My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-13-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1997-1999
>
1997
>
10-13-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 10:09:37 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 10:05:55 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.
/
408
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
r <br />I <br />•1- <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 <br />(#6 - #2281 Heiinq)in County Road 6 Improvements - Continued) <br />Kelley was informed that the contribution made by Hennepin County was shared 50/50 <br />with the City. Gafifron indicated there were two separate issues, as not creating the <br />NURP pond requires the County to pay to the Watershed, with the City providing half <br />the iiin^. The requirement of mitigation is determined by the State and BWSR. <br />Recommendation for mitigation to occur within Orono should be submitted to BWSR <br />Kelley suggested the use of an escrow fund establidied within the City with certification <br />that it be used for future use in Orono. Gafifron indicated that the requirements of the <br />MCWD are either a NURP pond or making a financial contribution to MCWD. Kelley <br />suggested they be required to submit a certification statement to the City that the funds <br />will be used in Orono. Gafifron said details would have to be worked out. Kelley said he <br />would like to see a yearly statement given to the City. <br />Jabbour reported that this fund will only affect few projects as most projects require <br />major funding. He agreed that the City should keep track of the fund. He noted most <br />projects include NURP ponds and few will take the other approach. <br />Jabbour suggested a work session be scheduled to discuss funding of stormwater <br />ponding. He noted if a stormwater plan was in effect, the City would reap some benefits. <br />Jabbour smd the City needs to establish a policy. <br />Cook agreed with Jabbour. He said projects will be much bigger and the City needs to <br />work with the MCWD. <br />Goetten said she was concerned with what she read fi'om the minutes of the Planning <br />Commission meeting that the public feels there is no forum by which to address thdr <br />concmns. The Planning Commission was also concerned and sugg ested a joint meeting <br />be held with Council. Goetten said she would like to have seen those present at that <br />meeting here tonight. Goetten said concerns must be heard and a process to address <br />these concerns. <br />Gafifron noted that no action was taken by the Planning Commission, and left it to the <br />Council to address those concerns. Alignment was the main issue of concern to the <br />public present at the hearing. <br />McMillan smd taking of property and impact on a septic ^stem were the main alignment <br />issues as well as the issue of communication with the County. <br />Jabbour was informed that the real estate people for the County have not made contact <br />with the residents. Theis indicated he had no control over the County Real Estate <br />Department. Goetten said she was concerned that this be addressed. McMillan thought <br />there was a general confusion over the whole project.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.