Laserfiche WebLink
Lake Elmo City Council Minutes for July 7, 1987 Page 2 <br />Novak also advised the council that a meeting is scheduled with <br />Willard Munger for Thursday, July 16, 1987 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 400 of <br />the State Office Building. The purpose of this meeting is to rebut <br />the response from the MPCA regarding the questions relating to the <br />siting process of the Lake Elmo Landfill. <br />Novak also advised the council that County Commissioner, Russ Larkin <br />has prepared a resolution that he will present to the County Board in <br />which he asks the County Board to take the position that they will not <br />break the covenants and will oppose any effort by the Met Council to <br />redefine or alter the covenants to permit a landfill in the Regional <br />Park. <br />The Landfill Committee will also have a booth at the Washington County <br />Fair in which they intend to get a petition signed by residents in <br />Washington County (outside of the immediate Lake Elmo area) tc oppose <br />bre'.;inr t.le covenants that could allow the landfill in the Regional <br />Park. Funds for this will come out of the $1500 that has been <br />allotted to the Landfill Committee. <br />Novak also stated tIio; 1. C-. (,;_ " ' Elmo needs to establish, <br />household recycling program (, ther than the compost site). <br />5. Public Inquiries <br />A. Water level on Lake Elmo <br />As stated at prior meetings, Mr. and Mrs. Eisle have concern with the <br />damage done to their property with the lowering of Lake Elmo. In <br />Eisle's conversation with Nels Nelson, Engineer for Valley Branch <br />Watershed District, there has been some dispute or error over the <br />benchmark of the Lake. The permit issued by the DNR was for 884.5 not <br />884 as proposed by the VBWD. The Eisle's asked the City's assistance <br />in their attempt to have recinded the $2000 assessment to their <br />property for the supposed benefit of the lake being lowered, and <br />support in getting the VBWD to restore their property so they will <br />continue to have lakeshore. <br />The DNR would have to issue a permit to clean-up the area, and there <br />are public hearings and procedures that the DNR must follow before <br />issuing a clean-up permit, and this process takes 45 days. <br />City Attorney Knaak stated that if the City would financially assist <br />in the public enhancement (of the Eisle's private property) without a <br />direct justifiable overall City benefit, the City could expose itself <br />to subsequent actions by acting outside of the scope of the City's <br />authority. There would be no direct benefit to the entire City, and <br />therefore City funds cannot be spent on private enhancement of <br />property. <br />Christ pointed out that he has more sympathy for those people that <br />built 25 years ago when the water level was low who have suffered with <br />water in their homes. The homes on Lake Elmo that have lost lake <br />frontage were recently built and required variances to be built, which <br />shnu l rl nPVPr haves ht-p l a 1 1 nsaPrJ T4P fi] l l y si1ppart s Lake Elmo at its <br />