My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-22-1985 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1985
>
04-22-1985 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/20/2025 10:46:14 AM
Creation date
11/20/2025 10:30:28 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.
/
628
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
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCII. MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1985, AT THE ORONO i•1IDDLE <br />SCHOOL AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - PAGE 9 <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />(CONT. ) $5,000 then $5,850 has to be paid by the City. Butler stated <br />that the City would in turn assess that $5,850 over to the <br />general tax payers. Butler announced that the court costs <br />then boost the project cost up. Butler stressed that the <br />ability to appeal the assessment ends tonight for the <br />benefitting property owners and suggested that those who <br />have not appealed, and want to, should appeal. in writing with <br />the City Clerk tonight. <br />Gary Printup of 1261 Briar Street asked if this was to go to <br />court, what would the legal costs be to the City. <br />City Attorney Radio responded if there was only one appeal it <br />would cost the City approximately $4,000. Radio stated if, <br />however, there were 10 appeals it would not cost $4,000 for <br />each one because he would be using the same data. Radio <br />explained if all 83 properties appealed then it would cost <br />approximately $10-15,000. Radio suggested that the 83 <br />property owners file a joint appeal and that would be less <br />costly. Radio noted that the legal costs could be <br />substantial and would be added onto the project cost. <br />One man asked if the appeal procedure was open to those <br />jeneral taxpayers that will suffer from the procedure of the <br />assessment. <br />City Attorney Radio stated no, that the appeal procedure is <br />only for those benefitting property owners of the sewer. <br />Councilmember Grabek asked Carolyn Drude of Ehlers & <br />Associates if there was an opportunity for the homeowners <br />benefitting by the project to make arrangements for <br />installment payments on interest only. <br />Carolyn Drude of Ehlers & Associates stated the assessments <br />can be paid r ither in one lump sum immediately or at any time <br />over a 15 year period without future interest. Drude <br />explained that the other option is to spread them over a 15 <br />year period with interest on the unpaid balance. <br />Councilmember Grabek asked what if an individual cannot pay <br />the assessment, who would pay for that assessment. <br />Carolyn Drude informed the Council that the taxes would <br />become delinquent and go through the delinquency process. <br />City Attorney Radio stated that the rt-operty would then go up <br />for sheriff's sale and become tax forfeit. <br />Councilmember Grabek asked about tiie legal precedent on <br />assuming more than the added value on a property and asked <br />what is the potential for the court to assess the project 75 <br />percent because of the inequities that exist. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.