10-07-86 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE 2 Bohrer responded that under this grant program there are really no emergency provisions, but there is a small purchases procedure for expenses under $10,000. They did get the MPCA to expand the interpretationto take care of what he considers an emergency situation under $10,000 before going out for public bids. The reason they don't allow a rebate is because if you did your installation and asked to be reimbursed, that installation would not have complied with all of the grant provisions. These provisions include: bidders having a certain amount of small woman or minority business enterprise, bidders have to agree to pay certain minimum federal prevailing wage rates, and many other provisions that would not have been complied with. Schiltz added that the 201 Project was supposed to be the solution to his problems, but he was told by the City Engineer that he would not be able to do his laundry when this problem is solved. Now, he asked, does this sound like a correct solution when you cannot even do your 'laundry? Schiltz hoped that the capacity he needs should be considered before the system is put in because he would like the business to be looked at as full seven days a week. He also asked why the MPCA did not visit this restaurant to inspect his problem, as he had requested. Amen ed 10-21-86 Business & personal Laundry) Bohrer replied that the meeting they had with the MPCA ran late and so they were unable to visit Mr. Schiltz's situation because the MPCA had other committments. Morgan added that people making these grants base it on the most cost effective way and the people making these grants felt the 201 Project was the most cost effective way. Ed Gorman, owner of the White Hat restaurant, asked the following questions regarding the 201 Program. What factors were considered in selecting his property for off -site installation? Bohrer responded that back in the facility planning stage they identified where the needs were in the community. In a preliminary way, they determined which ones could be fixed up on -site and which ones could not -either because of lot size or suitability of the soil. Then they looked at the location of home and businesses that could not solve their problem on their own property. Then they looked for the closest vacant land and if it was suitable for the intended purpose by examining county soil surveys, water table records, well logs or any available information they had. If again, it was found to be suitable and in close proximity, that was their primary choice. When he develops the remaining property would he be able to hook-up to the off -site system? Bohrer answered that it would be unlikely, because in any new development he would have to show that he has enough land on his own property to do what he wants. This is not only regarding sewage disposal, but things such as surface water, ponding, landscaping requirements, and adequate parking have to be considered. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has appropriated $125,000 for land acquisition, if the land acquisition exceeds this amount what is the probability this project would proceed as planned.? Bohrer responded that some land will be purchased by negotiations and other land by condemnation. By condemnation, the Court -appointed commissioners will determine that value. If the value is more than what the MPCA has already approved, they will go back to the MPCA and