that right now 2 areas need sewer, and something needs to <br />be done. <br />Mayor Peterson Invited questions from the Oxford area. <br />Shaw asked again about the route of the lateral, and suggested by <br />going down the road It would save r.rees. <br />Gaffron noted that the way It stands. 2 lots abutting Oxford Rood <br />would not bo served. <br />Klltzke felt that the Council needs to consider adding to the <br />project those 5 extra units In the Oxford/Leaf Street area. Me <br />also commented on the recent subdivision to the east which has <br />created 2 dralnageways through the Oxford plat, which creates a <br />bigger problem for those residents. He felt that they should <br />- -- -