My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-09-1989 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
01-09-1989 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2025 10:23:04 AM
Creation date
3/10/2025 10:20:36 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.
/
550
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
SAC Refund Eligibility List <br />October 25, 1988 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />Mr. Odde brought up another interesting fact. He said that of over 30 <br />cities eligible, for SAC refunds, only 4 have taken advantage of the program <br />to date, and of those 4 at least 1 bad so much trouble identifying or <br />findina the property owners who are due the refund, that the City ^ded up <br />keeping the entire refund amount and put it into some type of sewer <br />improvement fund. Odde noted that although this was not the specific <br />intent of the SAC refund program, this possibility was contemplated when <br />the program was put into effect. However, he notes that other cities with <br />the same concerns have not participated in the program because they had <br />similar difficulties in identifying recipients, and felt also that if <br />future connections occurred, the city would be liable for paying SAC <br />charges for those houses for which the city gobbled up the SAC refund. <br />Another point that Odde mentioned was that the intent of the program <br />is to refund monies directly to the city for distribution by the city, <br />rather than having MWCC write individual checks to individual property <br />owners. Presumably, the city would have to identify the current Property <br />owner for each eligible property, and if there is for instance a 50/50 <br />split between property owners who want their SAC refund vs property owners <br />who do not want to incur additional SAC charge expenses 20 years from now, <br />the city would then have to send individual checks to the homeowners. <br />Odde also noted that if we wanted to refund to just specific ar j of <br />the City, that was a possibility. <br />This may be more trouble than its worth in the long run. However, as <br />we discussed, twc options could be proposed to the Council: <br />1. Proceed w;." i a refund progrsim under the following conditions: <br />a) Include all 323 properties as being eligible for a SAC <br />refund. <br />b) Create a list of all the current property owners, and send <br />them a letter outlining the SAC refund program, noting to them <br />for the record that if they take a refund now, they would be <br />responsible for a full increased SAC charge in the future i^. they <br />are ever connected to the sewer, and setting a deadline date for <br />their ^'application for refund" to be returned. <br />c) Include with that letter a refund request application form <br />which they have to sign, and which includes wording that they <br />must initial paragraph^^]^-paragraph , indicating tneir <br />acknowledgement of the wrart^^hey may be giving up by accepting <br />a refund. This document should be in a format so that it can oe <br />filed in the chain of title of the property, to warn future <br />buyers of the property that a refund occurred.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.