Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> ♦ OROIJO COUNCIL l'iEETING HELD JANUARY 26, 1976 Page 18 <br /> • ���ith this in mind, these findings must be CITY OF PLYt20UTH LETTER <br /> available to us as soon as possible. As we have North Ferndale Road <br /> been directed to return to our Council by (Continued) <br /> February 23 with a decision as to whether a <br /> joint study ��ill be undertaken, we would <br /> � appreciate your response concerning Orono's <br /> willingness to participate in this study as <br /> � soon as possible. <br /> � ���e will be transmitting a copy of the study <br /> � proposal to you within the next few days, <br /> � James G. Willis <br /> City ��Ianager <br /> � <br /> End of letter <br /> • <br /> The City Council instructed r-Zayor Searles and <br /> � Administrator Benson to meet with r��r. �aillis, <br /> � Plyr,touth City P•lanager, and discuss their proposal< <br /> � City Administrator Dick Benson informed the POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY <br /> � City Council that Orono is in receipt of a FINDINGS <br /> letter from the T�Iinnesota Pollution Control <br /> • Agency to the �letropolitan Waste Control <br /> Commission stating that: <br /> The P�Zinnesota P011ution Control Agency has <br /> reveiwed the revised environmental assessment, <br /> � the public participation, and public comments <br /> subrnitted on the proposed Orono-Long Lake <br /> � interceptor project. A number of serious concerns <br /> and questions have been raised in the public <br /> • hearing, and in the environmental assessment <br /> with the route and project design. Although <br /> � �re doctur.entaticn submitted has been fairly <br /> � complete, there still are unresolved issues <br /> between the MinTCC and the City of Orono. <br /> • <br /> The basic question revolves around the selection <br /> + of alternative 1 (the gravity interceptor) in <br /> lieu of alternative 6 (forcemain) , in the 1972 <br /> + preliminary engineering reporte In the 1972 <br /> , report, the forceMain had the lowest total <br /> annual cost� Additional costs were added <br /> �, however, whicli include extra costs to Orono for <br /> additional sewer and pumping stations needed with <br /> � alternative 6. This additional cost was associated <br /> with sewering presently undeveloped areas, in <br /> • line with the then projected population and <br /> dense developmento Since 1972, the population <br /> � for Orono has been revised downward, and most <br /> � of tr,e:undeveloped area is zoned for 2-acre lots <br /> with onsite sewage disposal, as indicated in <br /> � Orono's Comprehensive plan. As a result, the <br /> local community costs for alternative 6 in <br /> � table 10 of the 1972 report will obviiusly be <br /> proportionally lesse <br /> • (Continued) <br />