My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-25-1985 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1985
>
02-25-1985 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2025 11:32:01 AM
Creation date
11/13/2025 11:28:28 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
176
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
/ Owl OC-T up. lF L ' �� 1 5 Y Y <br />-f%ru-k-s -Z S7 f <br />C. Combinpd Sewer verflow. Mr. Purdue reported on the <br />status of permitting for Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul <br />to discharge untreated sewage into the Mississippi from combined <br />s wer overfiow. He distributed a "whits paper" issued October <br />17th by the Metropolitan Council. A copy is attached. The paper <br />proposes a state construction fund of approximately $50 million <br />annually for a period of five years. Forty percent of the monev <br />would go to th, metropolitan area and the remaining 601 would go <br />to outstate cities for sewage treatment projects. The three <br />cities with CSO permits would receive 50% of the funding of <br />remedial construction from the state fund. The paper states that <br />EPA may forbid additional sewer hook-ups thrnuch.cut the mwcc <br />sT sy tem if a program for completion of construction by about 1991 <br />1s not adopted ',y state government. Mr. Purdue stated his view <br />that this sanct. •n is aimed primarily at the other cities in the <br />metro area, and he stated that he believes they are the onl•: <br />governmental units which may oppose a state-fundea grant to the <br />three cities. The position paper also suggests as an alternative <br />that EPA may mandate the method of abating CSO, and the position <br />paper states that a method mandated by EPA might not be the <br />method most acceptable to the metropolitan area. <br />A general discussion of the issue followed. Mr. Thomson <br />suggested that eliminating storm water inflow would result in <br />increased plant capacity for sewage treatment and thus the excess <br />cost could be considered a SAC charge. There was a consensus <br />that it would be inequitable to stop additional hook-ups in <br />cities which have separated sewers. There was also a consensus <br />that those cities which have separated sewers should not now pav <br />the cost of the separation in other communities. Mr. Spore <br />suggested that accelerated construction could be financed by the <br />state through a loan program, rather than throuah a grant pro- <br />gram. Foliowing more discussion, it was moved by Spore, seconded <br />by Boeck, that counsel be directed to inform the Met Council, <br />other appropriate agencies, and executive and legislative branch <br />leaders that SRA favors a state -funded loan program to accelerate <br />ecnstruction. The motion carried unanimously. Upon suggestion <br />by Mr. McGraw and by consensus, counsel was also directed to <br />prepare a summary and resolution for review by member city <br />councils. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.