My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-12-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
02-12-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/23/2024 1:31:11 PM
Creation date
8/23/2024 1:21:01 PM
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.
/
422
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
13190.5 <br />TO: <br />FROM <br />OATF <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Mark E. BernharJson, City Administrator <br />January 31, 1990 <br />SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Project <br />Attach.Stubbs Bay Significant Questions January 30, <br />1990 Meeting <br />. Letter from Terry Olson Received 1/29/90 <br />J, Letter from John Thiesse Received 2/6/90 <br />ISSUE <br />1, Provide a summary of significant questions from the meeting on <br />January 30th. <br />2. Outline process steps for Council to consider if this is the <br />appropriate route to go. <br />INTRODUCTION - After a brief overview at the beginning of the <br />meeting which incapsulated the presentation from last summer the <br />forum was opened up to questions and comments. While several <br />questions were repetitious of those from the previous meeting <br />there were some new ones that are summariz'?>i in Attachment <br />DISCUSSION <br />Issue #1 - Meeting Summary - In addition to the questions <br />outline3”’there were comments such as the gentlemen who felt that <br />the project wa needed even though he had sufficient room for an <br />additional ; p .ic. He felt that the property was much more <br />marketable with a sewer system, providing a wider range of people <br />who were willing to buy it, together witl. it being a permanent <br />solution. What was not mentioned was the ability of someone to <br />add to their house with sewer, which may well be restricted. <br />It was indicated in the discussion th?t the City would consider <br />the project if 70% of the people in the area were willing to sign <br />the waiver at th>« point. The process of petition and signing <br />the waiver for a .f'l.vlfic amount allows each ind.’i i'^ual person to <br />decide if the beneiit to them of the project is -‘efficient to <br />"sign on for that amount" rather than the City pei.rtitting a Court <br />decide it after a significant amount of litigation. <br />Issue 12 - Process - The process that was undertaken on the <br />Crystal Biay project was one in which although *'*:• City had <br />discussed a contribution, the City undertook the » »ing steps: <br />1. Hold the public hearing <br />2. Adoct the project
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.