My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-11-2010 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
10-11-2010 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/26/2012 1:01:48 PM
Creation date
7/26/2012 1:01:48 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 11, 2010 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) <br />Kellogg indicated his office has been in the process of updating the City's surface water management <br />plan, which is going before the Minnehaha Watershed District this Thursday night for preliminary <br />approval. Then a memorandum of understanding will need to be executed before it can be finally <br />approved. <br />Kellogg indicated his office has put together a 10 -year CIP, which is basically the CIP from the last <br />surface water management plan. None of those projects have been accomplished to date and there needs <br />to be a prioritization of those items. They have identified 10 larger projects that the City should consider <br />undertaking but he is not sure whether the delta cleaning is part of this 10 -year CIP. Kellogg noted there <br />are budgetary constraints and that the storm water improvement projects have to be prioritized. <br />Kellogg indicated he wanted to get past the approval process on the surface water management plan <br />before moving forward. They have also prepared separately a 7 -year CIP that includes all improvements <br />throughout the City and the delta project is identified in that plan. Due to the limited funding available, <br />projects scheduled for the next 10 years will need to be paid in part with grants and other financial <br />assistance. <br />Olson noted the fund balance before the Casco Point project was around $700,000, but that approximately <br />half of that was expended on Casco Point. The City currently receives around $125,000 a year in that <br />fund from user fees. • <br />Kellogg stated they have not lost sight of the project and are working on priorities at the present time. <br />Barrett stated with every year this project is delayed, more sediment collects, which fills in a couple of <br />dock spaces. Barrett asked who will be accepting the responsibility to clean up the delta. <br />White asked Mr. Barrett if he is requesting the City accept that responsibility rather than the association. <br />Barrett noted the pipe is located on an adjoining property and is not on their property. At the May <br />Council meeting it was decided there would be a work session to determine whose responsibility it was. <br />White stated his recollection of the meeting was that Staff would look into the situation and gather <br />additional information on it. <br />Barrett noted he sent an e-mail to the mayor and the rest of the City Council on this matter and that he did <br />not receive a response back from the mayor. Barrett indicated he received a response from McMillan and <br />Murphy. <br />White indicated he did not receive that e-mail. <br />Barrett noted the minutes from that meeting reflect that Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the <br />application for a dock use licensed for the Forest Arms Country Club Homeowners Association for 2010 <br />based on the current survey, with the requirement that a new survey be updated and obtained prior to the <br />submittal of the 2011 application, and with the additional requirement the City Engineer review the runoff <br />situation, determine what the City's responsibility is as it relates to the delta, and to direct Staff to develop <br />a policy regarding how often the surveys should be updated. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, McMillan opposed. <br />Barrett commented that the motion is pretty clear. <br />Page 4 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.