HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-81 CCMCLAIMS TO BE APPROVED AT MAY 19, 1981 COUNCIL MEETING
81393 State Treasurer — Ken's certification fee $
81394 State Treasurer—DNR — Little Sunfish & City Well pumping fees
81395 Mollie Hedges — 5/12/81 newsletter
81396 Copy Duplicating Products — copy machine supplies
81397 Kathleen Crombie — PZC Secretary (1 mtg.)
81398 TKDA — General $ 319.01
201 Study 2,229.65
Pass Thru 854.76
Watermain Study 590.73
Beutel Pond 946.63
81399 L.R.&M. General 879.00
Irvin Court 24.00
Legion Pond 84.00
Pass Thru 138.00
81400 Bruce Folz & Assoc. — Stake Reid Park
81401 Lake Elmo Oil — General 246.34
Fire Dept 128.80
81402 Kern's North Star
81401 Lillie Suburban Newspapers — legal publications
81402 Bryan Rock Products, Inc. — parks
81403 Oswald Fire Hose —Fire Dept nozzle repair
81404 Metro Waste Control Commission
81405 League of Minn. Cities — Hosp. annual administration fee
81406 The Croixside Press — envelopes
81407 Washington Cty. Treas. — lst & 2nd Quarter police contract
81408 Stillwater Book & Stationery — office supplies
81409 Washington Cty. Treas. — Watershed Assessments -1st 1/2
81410 G. A. Meyer Mercantile — General
81411 Chemlawn - park & office lawn care — 112,000 sq.ft.
81412 Minn. Fire, Inc. — Fire Dept — Partner Hooligan Tool
15.00
10.00
175.00
373.02
25.00
4,940.78
1,125.00
195.00
375.14
269.39
94.04
73.93
115.68
125.92
70.00
174.80
32,745.00
97.96
21.15
146.57
26o.00
81.74
81413 thru 81423 May 29th payroll 4,500.00
$ 46,010.12
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 19, 1981
_ Mayor Eder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Councillors present: Morgan, Mottaz, and Fraser. Also Administrator
Whittaker
AGENDA: Additions: Old Business - Other - Tennis Court Resurfacing
Bids; New Business - Tartan Meadows Development Agreement; New
Civil Defense Director; New Lawn Mower; New Pick -Up; License Ap-
plication; New Chain for Sunfish Park Gate.
Morgan moved, seconded by Mottaz, to approve the Agenda, as
amended. Motion carried 4-0.
MINUTES: May 5, 1981 - Deferred until later in the meeting.
CLAIMS: Morgan moved, seconded by Fraser, to approve Claims 81393
thru 31423. Motion carried 4-0.
RAY MARSHALL AND APPOINTMENT OF CONSULTANTS: Councillors Morgan
and Mottaz discussed their concerns on the possible conflict
of interest concerning Don Raleigh. No questions or concerns
were expressed about Mr. Marshall's performance for the City.
Both Mottaz and Morgan felt that another law firm should have
represented the City throughout consideration of the Brookfield
Revenue Bond request. ThW did not feel Mr. Raleigh should have
answered questions on the bonds when he was the solicitor of
them. Morgan did not feel Mr. Raleigh should represent Brook-
field during Council discussion and felt his presence during
the bond discussion raised the question of whether he was
acting as City Attorney or a land developer.
Whittaker noted that the legal work for Brookfield has always
been reviewed by Ekberg, Lammers and, to his knowledge, the
attorney has always delcared when there was a conflict of interest.
Mr. Marshall said he is the firm member who does °all -,the City's`
work and would like to continue to do so. He noted he is aware
of the concerns expressed and has met with both Councillor Morgan
and Mottaz to satisify these concerns. They have excused, them-
seleves whenever they have become aware of a conflict and will
continue to do so. Mr. Marshall stated he is not familiar with
the operations of the Brookfield Company and is not affiliated
the partnership.
Review of the Brookfield Industrial Bonds was done by Lammers
with the Dorsey Firm drafting the documents. Lammers also
did the legal review on the Brookman Addition Plat.
The Council discussed familarizing an alternate legal firm with
City procedure so that, when necessary, City work can be handled
with the City's format.
Fraser moved, seconded by Eder, to reappoint the City Attorney,
City Planner and City Engineer. Discussion - Mottaz requested
,an unders`tanding or, agreement with the Brookfield Company that
another partner, other than Don Raleigh represent them before the
Council. This would avoid future misunderstanding concerning
Mr. Raleigh's involvement with Brookfield and the City's legal firm.
