03-02-93 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

agreement the capacity would be stay with Lake Elmo. Both Rita and Wyn 1 felt that we had no authority to assume that such a decision would be supported by the Metropolitan Commission. In response to Pam, Wyn stated that he did not feel that the Oakdale offer was attractive enough for him to feel comfortable in offering it to the Lake Elmo council. All it did was to provide a sewer line of enough capacity to meet Lake Elmo's short term needs, assuming .that the capacity would still be available after the land transfer. If Oakdale were able to provide a "loan" of sewer capacity to enable the MUSA to be extended to the bounds of our original submission, then maybe this was something we could offer the Council for consideration. We would "replace" this capacity when the project for increasing the capacity of the WONE interceptor to meet Woodbury needs was ordered. Rita Conlin suggested that as we were being asked to transfer land to Oakdale, that some land should be transferred to Lake Elmo in exchange. She suggested that perhaps a parcel in the SE corner would be appropriate. Ted Bearth's reply was short - "No way". When Wyn John expressed surprise that he could be so forthright, Ted Bearth replied that that was his characteristic - to tell it like it is. As the owner in this parcel had asked for annexation, he did not feel he could now undo that request and return the land owner to Lake Elmo. Wyn John responded that if the landowner's sole reason for requesting annexation had been the lack of sewer availablity, this deficiency would be remedied by the construction of the proposed 4th Street sewer. It might not then matter (to the landowner) if the land were to be transferred back to Lake Elmo. He also felt that with the current situation, there was nothing preventing Lake Elmo putting in a sewer along 4th Street to tie in with the Business Park Area. Although it might not be an economically viable solution, the streets being in Lake Elmo provided that right, for which we did not need Oakdale approval. This was yet another reason why Oakdale's proposal gave no perceived benefit to Lake Elmo. Ted Bearth remarked that Oakdale had always been a supportive friend of Lake Elmo. He cited the unsigned agreement which had been reached with Sue Dunn, Lee Hunt and Todd Williams (who was NEVER involved in any such discussions), Oakdale support of Lake Elmo over the proposed Bishop an and its preparedness to provide Oakdale City water to Lake Elmo homes whose water supply was contaminated.