11-27-1995 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR INOVEMBER 27, 1995 • ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Council Members Gabriel Jabbour, JoEllen Hurr, and Charles Kelley. Council Member Goetten was absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tc.n Barrett, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Adm_nistrator Michael Gaffron, City Engineer Shawn Gustafson, and Recorder Sherry Frog,. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 6:48 p.m. ( #1) ASSESSMENT HE_XRING - WILLOW DRI« NORTH - 650' NORTH OF HIGHWAY i2 Iti`TEn� LiTi ^vi. - RESOLv X IO #3612 - G:48 -7:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Moorse explained the pur-_ ose of the assessment hearing. The Willow Drive reconstruction project was discussed and approved at a prior public meeting. The project is now completed and costs and assessment amounts are known. The assessment hearing is to provide the two property owners an opportunity to respond to the assessments and ask any questions_ The two property owners were provided with information regarding the assessment prior to this hearing. One of the properties is zoned commercial. The other property is guided by the comprehensive plan as being commercial but undeveloped. • Callahan asked what the general plan was based on. !%loorse said the assessment was based on the benefit to the property owners provided by the reconstruction. John Rice, Attorney for the Orono Plaza property, was present and reviewed the owner's objection to the assessment. A letter outlining the objection is part of the agenda item. Rice said the primary was their lack of finding a rational difference between commercial and residentlai properties in exempting one type of property and not the other when MSA funding s used. Rice said he does not raise the issue of value as the property is undeveloped. Callahan informed Rice that he felt commercial properties gained a benefit over residential as the roadway is used by the public to access their properties allowing the commercial properties to sell products resulting in profit. Rice said he saw the homeowners, the City, ands the commercial properties all benefiting from the funding but did not see the rationale for assessing commercial property but not residential. Callahan responded if both residential and commercial gain a benefit from the state funding, the commercial gains on top of that with a profit. Rice reminded the Council that residential properties are not assesses for state aid funding projects. Callahan said the contribution benefits both but falls more to the favor of commercial properties.