The Council did not comment further. Motion carried 4-0.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 19, 1981
-2-
PZC RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Richert Simple Lot Division - Administrator Whittaker reviewed
the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the request.
The Council reviewed the application and location map.
Mayor Eder declared Lydia Richert is his aunt, therefore, he will
abstain from any vote.
r Morgan moved, seconded by Fraser, to Adopt R-81-36, a Resolution
approving the simple lot division for Mrs. Lydia Richert. NZ of
NE4, Section 16. Motion carried 3-0-1. Eder abstained.
B. James Friend - Vacation of Slo e Easement and Variance -
The Administrator reviewe t e Planning Commission action recom-
mending approval of the slope easement, per the Engineers review
and recommendation. A variance is necessary to permit the garage
to be 5 ft closer to 45th Street than the 25 ft. required for a
corner lot.
Mr. Friend stated he would have to remove several large mature
oak trees in order to locate the garage on the north side of his
home, which he felt imposed a hardship. He also said he would
incur a substantial financial hardship in removing and relocating
his present driveway by building the garage on the north side.
The City Engineer recommended recommended the N 13 ft of the slope
easement be vacated; but suggested that the curve along 45th St.,
adjacent to the Friend's south property line, be staked and
surveyed to verify that the roadway right-of-way is not encroached
on.
Morgan moved, seconded by Fraser, to authorize the Mayor and City
Administrator to sign a quit claim deed vacating the N 13 ft of
the slope easement along 45th Street, Dawcin Acres, for James
Friend, 9498 Jane Road N., and approve a variance to construct
a garage 20 ft. from the south property line. The Council
determined that a hardship to the land would be imposed by
locating the garage on the north side of the home, which would
require removing several mature oak trees.
Morgan and Fraser.agreed to amend the motion to include requiring
a survey of the south property line before a building permit for
the garage is issued. Motion carried 4-0.
C. Kanowitz Simple Lot Divisio
Administrator reviewed the Plan
approve the simple lot division
and Easement Vacation - The
ng Commission recommendation to
nd easement vacation.
Engineer Bohrer reviewed the site, the storm sewer plan, and con-
tacted the three utility companies involved. He stated that there
are no utilities in the easement, nor are any planned. He recom-
mended approving the easement vacation stating he saw no need
for easement on both sides of the property.
,Morgan moved, seconded by Eder, to adopt Resolution 81-37, a
Resolution approving the simple lot division for Lot 6, Block 2,
Demontreville Highlands 4th Addition, and vacating the utility
and drainage easements for Lot 5, Block 2, Demontreville Highlands
4th Addition. Motion carried 4-0.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 19, 1981 -3-
OLD BUSINESS:
H. Sludge and Ash Disposal Sites - The Council reviewed the
report indicating Lake Elmo as a possible disposal site. Mayor
Eder reported that the hearing will be June 11, at Oakland Jr.
High, and stated Lake Elmo should be ready to make a strong
response against locating a site in the City.
Mottaz moved, seconded by Eder, to notify the Metropolitan
Council that Lake Elmo strongly opposes any disposal site within
the City for the following reasons:
1. The designated site is within a Regional Park which was
designated and purchased for recreational purposes.
2. It is within a variable watershed that drains through the
middle of the most densely populated part of Lake Elmo.
3. Lake Elmo's continued opposition to landfills.
4. Lake Elmo's position that waste material be handled by means
other than dumping or land filling.
Also, the City will request documentation on why Hennepin and
Ramsey Counties were not designated as suitable sites. Discussion:
The Administrator will work with the City Engineer to verify and/
or correct the information for the Lake Elmo site, and respond
accordingly to the Met Council. Motion carried 4-0.
D. Battle Creek Assessment - The Administrator reviewed the
revised assessment roster with the Council. Lake Elmo's overall
share of the assessment was reduced to 1% or about $60,000. This
was the .result of Oakdale and Woodbury protesting the assessments
on the Battle Creek Surface Water Improvement.
ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. WA - Speed Limit Variance - Mayor Eder reported on his con-
versations with the Metropolitan Council Transportation Advisory
Committee, requesting their assistance and support to reduce
the 40 mph curve design speed on 45th Street, Julep, and 47th Street.
Larry Bousquet, Chairman of the Advisory Committee and an engineer
at the Washington County Highway Department, offered his assistance
to the City. The Met Council will send a letter stating the
40 mph design conflicts with Council policy to preserve open space.
The Engineer prepared a draft resolution for the variance request
and asked the Council for their recommended design speed. After
the Council discussed the pros and cons of speed zones of less
than 30 mph, the Engineer reitterated his position that anything
less than 30 mph has no chance of being approved.
