10-15-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 24, 1984 PAGE I My second '-et of comments addresE how this project should be paid for. examination of the feasibility report it appears that there are two -i-ects each costing approximately $500,000.00. One project is the vials, labor, engineering and adminstration of the sanitary sewer u,.. lift station. The other project, equal in scope is road and right-of- way reconstruction. Certainly these roads are among the oldest in the City. Certainly, the housing density here is much greater than all or nearly all of the rest of Orono. Certainly the cost "per unit" of main- taining these roads is much, much less than all or nearly all the other public roads in Orono. I humbly suggest that should this project pro- ceed that all road and right-of-way reconstruction be financed out of the City's Public Works and Generdl funds and that they not be assessed to these properties that have been bearing more than their fair share of road costs due to the relative density of housing and l.mited length of public roads here. Only those costs having a direct connection with sewerage should be assessed to the property owners in this area. In addition the City's lots in this area must assume their fair share of the costs. the above approach should serve to snake the assessments equitable if not reasonable. Equity also demands that assessments be levied on a per unit basis. One last issue should be ,ddressed. This area is perhaps the most dense- ly built area in Orono. As I remember, the CMP said the average lot size was one -eighth of an acre. We have traditionally maintained the LR-lA low density zoning district to support on -site septic systers. In this area Lne existing density demands that this area be reclassified LR-IC, medium density residential development. as part of this sewer project. To summarize, I suggest that: 1. The Public Hearing be rescheduled with proper publication and notices. 2. We proceed with this project only if: A. the costs can be divided between assessed sewer costs and city - absorbed roadway costs; B. the costs are assessed on a per unit basis; C. the total costs are reduced by good management; and O. the area is rezoned to LR-IC. Failing any of the above, I feel the project should not be undertaken. Sincerely, y � George F. Ro o, Jr. Susan J. Rovegno