Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> SP�CIAL MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 Page 5 <br /> a 4. The Council may determine that a particular interceptor <br /> or some portion thereof is of substantial benefit to the <br /> � Metropolitan Area as a whole, and the current costs <br /> allocable to such benefit shall be allocated according <br /> � to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.05, Subdivision 5, if: <br /> � a. The interceptor eliminates the need for a treatment <br /> � works not existing on January l, 1970, which could have <br /> been constructed consistent with Minnesota Pollution <br /> � Control Agency and Metropolitan Development Guide <br /> standards in effect when the decision is made to <br /> construct the interceptor, or eliminates the need <br /> for a treatment works existing on January 1, 1970 <br /> � or improvements to it; and <br /> � b. The decision to build the interceptor was or is <br /> made to protect or improve a water resource of <br /> metropolitan significance. The term "water resource <br /> � of inetropolitan significance" shall include any <br /> lake or any portion of a major river used as a <br /> � source of municipal water supply or designated <br /> by the Metropolitan Council as a water area to be <br /> protected. <br /> � 5. Once an interceptor has been determined to be of <br /> * metropolitan benefit, the costs eligible for allocation <br /> under the metropolitan benefit provision shall be those <br /> � current costs incurred after December 31, 1971. <br /> � 6. When the Council makes a determination of inetropolitan <br /> benefit, the Sewer Board shall compute the amount of <br /> current costs allocable thereto in preparing its budget <br /> each year. The amount of current costs allocated to a <br /> service area in such year and the current costs that <br /> would have been allocated to the service area if the <br /> lowest cost disposal system alternative had been <br /> � retained, selected or constructed consistent with <br /> paragraph one. <br /> � <br /> Discussion returned to the 60/40 assessment formula. <br /> � Malkerson stated that using an area formula was not <br /> • proposed at the Public Hearing on the assessment roll. <br /> Mrs. Christensen felt there should be more time spent <br /> ! on reviewing the use of this formula. Emphasizing <br /> the need for an area assessment formula opposed to <br /> � a front footage charge. Benson stated October 10 <br /> was the last date to send the assessment to Hennepin <br /> � County. George Johnson felt it was possible to <br /> exceed that time limit. Malkerson volunteered to <br /> � explore the possibility of sending it at a later <br /> • date to give more time to exploring the area assessment. <br /> � <br /> � <br /> � <br /> i <br />