Fraser moved, seconded by Mottaz, to insert a 30 mph curve speed
design for 45th, Julep, and 47th Streets in the Variance request
Eapproved in R-81-32. Discussion: The Engineer suggested he
talk to the State Aid Engineer, again, and ask for his support
of the 30 mph curve, before submitting the official Variance
request. The Council supported this action.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 19, 1981 -4-
ENGINEER'S REPORT:
MSA Continued - Engineer Bohrer summarized his report on financing
the MSA Program. He reviewed how a State Aid bond can be used and
the amounts for each project which are not eligible for State Aid
and would be supplemented with City funds.
Mottaz recommended proceeding with the combined project (45th St.,
Julep, 47th St. and Keats). The Council discussed eligibility
for 1982 funds.
A feasibility study was prepared for 45th, Julep, 47th and Keats
and a hearing was held on the 45th, Julep and 47th section. Final
plans were prepared and bids received; but the plans were not
approved because of the 40 mph corners required by the State Aid
Division. Should the Council proceed with the combined project,
,a hearing must be held on the Keats Avenue section.
Mottaz moved, seconded by Morgan, to adopt R-81-38, a Resolution
ordering a Feasability Study on improving Keats Avenue to MSA
standards. Motion carried 3-0-1. Eder abstained.
The Council desired that residents along both segments be notified.
B. VBWD Project 1006 - Engineer Bohrer summarized the draft
reporrfor Project�606, outlining the various alternatives. A
public meeting will be held May 20 to discuss the alternatives.
The Council discussed the alternatives with disagreement voiced
on which alternatives whould be addressed by the District. Morgan
and Mottaz challenged the philosophy of the Watershed to design
improvements for ultimate development and the outletting of
presently landlocked areas.
C. Alternatives of Well #2 - The Engineer presented his report
on the a ternatives avai a le for a second water supply. He
explained the geological background of the present well and said
further study would be required before a cost estimate on a
second well could be established. The estimated cost to study an
alternate water supply with a new well and pump facility would be
$1500. A review of past maintenance records and the present
maintenance program to ensure that the present well and pump are
maintained properly and continue to funcition, could be accomplished
by TKDA for a cost not to exceed $400.
Engineer Bohrer reported that a second well would serve as a back-up
facility; and he does not see a need, at this time, for an alternate
well.
Council discussion included potential problems, policy of similar
communities, financing of facilities, and the well company
presently providing the maintenance work on the well.
Bohrer explained what the $1500 would cover and what the maintenance
review would entail. Morgan favored tabling the question, based
on the cost estimates.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 19, 1981 -5-
ENGINEER'S REPORT CONTINUED:
Well # 2 - Frazer moved, seconded by Eder, to authorize the
Engineer to proceed with the maintenance review and report
back to the Council. Discussion: Cost is a major concern.
Mottaz questioned whether a maintenance review would adequately
identify potential problems. Morgan suggested the Maintenance
Foreman verify if the maintenance on the pumphas been properly
performed. If he cannot satisfactorily answer this question,
then, proceed with the Engineer's review. Fraser felt the
more careful evaluation was the more prudent approach. Morgan
stated that if the City is dissatisified with the present
well maintenance company another firm should be considered. Eder
recommended the Maintenance Foreman and the Administrator review
the service records, to determine if the equipment is being properly
serviced, and report back to the Council. Motion failed 1-3.
Morgan, Mottaz and Eder opposed. This will be reviewed at the
next Council meeting.
D. Bond Release for Tablyn Park II - Administrator Whittaker
reported that part o t e developers security for Tablyn Park II
was in the form of a 1/10 interest mortgage over several lots.
The developers have asked that this mortgage be released on
certain lots so they can be sold.
The Engineer reported that the improvements in Tablyn Park II
have been completed and accepted by the City. A $750 cash escrow
is still maintained by the developer, in favor of the City; and,
in the opinion of the Engineer, further security is not required.
Morgan moved, seconded by Mottaz, to release the mortage. Motion
carried 4-0.
E. Seal Coating Bids - The Council reviewed the three bids
receive for seal coating. Allied Blacktop Company was the
low bidder. The Engineer recommended the Council accept the
low bid from Allied.
Morgan moved, seconded by Mottaz, to accept the Engineer's recom-
mendation, and award the contract to the low bidder, Allied Black-
top Company. Discussion: The Engineer reviewed the seal coating
unit price proposal. The Council instructed the Engineer to
keep the total cost, including construction and engineering,
within the budgeted amount. Motion carried 4-0.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Office Plans - Mottaz moved, seconded by Morgan, to table
discussion of the office plans until June 2, 1981. Motion carried
4-0.
