HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-82 CCMLAKE ELMO COUNCIL`MEETING
OCTOBER'5, 1982
Mayor Eder called the meeting to order to 7:05 p.m. at the City Hall.
COUNCILLORS PRESENT: Fraser, Morgan, Mottaz, Novak. Also City Adminis-
trator Whittaker.
1. AGENDA - Additions:
TTO—.C. Contract -for cathodic protection for water tower.
13.L. Business Association, Highways 5 and 17
M. Business Association; Use of City Logo.
N. Renaming Highlands Trail Ct. N.to Highlands Court North.
0. Report, Metro Park Maintenance Committee.
P. Metro Chairman, C. Weaver, breakfast meeting.
Q. Friday off.
M/S/P Morgan/Fraser to adopt the agenda as amended. Carried 5-0.
2. MINUTES - M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to accept the 9/21/82 Lake Elmo
Council minutes as amended: Page 3, item B.F. -
"M/S/ Morgan/Fraser to adopt R-82-50, a Resolution approving the
1983 budget and levy . . . Motion carried 5-9- 4-0, Novak nay."
Carried 5-0. --_ ----- ----
3. CLAIMS - M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to approve the October 5 Claim Nos.
83001 thru 83046.
4. LICENSES - M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to approve a license for sewer
installer, LeRoux Excavating, Inc., 2112 64th Street, White Bear Lake,
MN 55110. Carried 5-0.
5. PUBLIC HEARING, VACATION OF PARTS OF DEMONTREVILLE BEACH - Mayor
Eder opened the hearing at 7:10 p.m. Whittaker explained that Ms. Orchard
and Hubenettes had requested the hearing to vacate the rest of the
shoreland along Lanes DeMontreville Country Club (the island) and that
most of the land had already been vacated... showed areas on the map.
Mr. Galen Meier stated he wants the record cleaned up and property vacated.
None present opposed the vacation.
M/S/P Morgan/Novak to prepare a Resolution, R-82-52, to consummate
the vacation of remaining shoreline along Lanes DeMontreville Country
Club. Carried 5-0.
The hearing closed at 7:25 p.m.
6. HAMMES -
A'. Concrete Piles - Dorothy Lyons explained that concrete piles were
on south part of property, not visible from road; one week has already
been spent breaking up concrete and putting it into piles; next step is
crusher has to be moved in and crushed rock used with rest of material
and made into salable item. Bill Hammes noted that this material can
eventually become an asset, i.e. made into good classified gravel and
recycled.
--Eder and Mottaz questioned the contract between the County and contractor --
why the Hammes changed their minds, how it relates to the City, etc.
--Whittaker - the reason it's a City decision is because we cited Hammes
for a nuisance violation when we renewed their mining permit last year;
we said we want this stuff out of here, and Hammes said it's not our
stuff, it's the County contractor's. The Hammes now would like to keep
the material.
--Ray Marshal, Attorney - it's the County's contract, City is not a
part of it. If the County agreed to hold back money that the City has
4
-2-
requested, I don't believe the County is required to hold back, only done
as a courtesy. Valid answer would require reviewing the contract;
City could be beneficiary of some clause in that contract, or there's
absence in some clause of the contract, allowing City to withhold something.
--Fraser could see progress being made in reducing material into salable
size; and Mottaz and Novak recommended time limit be placed on this effort
or otherwise it be treated as trash and gotten rid of.
M/S/ Mottaz/Novak to allow 30 days to reduce concrete to an aggregate
size useable with classified gravel, and if this is not done in 30 days
then we follow our original request to the Hammes.
--Fraser - 30 days not enough time.
Motion amended to 60 days. Motion as amended carried 5-0.
B. House/Building Moving - Whittaker explained that Home 1 is to
go on lot they're platting (planning in progress but not finished as yet).
Home 2 is supposed to be moved off property. Garage was to have been
placed on permanent foundation on their property by end of September.
If $5,000 bond called in, City could move Home 2 off property but City
would have to pay for storage and sell it, which would probably cost more
than the bond.
--Bill Hammes said effort now being made to get garage on foundation
before the construction season ends. Also checking on lots for Home 2
outside of village, definitely want to get that one on, too, before
season ends. Have good possibilities on it.
--Marshal, Attorney, regarding who pays storage - if building inspector
say's it can be certified as hazardous building per State statutes,
cost of removal could be assessed back to property and be payable with
real estate taxes. If not, simply treated as a nuisance which requires
district court determination of assessed value; therefore reasonably good
likelihood you can recoup costs on that basis.
