Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 2, 1993 5 <br />I. School District 622 Advisory Board <br />M/S/P Johnston/Conlin - to appoint Carol Monette, 8623 28th <br />Street N., to the School District 622 Advisory Board. <br />(Motion carried 5-0). <br />J. Septic Ordinance <br />The Council received a memo from Todd Williams, urging the <br />council to reject the proposed change in the ordinance, <br />which change would avoid the need for manhole covers to be <br />brought to the surface based on reasons stated. <br />Marl, Rivard, 5290 Hilltop Ave., stated the idea of making a <br />septic system easier to clean out so it doesn't pollute the <br />environment and last longer is an excellent one and has no <br />objection to this. His reasons for objection to the <br />ordinance are: <br />1. It only addresses approx 25% of the septic systems in <br />Lake Elmo and the 25% that it addresses are the best, <br />newest, most effective septic systems in Lake Elmo. It <br />doesn't look at the other 75% which are far more likely to <br />fail. <br />2. Homeowners who were affected by this ordinance were <br />never once given an opportunity to voice their opinion prior <br />to the time that the legislation was passed. <br />3. We were lead to believe that the cost of making the <br />retrofit mandated by Ordinance 8053 could be as low as $20. <br />The fact of the matter is no one knows what it is going to <br />cost. <br />4. Because there was resistance to this ordinance, the city <br />held an informational town meeting. The agenda for this <br />meeting explained how this meeting would tell us how we <br />could better maintain our septic systems, why its important <br />to take good care of them, and conceptually was an excellent <br />idea. This agenda was sent only to the people affected by <br />Ordinance 8053. <br />Mr. Rivard asked the Council to evaluate what was in the <br />previous council's mind: were they looking at a ordinance <br />which is going to be effective for all of Lake Elmo or were <br />they looking at a means of appeasing the 250 residents who <br />were affected by Ordinance 8053. <br />M/S/F Conlin/Johnson - to reconsider the motion of January <br />19, 1993. (Motion failed: 2-3: John: You don't have any <br />teeth in an ordinance when you ask for volunteer compliance; <br />Johnston, Mottaz: This is a good ordinance and is not a <br />burden on anyone. The reason the other 75% was not included <br />was because chances are they did not have provisions for <br />