Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> � `SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 Page 2 <br /> • Mayor Searles stated that in part, some construction <br /> � costs are put on the mill levy to pay for that <br /> portion of the cost which may be allocated to <br /> � certain properties which someday may be allowed <br /> to connect to the sewer after rezoning, etc. <br /> � <br /> Discussion began on the 60/40 relationship of the levy and <br /> � the assessment. Malkerson stated there was <br /> nothing �n the statutes to indicate any formula <br /> � had a preference over another. Long stated <br /> � that in an area where lots have regular grid <br /> patterns and are of the same size, the choice <br /> � of inethods is not so critical bec.ause the properties <br /> are diviz3ed equitably. Where there is a diversity <br /> � of lot size, length, width, no matter what formula <br /> is used it is hard to obtain perfect equitableness. <br /> � <br /> • Butler stated that this formula had been used in <br /> the past in similar projects and proved to be the fairest. <br /> � Massengale stated it is always hard to judge every <br /> � lot perfectly. The Council has found that the 60/40 <br /> formula is the fairest since it provides for a unit <br /> � charge based on the fact that each house probably <br /> produces the same amount of sewage, since it provides <br /> � for a front footage charge,since the larger lot is <br /> more expensive to sewer, and since the availability <br /> �� of public sewer makes the lots more valuable and the <br /> increase of value is related in part to the size of the lot. <br /> ` Mrs. Margaret Christensen said it was unfair to assess <br /> the Tonkawa and Hackberry areas under the 60/40 formula, <br /> � as this formula leans toward favoring the larger lots on <br /> Tonkawa and penai..i_zing the one-half acre lots on Hackberry. <br /> � She felt an area assessment would be more equitable <br /> � than the front foot assessment. She also felt it <br /> was an easier method of assessment. <br /> � Marge Gasch agreed with Mrs. Christensen. She stated <br /> � while she had pushed for sewer, if she had known <br /> of the astronomical cost, she would have favored leaving <br /> � on-site disposal systems. <br /> r A question was posed as to whether any zoning had <br /> i taken place after it was ascertained where sewer was <br /> going to be placed. Searles replied that the various <br /> * bodies had been working on the comprehensive plan <br /> since 1972 and zoning is a constant process and that <br /> � land use decisions do determine potential sewer areas. <br /> Massengale, as an addendum, said this process was by <br /> � the planners, not the pipe, and that preliminary <br /> planning, not construction, determined sewer area <br /> � boundaries. Searles stated that new Councils with <br /> � new voices would dictate what changes might be made. <br /> � <br /> � <br /> � <br />