07-22-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITT' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 8, 1996 (#10 - Saga Hill Park Land Acquisition - Continued) Kelley was informed that the grant could not be obtained if Orono did not participate in the land acquisition The grant is required to be made in the name of the City. Jabbour noted that all of he groups involved were working towards the same goal but with differing facts. Jabbour suggested proceeding, once all agree that the 11 acre parcel be separated from the 9 5 acre parcel, and amend the grant application Council concurred. Jabbour then suggested talcing the grant with the DNR conditions if found to be satisfactory to the Minnesota Land Trust. Hurr said she supports the grant, which is supportive of a possible parking lot and some structure, but is not supportive of a conservation easement. Callahan said he favored the conditions of the DNR if they are as stated and no more. He was unsure if the description clarified the conditions of the DNR. Kelley clarified that if the grant was taken with the DNR restrictions, the City would be the owner of the property. If any upgrades were made, it would be the responsibility of the City and not the DNR The City would maintain the property. The DNR would have no title to or mandate of the property. Jabbour added that the understanding would be that the 11 acre park land would be passive in its use but the 9.5 acre parcel could be of a different use. Council all agreed with the understanding as stated. The Minnesota Land Trust was asked for their position. Renay Leone, Director of the Minnesota Land Trust, said it was their position that the interest be in perpetuity with some form of restriction for undeveloped or passive uses. Leone said the Minnesota Land Trust hoped to include the 9.5 acre parcel but would accept the separation of the two parcels She also said the organization would prefer the conservation easement but would accept those restrictions placed on the property by the DNR Leone said the concern of the Minnesota Land Trust was their desire to have a continuing role in bird-dogging the restrictions She suggested the Minnesota Land Trust be given the legal authority for right of enforcement Without the legal right, the Minnesota Land Trust would take the responsibility informally as citizens of Orono. Callahan responded that the DNR does provide for monitoring of the land use. If the Minnesota Land Trust would monitor it as an informal participant, it would be done as a practical matter He noted that the informal watch could effectuate what is done as opposed to two agencies having veto power. 1