05-17-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 17, 1983 D R A F T -8- For 6 7 83 Approval A. COUNCIL REPORTS- B. • 'Councillor' -,Dunn Motion failed - Vote 2-2-1. Eder and Fraser opposed. Mazzara abstained. C. Councillor' Mazzara W'/E\.Plant\Roport -- DDR9, Engineers for the propose plant, is sponsoring a 3-day tour of similar plants, both operational and under construction. They are providing the air transportion to interested Board representatives and other interested parties. Mazzara indicated he would like to go and asked the Council to authorize food and logding expense of $150. Dunn - don't see any reason to send an elected official - don''t think would gain that much - reason for going on any of these field trips is technical - do not see where it is that important - like Tip O'Neal's junkets all over the world. - Fraser - had an opportunity to view the plant in Boston, on personal time - no cost to the City - and found the tour of the facility very helpful in getting a sense of what is involved and understanding the operation of such a facility. Support Mazzara's interest to go for $150 of City expense. Eder - agree with Dunn if it were only the technical aspects of the operation, but based on the feedback from Fraser and Jess Mottaz, who also visited the plant, the experience gave ai.'feeling of how to relate to the technical aspects, what type of questions to ask, what is significant about the process, location - creates a whole different sense of awareness. Would support his touring the plants. M/S/P Fraser/Eder authorizing Councillor Mike Mazzara to attend the HDR W/E plant Tour at City expense in an amount not to exceed $200. Carried 3,2 Morgan and Dunn opposed. D,, Council lo'r,"Morgan ,Complaint\,Er'rors v Omissions korgan d str1bu et d a memo to the Mayor and City Council, from himself, listing errors and ommissions he found in the Complaint filed in District Court on behalf of the City He asked that the listed items be corrected as indicated. -- Eder - again cautioned that this may fall under the lawyer/ client relationship and necessitate executive session. -- Dunn - the adjacent land owners received copies of the memo and have made it public. - Morgan - these are minor technical omissions that change the gist of the complaint eg. Page 4, item 9 states "at that time at least one of the landowners present, to wit, William Barthelmy was entitled to a mailed noticeV% all of the land- owners present were entitled to mailed notice - not one, all of them. Should say all of them. Public knowledge that none of them got written notice. M/S/ Fraser/Eder that all of Councillor Morgan's complaints be forwarded to the City Attorney and that he be asked to review them and act on them if he feels it. -:is appropriate. Discussion: ,-Morgan - not talking about professional judgement - talking about what is public record and what has happened, not someone's watered down opinion - that's nothing legal about that.W,hen none of the people got written notices,why say one didn't,