My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-08-1992 Council Minutes2
Orono
>
City Council
>
1992
>
06-08-1992 Council Minutes2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2024 11:30:42 AM
Creation date
3/29/2024 11:27:12 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.
/
271
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
f <br />MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING <br />HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON <br />HELD MAY 18, 1992 <br />Which may change the setbacks required to the creek. He asked If <br />the dam were to go out, who could be required to pay for <br />restoration. He asked that the Council further consider this <br />property with regards to setbacks end sewering. He stated the main <br />Intent of the sewer project Is to help clean up Lake Minnetonka and <br />wondered If the City couldn’t contribute more In light of this. <br />Mayor Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. <br />Jabbour asked If staff had looked Into using CDBG funds to help <br />residents with lower Income with the project. <br />Moorse explained that per Larry Blackstad, Coordinator of the <br />funds, there was potential to use some of that money and stated he <br />was to meet with Blackstad at the end of the week. <br />Mayor Peterson clarified that the money cannot be used to apply <br />towards the entire project. <br />Jabbour asked If the contingency could be divided and assigned to <br />specific areas, and If that area did not have any appeals, could <br />be refunded to those residents. <br />Qoetten stated that the money cannot be returned until the project <br />Is completed. <br />Butler clarified that those In agreement with the project are <br />opposed to the Immediate hookup. She stated that deadline is set <br />by the Co.incll but noted a date-certain would need to be <br />established. She did not care when that date was as long as It was <br />specified. Butler explained that when the project was bid, the <br />cost was determined. She said, "you do not go to the grocery store <br />and argue with the grocer over the price of a pound of butter . <br />The same principal applies to the sewer project. <br />Mayor Peterson and Jabbour agreed. Goetten said she agreed with <br />the philosophy but did not want the osadllne date for connection <br />to be extended to 20 years and stated that the owner would need to <br />prove their septic system was working to continue use. <br />Callahan felt that those in need of sewer should be required to <br />connect immediately. He stated that staff should have the final <br />decision on whether a system is functioning and can continue to be <br />used. He noted that If a house Is sole, the owner should be <br />required to connect to sewer. He felt that 3-5 years for mandatory <br />hookup would be appropriate. <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.