B. Little Sunfish Name Change - The Administrator, on the
Councl s recommen ation, contacted the DNR on the process necessary
to change the name of "Little Sunfish Lake". He advised the
Council that if a new name is submitted before the DNR's final
list of lakes is completed a long review process can be avoided.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 19, 1981 -G-
OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED:
Little Sunfish Name Chan e - The Council instructed the Administrator
to contact t e County an verify the original land owner of
Little Sunfish.
Mottaz moved, seconded by Morgan, to adopt R-81-39, a Resolution
authorizing the. Administrator to submit an appropriate name
for "Little Sunfish" Lake to the DNR, as determined from old
records. Motion carried 4-0.
It was suggested the Administrator contact Jim Schaefer or Leo
Raleigh about past names or property owners of "Little Sunfish"
C. Surface Water Use Ordinance - Administrator Whittaker reviewed
the comments of the DNR and noted their recommendations regarding
Horseshoe Lake and the City's responsibility for posting regulations,
designating accesses and installing buoys. The City will contact
Donald Durand, Pierre's Pier, and ask if he will post the regulations.
The County will make the signs.
Fraser moved, seconded by Mottaz, to adopt Ordinance 7926, Surface
Water Use. Motion carried 4-0.
D. Battle Creek Assessment - Handled earlier in meeting
E. Cable TV -
were sent out
C types of cable
summarized the
responses. As
phoning those
Administrator Whittaker reported that 51 surveys
and only 4 were returned. He explained the different
companies and the services they provide. Whittaker
questions posed in the survey and reviewed the
a means of providing more data, he suggested
companies who did not respond.
The general conclusion from the returned surveys was that Cimarron
was the most desireable area and the company who serviced Cimarron
would be the one who, most likely, would bid on the rest of the
City. Ten years was indicated as the minimum franchim most of the
companies would consider.
Mottaz felt the key question was answered when three. of the companies
indicated a franchise in Cimarron alone would preclude franchising
the rest of the City later.
Fraser maintained that developing a coherent plan is the key to
the whole question.
Council members discussed whether there is an overall interest in
providing cable tv for the entire City.
Mrs. Truskolaski, potential cable committee volunteer, said she
has had no contact with or from Tri-Lakes residents about cable
service.
Whittaker said the question is whether to bid Cimarron alone or
the whole City. Either way would require going through the
franchise process; but the Council should decide if they are
willing to permit a franchise in Cimarron only. This is a
judgement question.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 19, 1981 -7-
Cable Continued - Fraser indicated she was not ready to come to
'a --conclusion with the information, presently, available.
Eder requested that Fraser bring back her original proposal. Fraser
agreed provided another Council member (s) work with her in the
interim; so, that a more generally acceptable proposal can be
developed.
The Council discussed a needs study committee, premature con-
sideration of cable service, future service to the entire City
with possible consequences by permitting short term service,
changing technologies, and previous Council action.
Eder offered to meet with Fraser and the Administator to discuss
the question; and recommended asking some of the Cable Committee
volunteers to help with the phoning of the cable companies.
Mr. Brakemeier, service solicitor to Cimarron, suggested that
these companies be asked if it would be a detriment if a short
term franchise were granted for Cimarron.
The Council decided Mayor Eder and Councillor Fraser should
review the matter and report to the Council June 2.
F. Gonservency Regulation - The Administrator reviewed the
Planning Commissions recommendation to approve the regulation,
as amended.
Eder and Morgan requested delay of action until next meeting,
to affort them time to review the document with the changes.
G. Fire Department Social Fund - Administrator Whittaker
review�zo -tTe funds were derived and what they were spent
for; and requested Council reaction to the expenditures.
The Council expressed no concern on how the funds are allocated
and agreed with the present accounting procedure. It was sug-
gested that the fund name be changed to Discretionary Fund. The
Firemen agreed.
H. Sludge & Ash Disposal - Handled earlier in the meeting.
I. Tennis Court Bids - One bid was received from T. A. Schifsky
for resurfacing the tennis court at Lions Park.
Mottaz moved, seconded by Eder, to accept the bid from T. A.
Schifsky for resurfacing the tennis court at Lions Park. Motion
carried 3-0. Fraser absent.
