My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-02-85 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1985
>
04-02-85 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 8:00:05 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:05:43 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 MINUTES APRIL 2, 1985 <br />PAGE 8 <br />acknowledging that the County and State still have the option to <br />ticket the truck if it is overloaded while traveling on a County or <br />State roadway coming to or leaving Lake Elmo. (Motion carried 4-0) <br />B. Proposed fee for inspection of existing septic systems. <br />The Building Official stated in his memo of March 27, 1985 that when a <br />house in the Lake Elmo area is in the process of changing ownership, <br />one of the usual requirements is to have the septic system inspected, <br />visually, for 'proper performance. In the past, the Building Official <br />has made the visual inspection and verified the findings to the <br />requesting source as a free service from the City. The Building. <br />Official feels that the City should be charging for the inspections at <br />the same rate that is charged by Washington County. <br />M/S:/P To adopt ordinance-7969 amending the Lake Elmo City Code adding <br />105.04o C.8. "When an inspection of an existing septic system is -- <br />requested, the following fees will he charged for said inspection: (1) <br />New system first Year: Free;. (2) 1-5 years - In office verification: <br />$25.00; (3) Over 5 years old on -site inspection: $50.00". (Motion <br />carried 4-0) <br />C. Civil Attorney (civil) selection. <br />The City Staff indicated a strong preference for the appointment of <br />Dave Magnuson as Civil City Attorney because of his extensive <br />municipal experience and because his bid was lower than those <br />submitted by Mr. Borer or Mr. Knaak. <br />The Council discussed the bids, in particular the retainer fees that <br />were submitted in the bids. It was the consensus of the Council to <br />reject all of the bids that were submitted and negotiate with the <br />preferred canidate the retainer section of the bid. <br />Mazzara feels that rather than negotiating with just the preferred <br />candidate, negotiations should be made with three of the four <br />candidates that were interviewed. (Mr. Moosbrugger was eliminated <br />because of his lack of expereince). <br />M/S/P Armstrong/Morgan - To reject all bids for the civil aspect of <br />the City Attorney. (Motion carried 4-0) <br />M/S/P Morgan/Armstrong - To request that Mr. Fredrick Knaak come <br />before the Council in the attempt to negotiate a contract with the <br />City for the civil aspect of the City Attorney work. (Motion carried <br />3-1 <Mazzara>) <br />Mazzara feels that Mr. Knaak is very qualified, but he is in the <br />Senate a good portion of the year and will not be able to devote as <br />much time to the City as other canidates would, and that negotiations <br />should be left open to other canidates too. <br />Dl. Park Donation Fee <br />The Administrator stated that the Parks Commission has discussed <br />alternative revenue sources to help with future Capital Improvements. <br />One recommendation that was made is to increase the park donation fees <br />imposed on developers. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.