My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-17-2006 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2006
>
04-17-2006 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2012 10:23:12 AM
Creation date
6/13/2012 10:22:59 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.
/
252
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
,; <br /> L <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday, February 27, 2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (10. 1331 NORTHARMDRIVE—REVIEWCONDITIONSOFRESOLUTIONNO. 4026, <br /> Coizti�tued) <br /> Murphy moved,Sansevere seconded,accepting and authorizing an Amendment of Resolution <br /> No. 4026 to remove the language requiring the removal of the plumbing and heating facilities <br /> from the accessory building with the caveat that the tub/shower be allowed to remain encased <br /> by a shelving unit.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> 12A. PRESENTATION BY GREG NYSTAD OF HILL SCHOOL <br /> Moorse indicated he had advised representatives of the Hill School that the City was not supportive <br /> of approving tax-exempt bond financing for the Hill School construction project,because of the <br /> potential appearance of a conflict of interest, since the City was currently considering a variance <br /> application for the construction project. <br /> Nystad explained that the Hill School would like to bond to finance additions and improvements to <br /> the school subject to the City approvals of their variance application. He stated that they hoped the <br /> City would approve a bonding resolution so that they could begin a privately placed public offering <br /> sometime in March. <br /> Although the Attorney had indicated that there was no legal conflict of interest to approve the <br /> bonding issue prior to the variances,Murphy stated that he was uncomfortable that the funding for <br /> the bond issue might have the appearance of a conflict of interest. <br /> Brokl reiterated that there was not a legal conflict of interest, though it was up to the City Council's <br /> discretion whether they felt there was an appearance of a conflict to the public. <br /> Sansevere stated that the mere appearance of a conflict of interest was of utmost concem to him - <br /> and stated that he could not endorse it until the variance process was completed. <br /> Nystad stated that it was very common for money to be approved in advance of the variance <br /> process for schools in order to lock in a lower SO1C3 rate for schools. <br /> Sansevere reiterated that he would be more comfortable to get the bonding approval done after the <br /> variance process was complete. <br /> Having familiarity with funding for public purposes,White stated that he did not have a problem <br /> with approving the funding for a SO1C3 project. <br /> Murphy stated that he simply felt inadequate to make a judgment here and questioned whether it <br /> might appear to the public schools that the City is funding the competition. <br /> Gaffron stated that the variance process is a two phase application and would not be completed at <br /> least until after the March Planning Commission Meeting. <br /> Mayor Peterson stated that the City Council would prefer the Hill School complete its variance <br /> process before the Council would consider the bondingrequest. <br /> PAGE 7 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.