J. Chain for Sunfish Park - Morgan reported that the chain across
the entrance to Sunfish Park was cut. A car was seen entering
the park shortly before closing, the Sheriff was notified, but
was unable to locate the vehicle. Consequently the gate was
/ locked and the chain cut when the car came out. Morgan asked
\_ the Administrator to ask the deputy to use his speaker and
locate any know vehicles that are in the park after hours, to
avoid this situation in the future.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 19, 1981 -8-
NEW BUSINESS:
A. No Parking Signs - Highlands Trail - The City recieved a
petition requesting No Parking Signs 5e placed along both
sides of Highlands Trail from the intersection of Demontreville
Trail for a distance of 100 yards towards the intersection
of Hilltop Avenue; and, both sides of Highlands Trail from
the intersection of Demontreville Trail for a distance of 100 yds
towards the intersection of Hytrail Avenue.
Mottaz favored the no parking; but suggested the homeowners be
notified that the No Parking will apply to everyone.
Mottaz moved, seconded by Morgan, to adopt a resolution establishing
a No Parking area on Highlands Trail from Demontreville Tr
100 yards towards Hilltop Avenue and Highlands Trail 100 yards
towards Hytrail. Both sides of Highlands Trail to be posted.
Mottaz amended the motion to provide publicizing this action
in the Newsletter; then, if there is no area resident opposition
the No Parking will be put in force. The Newsletter item will
notify residents that the No Parking will apply to everyone.
The Council took no action pending comment from the public.
B. Administrator's Vacation -
Mottaz moved, seconded by Morgan, to approve vacation time for
the City Administrator from May 22 through May 26. Motion carried 4-0.
C. Tartan Meadows Development 4, reement - The Administrator reported
that t e Deve opment Agreement wit Tartan Meadows only provides
6 months for completion of improvements, rather than the typical
12 months. He recommended amending the Development Agreement
to permit the developers to have until July 1, 1982 to complete
their improvements.
Morgan moved, seconded by Mottaz, to adopt R-81-40, a Resolution
amending R-81-28, amending the Development Agreement with Tartan
Meadows and extending the completion date for improvements to
July 1, 1982. Motion carried 4-0.
D. New Civil Defense Director - Renate Paulson, Civil Defense
Director, is moving out of the community. She will finish the
plan and present it June 16. The Administrator requested
authorization to advertise for interested residents to fill the
vacancy. Mrs. Paulson asked that Carmen Ganskay and Fred Nazarian
be considered for the position. The Council authorized the
Administrator to advertise for the position.
The Council discussed redefining the position and duties and
budget consideration for the program. The Administrator will
draft a general outline of expectations and duties and provide
for Council input. The Administrator urged that the Fire Department
r assume a greater role in the program.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 19, 1981
NEW BUSINESS:
E. Lawn Mower - The Maintenance Foreman submitted four quotes
for a hand mower. He recommended purchasing a Toro Mower for
$195. This was a budgeted item.
Morgan moved, seconded by Mottaz, to approve the purchase of
a Toro Mower for $195. Motion carried 4-0.
F. Pick Up Truck - The Administrator asked for authorization to
take bids for a pick-up truck. This was budgeted for 1981.
Morgan moved, seconded by Mottaz, to authorize the Administrator
to take bids for a new pick-up truck. Motion carried 4-0,
G. Licenses - Mottaz moved, seconded by Morgan, to approve the
license 'forMidwest Construction Company, 1642 Beechwood, St Paul.
Motion carried 4-0.
MINUTES: May 5, 1981 - Mottaz moved, seconded by Morgan to approve
the Minutes of May 5, 1981. Discussion - Fraser had several
corrections --page 2, par. 5 - delete; page 2, B. par.2, delete
"At that time, the new Council members asked for a three month
delay to acquaint themselves with the consultants"; page 2, B, par. 3,
delete; page 3, Appointments, par. 2, delete; page 3, par 4,
change 'Council' to Morgan and Mottaz; page 3, Appointments,
par. 6, delete; page 8, Midland Meadows, par 2, change 'the Council
agreed' to 'there was general agreement'; Reid Park Survey,
insert existing - to read 'the Park Commission has no existing
plans....; Morgan amended page 2, par. 2, to read 'He opposes
the purchase of additional land; but, accepted other peoples
recommendation that it is not feasible....
Motion to accept the minutes of May 5, 1981, as amended, carried
4-0.
Fraser suggested the .Secretary forego detailed reporting of
lengthy discussions. Mottaz preferred to delete on the minutes
rather than have discussion too a-b'breviated.
RUMBLE STRIPS ON 50TH AND DEMONTREVILLE:
Mottaz requested that the Administrator send a letter to the
County Engineer requesting rumble strips be installed on 50th
Street and Demontreville Trail in the curve area.
Adjournment: Mottaz moved, seconded by Morgan to adjourn at 11:00 p.m.
