My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-21-81 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1981
>
04-21-81 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 8:42:51 PM
Creation date
10/1/2019 4:08:13 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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).
View images
View plain text
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />APRIL 21, 1981 <br />-6- <br />NW 1/4 of SW 1/4, Sec. 15, TS.29, R21, 656' S and <br />1312' E. from NW corner of SW 1/4 being point of beginning, E 310' <br />parallel with North line then south 3882' + 184.6' to Northerly right <br />of -way of T.H. 5, then NW along said right -of --way to west line of <br />NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 then North along west line to NW corner of property <br />said point being 656' S and 1312' E of NW corner of SW 1/4 of Sec. 15. <br />Subject to a Certificate of Survey being provided. Motion carried <br />4-0. <br />ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: <br />A. Cable TV Committee - Surve andpointments - Administrator <br />WhittaF er reposed several resients have volunteered to serve on <br />the study committee. <br />Mottaz moved, seconded by Novak, to reconsider the motion to set up a <br />Study Committee. Discussion: Mottaz feels that the previous <br />action is, in effect,setting up a Cable Commit4ee;_which is not the <br />intent of the City at this point. He thinks the questions that <br />need to be addressed can be answered without a committee, by polling <br />the cable companies, as suggested by the Administrator in his April <br />16 Memo. He recommended that the Administrator draft a letter <br />with 8-10 pertinent questions. After preliminary information is <br />available, the City can decide if a study cable committee is desirable <br />or necessary. Fraser agreed with the basic principle, but feels <br />a preliminary overview is necessary to decide when the City should <br />deal with it. She said Mottazs' suggestion fails to address the <br />question in a manner the weight of the question deserves. Mottaz <br />feels both he and Fraser are looking for the same answer; but their <br />approach differs. The Council discussed the pros and cons of <br />a Preliminary Study Committee. <br />Don Moe, Cimarron committee volunteer, agreed with Fraser's position <br />stating there is a definite need for the preliminary committee. <br />Motion carried 4-0. <br />Mottaz moved, seconded by Novak, to establish a Preliminary Study <br />Committee. Motion failed 1-3. Fraser doting for the motion. <br />Mottaz moved, seconded by Novak, to instruct the Administrator to <br />prepare a questionaire to be sent to the companies providing cable <br />service in the State; and request they respond by May 5. Motion <br />carried 3-1. Fraser opposed. She feels the committee approach would <br />better address the questions. <br />B. Well #2 - Test results are not back on the City Office well. <br />C. Revenue Sharing Audit - Estimates are not available, yet. <br />D. County Landfill - Re <br />ngional Park - <br />Mottaz moved, secoded by Novak, to adopt $-81-30, "A Resolution <br />objecting to the use of the Regional Park as a landfill." The <br />resolution will be sent to all branches of government involved with <br />the landfill, parkland use, pollution control, etc. Motion carried 4-0. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.