Laserfiche WebLink
J G1287.4 <br />TO: tiayor and City Council <br />FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City AdministratoKk <br />DATE: August 5, 1967 <br />SUBJECT: Metro Waste Control Commission - Orono - <br />Minnetonka Beach Interceptor Improvements <br />Attachments A. Bonestroc Letter Dated 4/9/86 <br />B. Orono Council Minutes Excerpt 4/14/86 <br />C. Bonestroc Letter Dated 8/7/86 <br />D. Orono Council Minutes Excerpt 8/11/86 <br />E. Orono Council Minutes 10/27/86 <br />F. Bonestroc Letter Dated 11/13/86 <br />G. Orono Letter Dated 4/28/87 <br />H. Metro Waste Control Commission Letter Dated 5/13/87 <br />I. Metro Waste Control Commission Lette: Dated 7/27/87 <br />ISSUE - Determination as to whether the City of Orono would <br />accPpt the conditions proposed by Metro Waste to the project to <br />construct the alternative originally recommended and approved by <br />th City of Orono. <br />I14"..RODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A, the City of Orono gave <br />its initial approval with Alternate 3B to Metro Waste Control <br />Commission on August 11, 1986. Subsequently on October 27, 1986 <br />the Council agreed to the conditions noted in the minutes. <br />Subsequent to that, Metro Waste Control Commission determined <br />that their desired alternative was alternative "3A" which would <br />cost them about $230,000 less in capital costs to construct. The <br />reason the City of Orono desired to go with 3B was it allowed the <br />City to replace a force main and primp with a grav ity line for <br />about the same cost and at new pump which must be done in the next <br />1-2 years. It would eliminate annual pump maintenance costs of <br />approximately $3,500 per year. In addition it would eliminate <br />another replacement of that pump again in 20 years. During these <br />discussions, the City indicated that they would be willing to <br />trade off this annual cost for a portion of the difference in the <br />capital cost to help defray Metro Waste Control Commission going <br />with alternative 3B. As noted in Attach -,.sent C, however, the <br />Metro Waste Control Commission felt that there is a $10,500 per <br />year annualized cost difference of going with 3B, which results <br />in no benefit to either party. Staff negotiated with MWCC and <br />had the payment somewhat reduced bit still not to an agreeable <br />arrangement. <br />DISCUSSION - The Metro Waste Control commission has now offered <br />to install alternative "3B" - the one a nk:oved by the City last <br />fall if the City will agree to the foll <br />A) Accept gravity lines for Cit. _ntenance (Previously <br />agreed to 10/864 <br />B) Accept 2 gr inder stations for City maintenance ( 1 <br />U previously agreed to 10/86) <br />3���1�yQ C) Contribute $3500 per year for 20 years (The equivalent <br />