My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-24-1997 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
11-24-1997 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2012 4:05:39 PM
Creation date
12/28/2012 4:05:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 <br />. ENGINEER REPORT <br />( * #8) CHANGE ORDER NO.3 - NORTH BROWN ROAD <br />Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve Change Order No. 3, Brown Road North <br />MSA Project to substitute at no change in cost concrete valley curb and gutter for B618 <br />concrete curb and gutter. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. <br />CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />( #9) SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB - TUNNEL AGREEMENT <br />Spring Hill Golf Club Attorney, Tom Crosby, and Project Manager, Tim Johnson, were <br />present. <br />Gaffron reported that Spring Hill representatives have initiated contact with Hennepin <br />County regarding the possibility of a direct agreement between Spring Hill and the <br />County for the County Road 6 tunnel as opposed to the'City entering into a cooperative <br />agreement with the County regarding responsibility for the tunnel, and applicants <br />agreeing to accept all reassigned responsibilities via a similar agreement between Orono <br />and Spring Hill. This would eliminate the City acting as the "middleman" between <br />Spring Hill and the County as is stipulated in the conditional use permit. The County <br />• Attorney has reviewed the request and feels the culvert should be in public ownership <br />but is open to hearing from the City as to what they desire. <br />Jabbour said Council Member Peterson had expressed a concern regarding whether the <br />issue should be reviewed by the full Council. <br />Crosby explained the reasoning behind this request. He indicated that it had been <br />understood that the manner in which the tunnel could be built and operated had to be as <br />agreed on. When discussing other issues, it was found that the same responsibilities <br />would be required whether the contract was with the City or the County. It was <br />determined that there were other circumstances in the County where underpasses have <br />been constructed and maintained without city involvement but done directly with the <br />County. Crosby said he contacted the County, who said they did not want to get into a <br />political maelstrom with the City. Crosby told them he would speak with the City <br />regarding this possibility. <br />Crosby said from Spring Hill's standpoint, it was a legal concern whether the County has <br />the ability to assess if Spring Hill does not perform what was set out to be accomplished. <br />It was found that there is a policy in place that allows this to occur. The agreement will <br />remain the same. Crosby said he does not feel strongly about the ownership of the <br />tunnel viewing it as a technical issue. <br />�J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.