My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-23-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
07-23-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2024 2:17:32 PM
Creation date
11/19/2024 2:14:31 PM
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.
/
303
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
RESPONSE: Milfoil is everyone's problem. The IKCD is to be <br />complemented for its leadership role. But it cannot address the <br />problem alone. <br />Page 3, paragraph 4. '*Land use regulation should remain under <br />local control. Orono's land use controls are the most protective <br />and restrictive ordinances on the lake. While it might be <br />desirable to have all communities agree with our standards, we <br />are not willing to part with ->cal control of our lakeshore. <br />Neither is it acceptable to . for the UfCD to make decisions <br />regarding dockage or other utilization which in effect force <br />Orono to depart from its iar. .se standards to accommodate <br />parking, tree removal or haracover limitations.” <br />RESPONSE: The Management Program supports Orono's position <br />of keeping land use regulation under local control. The Program <br />merely seeks to work with individual cities and the DNR to assure <br />a consistent set of regulations for the lake. We complement <br />Orono for its strict ordinance and standards do not wish to <br />see those weakened. <br />The other problems listed are those too often encountered <br />with abutting or overlapping jurisdictions. A clos» r <br />partnership, better coordination and cooperation are goals of the <br />Management Program. <br />Page 3, paragraph 5. ”As a city, we oppose creation of an <br />additional tax or taxing authority as we believe that regulation <br />and education/licensure can be implemented through assessments <br />shared by lakeshore cities and the county and through existing <br />organizations already providing the training programs," <br />RESPONSE: These cannot be achieve within the 1 mill levy <br />limitation imposed on the cities. <br />1. Item 3 d 2. of the Orono letter of comment requires an <br />additional $300,000. The existing limit can only raise <br />$100,000 more. <br />2. Item 3 d 3. requires additional staff for the IlfCO. <br />The Executive Director cannot assume major new <br />responsibilities. <br />3. Item 3 d 4. seeks to "ensure enforcement. There cannot <br />be additional enforcement without additional patrol <br />hours. Additional patrol hours cost money. <br />4. Orono seeks "safety, a pollution free lake, an enjoyable <br />user experience, and aesthetic consideration affecting <br />the lakeshore, and its roads, and the watershed are <br />basic considerations" with no new assessments over <br />$100,000 (the existing limit. <br />In 1982 the Governor formed che first Task Force on Lake <br />Minnetonka. Their findings included a recommendation for ma. ig <br />the IHCD levy independent of the city's limitation. In 1986 che
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.