My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-22-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1996
>
01-22-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2023 3:32:04 PM
Creation date
8/31/2023 3:31:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
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 REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JANU-r^lY 8,1996 <br />(#8 - #2059 MCWD - Continued) <br />Jabbour questioned the reliability of this information. LaBounty said the information is <br />based on a cooperative agreement with Long Lake and a contribution, which would be <br />reviewed in five years. The cost looks at the project as a whole, not just the part that is <br />within a particular city. <br />Jabbour said he would like to break the land use issue from the cooperative agreement as <br />he is worried about the tax portion noting the original agreement requested an 80% <br />participation by Orono when aerators were being considered. LaBounty said he was not <br />involved in that agreement and could only address the last agreement that was drawn. <br />LaBounty said the MCWD would pay 50% with the remaining half paid in thirds by the <br />three cities involved. Long Lake, Orono, and Medina. Jabbour noted that the Council <br />had agreed only on an amount of $2000 towards maintenance. He noted that the <br />remaining $32,000 with amounts of $10,000 or $7,000 or l/3rd ’s would still be collected <br />through assessment if agreements were not made. Jabbour commented that the City <br />would either be paying upfront or through taxpayer assessment. <br />LaBounty told the Council that the cooperative agreement with Long Lake was for a <br />yearly contribution of $7,000. The MCWD will reimburse any amount if maintenance <br />totals are under the specified contribution. LaBounty reported that the sub-watershed <br />district data np:!e^ ' ^ the MCWD will be given to Long Lake to use for their <br />watershed #509 stormwater management plan. <br />Kelley asked who gets billed by the MCWD for the maintenance. LaBounty said there is <br />an escrow fund of $50,000-100,000 for major clean out of the ponds. Callahan asked <br />how often this would be required. LaBounty said it would depend on how well the best <br />management practices were put to use. <br />Callahan noted that it was the Council’s responsibility today to deal with the CUP and <br />variances He commented on the expensive undertaking without the clear benefits <br />knovvTi. LaBounty cited the results of the Gleason Lake project where monitored results <br />are higher than what was expected Callahan said he generally appreciated the project <br />but noted its high cost. <br />Goetten said she was concerned w ith the granting of a permit to be allowed to extend <br />over the normal one year period. Mabusth responded that the project was inactuality <br />beginning this summer with the alum treatment LaBounty commented that the Pearces <br />had wanted to know at this time what to expect and that the process was locked m and <br />guaranteed to occur. Goetten said if part of the project was occurring this year, then s le <br />had no problem with granting approval for that portion occurring in 1998.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.