Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1991 7 <br />This item will be postponed until the next Council meeting and <br />will be addressed as the first item under the City Engineer's <br />Report. <br />B. SW-1 Watermain <br />(1) Partial Payment #1, Keyes Well Drilling <br />M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - to approve Partial Payment No. 1 in <br />the amount of $3,709.75 for Keys Well Drilling; contingent upon <br />payment not being made until the funds are received from <br />Washington County. (Motion carried 4-0). <br />(2) Partial Payment #4, Kenko <br />M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - to approve Partial Payment No. 4 in <br />the amount of $38,483.59 for Kenko, Inc.; contingent upon payment <br />not being made until the funds are received from Washington <br />County. (Motion carried 4-0). <br />C. Final Payment to Tower Asphalt for Hytrail Overlay, <br />DeMontreville Park <br />Tom Prew reported work is complete on the Hytrail Overlay and <br />Demontreville Park Parking Lot. Added to this project was an <br />overlay on the west end of Lake Jane Trail which was scheduled to <br />be done in 1990. However, this was put on hold due to the <br />watermain project. Since Tower Asphalt was both our contractor <br />on the overlay project and the paving subcontractor on the <br />watermain project, doing the overlay now proved to be quite cost <br />effective. Payment for the Lake Jane Trail overlay comes out of <br />the patch and overlay portion of the budget. <br />M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to approve Change Order No. 1 in the <br />amount of $2315.97 for the Lake Jane Overlay. (Motion carried 4- <br />0). <br />M/S/P Williams/Dick Johnson - to approve Compensating Order in <br />the amount of (deduct) $175.64. (Motion carried 4-0). <br />M/S/P Williams/Dick Johnson - to approve final payment to Tower <br />Asphalt in the amount of $16,968.08. (Motion carried 4-0). <br />8. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: <br />A. Federal Land Update <br />The City Attorney reported that on February, 1991 the District <br />Court entered a decision in this case which concluded the <br />plaintiff was not entitled to a judgement declaring the present <br />zoning and classification of the City was unreasonable and <br />further they are not entitled to a judgement from the court <br />enjoining the city from interfering with their development of <br />their land. <br />