Laserfiche WebLink
. � <br /> , REGULAR P�IEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, P4ARCH 30 , 1978 Page 2g <br /> 2 . The City of P7innetonka requires that the fee CEPITRAL �aATER SYSTEMS <br /> owner certify his approval for any requests (Continued) <br /> involving rezoning, subdivisions, or variances <br /> involving his land. I believe that this require- <br /> ment would preclude the possibility of the City <br /> going to sorne expense in processing a request <br /> only to find out that the petitioner is not <br /> the fee owner of the property and is making <br /> the request only to determine the feasibility <br /> of purchasing the property. <br /> 3. I understand that some cities that use P�1SA funds <br /> for the construction of new roads or the major <br /> improvement of existing roads also assess the <br /> road improvement costs to any property owners <br /> that have lateral benefits to those roads. This <br /> apparently allows the City to generate cash <br /> that may be used for some other purpose from <br /> _ its citizens for projects that are paid for by <br /> riSA funds. From a legal standpoint, is this <br /> permissible under present State Statutes and <br /> how could it apply to Orono in the future use <br /> of its r1SA funds? <br /> Mr. Alan 01son, City �Planner, reviewed his memo <br /> concerning the above dated P�arch 21, 1978: <br /> l. Central Water Systems <br /> Advantages: Generally deeper well with more <br /> assured supplies; fire protection water would <br /> be available; provide distribution systems <br /> which could be incorporated into an eventual <br /> overall City system. <br /> Disadvantages : Ownership and maintenance <br /> responsibility arguments; likely City take- <br /> over and operation of disconnected, perhaps <br /> labor intensive systems; increased front-end <br /> costs for developer; likely to be inefficient <br /> for the small, scattered developments Orono <br /> sees and encourages. <br /> Recommendations : Should probably be considered <br /> for developments contiguous or close to the <br /> existing City system, or in areas where the <br /> City would likely install such a system, or for <br /> developments exceeding a minimur.l number of lots <br /> (say 20?) . <br /> 2. Owner Certification <br /> This is tentatively (and unsatisfactorily) done <br /> now with the layout of our current application <br /> forms. Subdividers do this at the end with the . <br /> title opinions. I recommend revising all application <br /> forms to require certification of ownership and <br /> notarizing, such revision to occur as soon as possible. <br />