My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-25-2013 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2013
>
02-25-2013 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2021 3:05:00 PM
Creation date
4/7/2015 12:43:11 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.
/
286
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, February 11, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> Page 10 of 24 <br /> <br /> <br />(LMCD REPORT – ANDREW McDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE, Continued) <br /> <br />“Jabbour noted the DNR’s AIS program is a $3.6 million budget for the entire state of Minnesota.” <br /> <br />Printup stated the Council needs to take into consideration the people who do not live on the lake and that <br />putting that many resources into it is not something he would be comfortable with. <br /> <br />Levang indicated she also is not comfortable with contributing to this. Levang stated she concurs that the <br />City Council should make a decision and then stand by it. <br /> <br />McMillan commented she also is opposed to the use of chemicals in the lake and that she could never <br />envision a partnership where certain private individuals receive money in some form for chemical <br />treatment that has been shown does not kill the milfoil. Even if the lakes are treated, the milfoil will come <br />back. In addition, the chemicals have to be monitored on a regular basis, which also costs money. <br /> <br />McMillan noted a considerable amount of time and energy will need to be put into the chemical treatment <br />program, and if the LMCD gets involved in this, there may be no stopping it. <br /> <br />Anderson noted the scope of the service area has grown tremendously from the original intent of the <br />LMCD. Anderson commented that everyone wants to preserve the lake but that they do not want to keep <br />throwing chemicals in it year after year. <br /> <br />McMillan stated when they did the pilot program, they were hoping for better results. This project <br />involves chemicals and lots of money way down the road to simply maintain the status quo. <br /> <br />Bremer stated her personal reasons for being reticent are not monetary based and that the Council may not <br />have all of the information at this time regarding the true costs of the program over time. Bremer noted <br />the entire community benefits from Lake Minnetonka to some degree. <br /> <br />Bremer stated her biggest concern is the lack of knowledge that everyone has for determining what the <br />best way to control this is and that she also has a concern with what has happened in some other bays. <br />Bremer stated given the state of technology, harvesting and chemical treatment are the only options <br />available at this point and that she hopes the Council does not foreclose a conversation from happening if <br />other technology becomes available. <br /> <br />McDermott indicated the LMCD will continue to look at other options and that he would encourage the <br />City Council to speak to the other cities. <br /> <br />McMillan indicated Staff will put together a letter regarding the Council’s stance on this issue. <br /> <br />Nybeck noted the LMCD did hold a public safety meeting regarding vehicles driving on Lake <br />Minnetonka. <br /> <br />Levang asked what options they are pursuing to keep cars from falling into the lake. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 02/25/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 02/11/2013 [Page 10 of 24]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.