Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1987 PAGE 9 <br />This would imply that all conveyance systems (culverts, storm sewers, <br />ditches, etc.) must be designed for the 100-year event. This would <br />lead to very large and expensive storm water facilities. Bohrer <br />suggests that storm sewers and culverts be designed for the 100-year <br />event but that overflow paths, waterways, and ponds be designed for <br />the critical event. <br />M/S/P Armstrong/Graves - to direct the City Engineer to forward a <br />letter with his comments as stated in his letter dated November 2, <br />1987 to the Browns Creek Watershed Management Plan (NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 <br />of Section 1). (Motion carried 5-0). <br />C. 201 Program: Change Order for Blacktop Work on <br />32nd Street <br />The City of Lake Elmo had planned to construct a bituminous overlay on <br />32nd Street from Lampert Avenue to Klondike Avenue. A portion of this <br />road will be disturbed in the construction of pressure sewer for Old <br />Village Remote Site C. The pressure sewer trench in 32nd Street will <br />be patched under this contract. The City finds that it is convenient <br />and economical to add the planned bituminous overlay work to this <br />existing contract by means of a non -grant eligible change order. The <br />price to construct a 1-1/2" compacted thickness bituminous overlay on <br />32nd Street from Lampert Avenue to Klondike Avenue (1360 LF x 18' <br />wide) for the lump sum price of $10,500.00. <br />M/S/P Johnson/Graves - to approve Change Order No. 3 of $10,500.00 to <br />allow for blacktopping work on 32nd Street as part of the 201 Project, <br />Part D - Off -site and Collector Septic Systems. (Motion carried 5-0). <br />8. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT <br />City Attorney Knaak provided a brief written summary of the current <br />status of pending civil matters involving the City of Lake Elmo. In <br />the future, he will have this summary available for packet <br />distribution. <br />Councilman Graves questioned the vote on October 6th on the <br />eligibility, in light of information he has picked up, on <br />appropriateness of Rose Armstrong voting on this decision. Graves <br />asked if it would not be appropriate to get an opinion from the <br />Attorney General on this issue. Attorney Knaak responded that <br />circumstance have changed, and his opinion may change, but he stands <br />by his opinion rendered to the Council at that time. He would not <br />dispute it was a close call. Knaak indicated the issue is out of our <br />control and he again stressed confidentiality toward the matter. <br />Tom Armstrong stated he doesn't care if the City appeals the decision <br />or not. He was not a part to the decision, nor took part in the <br />decisions, did not have an opportunity to call witnesses or <br />cross-examine witnesses, and did not have a chance to take part in <br />that deeisien whatsoever as —a party. "Whether the 15-it or <br />not is of no interest to me" Tom said, "the City can do as they see <br />fit." Tom added "If you feel there is a conflict of interest of my <br />wife in any involvement of the case you are dead wrong. Whether the <br />