Motion carried 4-0.
Resolutions: R-81-36 - Richert Simple Lot Division
81-37 - Pecore Lot Division and Ranowitz Easement Vacation
81-38 - Keats Feasibility Study
81-39 - Little Sunfish Name Change
81-40 - Tartan Meadows Development Agreement Amendment
Ordinance 7926 - Surface Water Use Ordinance
R-8.1.-37
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SIMPLE LOT DIVISION AND EASEMENT
VACATION FOR GARY PECORE AND JOAN KANOWITZ.
WHEREFORE, Gary Pecore and Joan Kanowitz have made
application to the City of Lake Elmo for a simple lot division
on a parcel of land in said City legally described as follows,
to -wit:
PARCEL "A": That part of Lot Six (6), Block Two
(2), DEMONTREVILLE HIGHLANDS 4TH ADDITION according
to the plat of record in the Office of the Registrar
Of Titles, Washington County, Minnesota, described as
follows: -
Beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot 6;
thence South 84 degrees 00 minutes 48 seconds West,
bearing oriented to said plat, along the south line
of said Lot 6 a distance of 187.45 feet to the south-
west corner of said Lot 6; thence,NorL-h 71 degrees
44 minutes 16 seconds East 67.00 feet; thence South
89 degrees 19 minutes 33 seconds East 122.81 feet to the
point of beginning, containing 1-335 square feet, more
or less; and
WHEREAS, the said Gary Pecore and Joan Kanowitz have
also applied to the City for a vacation of the drainage and
utility easement between Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, legally
described as follows, to -wit:
The South Six (6) feet of the East 175.45 feet of
Lot Six (6), Block Two (2), DEMONTREVILLE IIGHLANDS
4TH ADDITION, according to the plat of record in the
Office of the Registrar of Titles, Washington County,
Minnesota; and
The North Six (6) feet of the East 175.45 feet of
the West 187.45 feet of.Lot Five (5), Block Two (2),
DEMONTREVILLE HIGHLANDS 4TH ADDITION, according to
the plat thereof on file and of record in the
Office of the Registrar of Titles, Washington County,
Minnesota; and
16 seconds East 67.00 feet; thence South 89
degrees 19 minutes 33 seconds East 122.81
feet to the point of beginning, containing
1.335 square feet, more or less.
3. The City Administrator is authorized to approve the
recording of any deeds .required to accomplish the simple lot
division and easement vacation as set forth herein.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo this
1.9th day of May, 1981.
ATTEST:
i
Laurence Wh.itta1,er, City
Administrator
I
Maynard V. Eder, Mayor
-3-
R-81-38
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ENGINEERS FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR 1981 M.S.A. IMPROVEMENTS.
WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve a portion of 45th
Street, a portion of Julup Avenue, a portion of 47th Street,
and a portion of Keats Avenue, all in the City of. Lake Elmo and
to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of
the cost of these improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Lake Elmo that the improvements proposed herein
shall henceforth be referred to as the 1981 M.S.A. improvements;
and the City Engineer is instructed to report to the Council
with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary
way as to whether the proposed improvements are feasible as to
whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection
with some other improvement and the estimated cost of the improve-
ments as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council this 19th day of May, 1981.
�-xe��
May d L. Eder, Mayor
ATTEST:
Laurence E. Whittaker,
City Administrator
11
R-81-36
RESOLUTION -
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SIMPLE LOT DIVISION TO LYDIA
RICHERT.
WHEREAS, Lydia Richert has made application to the City
of Lake Elmo for a simple lot division on a parcel. of land
located in said City into three tracts legally described as
follows, to -wit:
PARCEL "A": The North Half of the Northeast Quarter
of Section 1.6, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Wash-
ington County, Minnesota; except the South 935.55 feet
of the East 621.17 feet thereof as measured at a right
angle to the south and east lines of said North Half
of the Northeast Quarter. The area of this parcel
is 66.96 acres, more or less.
Subject to a highway easement over the East 33.00 feet
thereof as described in Book 150 of Deeds, Page 621,
as recorded in the office of the County Recorder,
Washington County, Minnesota.
Also, subject to a Northern States Power Company
blanket easement as described in Book 150 of Deeds,
Page 467, as recorded in said Office of the County
Recorder.
PARCEL "B": The South 935.55 feet of the East 621.17
feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 16, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington
County, Minnesota; except the South 441.10 feet of the
East 330.00 feet of said North Half of the Northeast Quarter
as measured at a right angle to the south and east lines
of said North Half of the Northeast Quarter. The area
of the parcel is 10.00 acres, more or less.
