Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL 9/15/81 <br />PAGE 5 <br />11. ENGINEER - OTH <br />1. Brookfield•, rainage,Plan Bohrer reported that the developers <br />have not su7m'i t'e�d 'additional,d:ata -to date, ion their revised plans. <br />2. "Tab'lyn Park'Land'scap'i��n��g� The Engineer reviewed 'the work <br />to be comple Par <br />around tHe"tennis courts, also what needed to.be done <br />to stop the erosion problem around the courts. He did not feel the <br />City crew could do the work as they do not have the necessary equipment. <br />Bohrer advised the Council the-work..,should":be done this year., <br />-,14organ-Peals-$3800 iS.'too much money for what needs to be done. He <br />suggested soliciting another bid. <br />The Council discussed the time element with seeking additional"bids " <br />and ;seeding and sodding so late in the season. <br />M/S/P Fraser/,"Eder to attempt to do the necessary landscape work in <br />Tablyn Park, per the Engineer's recommendation, authorizing the <br />Administrator to solicit additional bids, to suet Mogr:en:.Bros. <br />as the high bid, ._to accept a lower bid and proceed with the neces- <br />sary work. If no lower bid is received the Mogren bid will be <br />accepted and the work authorized to be done this fall. <br />An explaination of this action will be sent to the Park Commission <br />with Adm. action delayed until -the Parkmeeting� pending strong <br />negative reaction from the Commission. Mottaz and Morgan opposed. <br />--Mottaz- does not think this is a good time of year to 'start ''this work. <br />12. NORM SESSING, ARCHITECT - CITY OFFICE ALTERNATIVES: <br />Norm Sessing and Tom Backe explained the feasibility study outlining <br />the four remodeling schemes for a new City Office. <br />The council .wk1l.teview the alt*wfiatives for'. discussion, October 6. <br />13. COUNTY LANDFILL/REGIONAL PARK: <br />Whittaker reviewed the Hearing. Examiners findings:;:-e:tpla.-Used the <br />present'status•and ppocedure on locating the .1-andfill in the <br />Regional Park, and discussed the City's options, per his memo <br />of September 15, 1981, "Landfill in Lake Elmo Regional Park <br />Reserve', <br />kAmended * M/S/-P- Mottaz/Morgan that Items 1-7,•Action Items listed.in Memo of <br />10/6/81 September 15, 1981 - Landfill in Lake Elmo Regional Par],.- be <br />adopted as the plan of action, Also all other avenues, legal <br />technical and political, be pursued to oppose the landfill site <br />selection in Lake Elmo, and . reitterate the City Council's <br />position opposing alandfilling' as a means of disposing of waste. <br />Discussion: <br />Fraser - Strongly goes along with 2,3,4,6, and 7; but not quite <br />willing to appropriate $1,000 for legal research and hire a law <br />student. Have great question that those expenditures will pay off. <br />Supports the others without question. <br />--Eder - technicalities may be the thing that overturns it if it <br />gets down to two sites, only, <br />--Whittaker - Total legal expense would be $1,000, including City <br />Attorney fees <br />--Fraser - Clarify item 1 to read - Appropniate $1,000 for legal <br />research including, hire a law student. %,000 is the maximum amount. <br />Council agreed on the clarification. <br />Motion carried as clarified 5-0. <br />