Subject to a highway easement over the East 33.00 feet
thereof, as described in Book 150 of Deeds, rage 621, as
recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Washington
County, Minnesota.
Also, subject to a Northern States Power Company blanket
easement as described in Book 150 of Deeds, Page 467,
as recorded in said Office of the County Recorder,
r,
sA Ra
PARCEL "C": The South 441.10 feet of thQast 330.00
feet of the North Half of the Northeast tarter of
Section 16, Township 29 North, Range 21'Waest, Washington
County, Minnesota as measured at a right angle to the
south and east lines of said North Half of the Northeast
Quarter, containing 3.34 acres, more or less.
Subject to a highway easement over the East 33.00 feet
as described in Book 150 of Deeds, Page 621, as recorded
in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County,
Minnesota.
Also, subject to a Northern States Power Company blanket
easement as described in Book 150 of Deeds, Page
467, as recorded in said office of the County Recorder; and
WHEREAS, it appears the above -described land was not at
the time of the application separately described parcels of
record; and
WHEREAS, there does not appear to be any reason related
to the public health, safety and welfare which would require
a denial of this simple lot division; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered the
proposed simple lot division on May 11,1981, and recommended
the approval thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Lake Elmo as follows, to -wit:
1. The application of Lydia Richert for a simple lot
division for the real estate above described be, and the same
hereby is, granted.
2. The City Administrator is authorized to approve the
recording of any deeds relating to the above -described parcels.
Adopted.by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo this
19th day of May, 1981.
ATTEST:
C
Laurence E. Whittaker
City Administrator
Mayna L. Eder., Mayor
6�
r
ORDINANCE NO. 7926
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo does
hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Amendment. The 1979 Municipal Code of
Lake Elmo adopted Oct— o5 er I6, 1979, is hereby amended
by changing Section 1511 thereof to read as follows:
1511.01 Definitions. The following words and
phrases when used Section have the mean-
ings as set out herein:
(A) "Boat" is any watercraft as defined in
Minnesota Statutes 361.02.
(B) "Person" includes an individual, partnership,
corporation or any body of persons, whether
incorporated or formed into an association
or not.
(C) "Slow -No Wake" means
craft at the slowest
to maintain steerage
than 5 mph.
operation of a water -
possible speed necessary
and in no case greater
1511.02 Limitations on Boats and Boating, In
the interests of the public ea t sa ety, and
general welfare, the following regulations and
limitations are hereby imposed upon all boats
operated, placed or maintained in or upon all
lakes in said City.
(A) No person shall operate any boat at a speed
other than a slow -no wake speed upon any lake
in the City between sunset and noon the follow-
ing day.
(B) No person, shall dump or throw garbage, paper,
bottles, cans, refuse or debris into any lake
or on the shore of any lake or in any public
area around any lake in said City.
(C) No person shall operate a boat on said lake
in such a manner as to violate any of the pro-
visions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 361 or
the regulations of the Department. of Natural
Resources which statutes and regulations are
hereby adopted and incorporated herein and made
a part hereof as though fully set forth in this
point,
(D) No person shall place any bouys on any lake
in said City for skiing or any other reason
unless said bouy placement is specifically
authorized for safety purposes and approved
by the City and the Washington County Sheriff.
(E) All boats operating in excess of (1) slow -no
wake or (2) 5 miles per hour shall operate in
a counter clockwise direction.
(F) The City shall.post as "no -wake areas" the
channels and narrows between Lake Olson and
Lake Demontreville.
(G) No person shall launch any boat at any lake
other than a designated public access point
except in emergencies and except with the
permission of the riparian owner. Where persons
can demonstrate they have the consent of the
riparian owner for boat launching they must
also park on that property. Riparian owners
shall not allow boat launching for money with-
out first obtaining a permit from the City.
(H) No person shall launch any boat onto any lake
in said City from any public right-of-way or
any public park area except in those locations
specifically designated and posted as public
launching areas,
1511.03 Enforcement. Notwithstanding anything here-
in to the contrary, officers of the Washington County
Sheriff's Department shall be authorized and entitled
to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance.
1511.04 Penalties. Any person who shall violate
any provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor
1511.05 Boats utilized by authorized resource manage-
ment, emergency and enforcement personnel when acting
in the performance of their assigned duties shall be
exempt from the provisions of this ordinance
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall
become effective upon its passage and publication.
1( Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo this 19th. day of May, 1981. C _,
Maynar er, Mayor
ATTEST:
Laurence E. Whitta er
City Administrator
R-81- 34
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT
UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT;
REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF
SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL; AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION
OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals and Findi
1.1 This Council has received a proposal that the
Municipality finance a portion or all of the cost of a
proposed project under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the
Act), consisting of the acquisition of land and the construction
and equipment thereon of a facility to be used as business
offices and leased by the owners to various business enter-
prises for that purpose.
1.2 At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on
May 5, 1981, in accordance with the Act, on the proposal to
undertake and finance the Project, all parties who appeared
at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views
with respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the
Project. Based on such hearing and such other facts and
circumstances as this Council deems relevant, this Council hereby
finds, determines and declares as follows:
(a) The welfare of the State of Minnesota requires active
promotion, attraction,"encouragement and development
of economically sound industry and commerce through
governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible,
emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic
unemployment, and the State has encourage local
government units to act to prevent such economic
deterioration.
(b) The Project would further the general purposes
contemplated and described in Section 474.01 of
the Act.
(c) The existence of the Project would add to the
tax base of the Municipality, the County and School
District in which the Project is located and would
provide increased opportunities for employment for
residents of the Municipality and surrounding area.
(d) This Council has been advised by representatives
of the Borrower that conventional, commercial financing
to pay the cost of the Project is available only on
a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing
that the economic feasibility of operating the Project
would be significantly reduced, but that with the aid
of municipal borrowing, and its resulting lower borrowing
cost, the Project is economically more feasible.
(e) This Council has also been advised by the Borrower
that on the basis of their discussions with potential
buyers of tax-exempt bonds, revenue bonds of the
Municipality (which may be in the form of a commercial
development revenue note or notes) could be issued
and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance
the Project.
(f) The Municipality is authorized by the Act to issue
its revenue bonds to finance capital projects consisting
of properties used and useful in connection with a
revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the
Borrower, and the issuance of such bonds by the
Municipality would be a substantial inducement to the
Borrower to acquire and construct the Project.
Section 2. Preliminary Approval of the Project.
2.1 on the basis of information given the Municipality
to date, it appears that it would be desirable for the Municipality
to issue its revenue bonds under the provisions of the Act to
finance the Project in an amount not exceeding $400,000.00.
2.2 It is hereby determined to proceed with the Project
and its financing and the Project is hereby given preliminary
approval by the Municipality and the issuance of revenue bonds
of the Municipality in such amount is hereby approved, subject to
the approval of the Project by the Commissioner of Securities, the
fulfillment of such other conditions as the Municipality may
require with respect to the issuance of its bonds in connection
with the Project, and the mutual'agreement of this Council and
the Borrower as to the details of the bond issue and provisions
for their payment. In all events, it is understood, however,
f
-2-
that the bonds of the Municipality shall not constitute a
charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property
of the Municipality, except the Project, and each bond, when, as
and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bond, including
interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenues received
from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof, and
shall not constitute a debt of the Municipality.
2.3 The form of the Application to the Commissioner of
Securities, with attachments, is hereby approved, and the Mayor
and City Administrator are authorized to execute said
documents in behalf of the Municipality.
2.4 In accordance with Section 474.10, Subdivision 7a of
the Act, the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized
and directed to cause said Application to be submitted to the
Commissioner of Securities for approval of the Project. The
Mayor, City Administrator, City Attorney and other officers,
employees and agents of the Municipality are hereby authorized
and directed to provide the Commissioner with any preliminary
information the Commissioner may need for this purpose, and the
City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the prepara-
tion of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project, if
it is approved by the Commissioner.
Section 3. General.
3.1 If the bonds are issued and sold, the Municipality
will enter into a lease, sale or loan agreement or similar
agreement satisfying the requirements of the Act (the Revenue
Agreement) with the Borrower. The lease rentals, installment
sale payments, loan payments or other amounts payable by the
Borrower to the Municipality under the Revenue Agreement shall
be sufficient to pay the principal, interest and redemption
premium, if any, on the bonds as and when the same shall become
due and payable.
3.2 The Borrower has agreed and it is hereby determined
that any and all direct and indirect costs incurred by the
Municipality in connection with this Project, whether or
not the Project is carried to completion, and whether or not
approved by the Commissioner of Securities, and whether or not
the Municipality by resolution authorized the issuance of the bonds,
will be paid by the Borrower upon request.
3.3 The Mayor and City Administrator are directed, if
the bonds are issued and sold, thereafter_ to comply with the
-3-
7
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision B.
Adopted this 5th day of May, 1981.
Maynar L. Eder, Mayor
ATTEST:
Q
Laurence E. Whittaker
City Administrator