--Mottaz - if there's another extension and nothing materializes, then
we're in limbo again for another 6 months.
--Morgan - my feeling is that they've made progress on one home, and to
give them more time to see what they can do...90 or 60 days; if no
progress, Council will have to take action at that time.
--Whittaker in response to Novak's question - Ray and I will outlineti
procedure as to what happens if this is not completed.
--Eder - would like you, Bill, to give Whittaker progress report once a
week; and if you don't do that the motion is void. Or, if Whittaker not
there, write a note reporting status. (Whittaker - or talk with Jim,
building inspector as to status, and he'll report to Whittaker.)
M/S/P Mottaz/Morgan to allow Mr. Hammes a 60-day extension to have
Home 2 moved and garage placed on permanent foundation. Carried 5-0.
7. DEAN JOHNSTON, REAPPLICATION FOR VARIANCES TO BUILD ON LOT 5,
J. L. COHN SUBDIVISION -
(REF: Variances as set forth in Jim McNamara, Building Official's,
memo of 9/30/82 to Mayor and City Council re "Dean Johnston-Shoreland
Permit"; and TKDA recommendations as set forth in Larry Bohrer's letter
of 9/15/82 to Mayor &..City- Council re "Dean Johnston Site Plan.'Review ..
Commission No. 7113-82.")
--Bohrer reviewed changes in variances. Dean Johnston is reapplying for
2-bedroom home with disposal, decreasing size of drainfield signifi-
cantly; now 3 variances needed: lot size, house setback, and septic
tank setback.
--Eder questioned variations of perc rates, 4 to 20 minutes.
--Bohrer - code allows the owner to use the average of the 3 percolation
rates; the design would be based on the 6-15 minute range. As a safety
-3-
factor, I used more of a weighted average and that gave a slightly larger
design system than the one actually required. Area is designed much
less than the lower numbers/minutes (faster rate of percolation).
--Eder - two weeks ago I asked you about health and safety, and you said
there'd be no particular problems. What about the nitrates and
phosphates getting; into the water table?
--Bohrer - the distance from the water table and adjacent wells would
guarantee that these nitrates, effluents, etc. are filtered out before
it comes near the water table or adjacent wells.
--Bohrer sketched alternate and proposed systems on chalkboard as
Mottaz requested, i.e. septic system/pumping station/drop boxes/drainfields.
--Mottaz - we know from experience there's going to be trouble because
I believe almost every system in this area has had problems. Hard clay
prevalent in area. Also, our ordinance requires two separate sites; how
can we consider this as two separate sites? If soil causes problem,
can't see how going 1' away and putting in another pipe can solve
problems and fulfill ordinance requirements. Could you have systems
further apart? (Rohrer - not without making other variances more severe,
like moving house closer to lake, etc.)
--Whittaker - couldn't you compress one system and put other one in
another place, set up by interspersing the lines? (Rohrer - no, it's a
matter of construction, such as backhoe tires would sit over one trench.)
--Bohrer - it's true this system has not been used in Lake Elmo; talked
to Lyle Doerr of Washington and he has no problem with this type system.
--Eder - also talked to Doerr, and he has no problem from a technical
standpoint. Mike Hansel of PCA, strong proponent to get a more uniform
code, says it's minimum code. Also noted in Resource Enaineerinq is that
no one knows when system will fail and that clay material is only
material that will stop nitrates and phosphates from going into water
table. If all perc rates are as high as they are, there'll be problems.
--Bohrer - the lowest drainfield run would be one of the alternate runs
at 941 elevation; 100-year flood elevation is 931.
--Novak - is this house closer to high water mark than other homes in
area? (Bohrer - don't believe we've measured the rest of them.)
--Eder read Code Book wordage - "all lots must have at least 1 acre of
land suitable for septic drainfields in an area sufficient for 2 drain -
field sites."
--Eder asked those present in the J.L. Cohn Subdivision if anyone had
wells shallower than 1251:
Marlene Paulsrud, Lot 7 - 86'
Stephen Butzer, Lots 1 and 2 - 100'
Betsy Bonestrou, Lot 6 - will call if less
Wells less than 50' become very questionable.
--Eder - can we require, because of concern over nitrates and phosphates,
that the system when constructed be inspected when the trenches are open,
that it have an as -built plan, that this property owner or any other
subsequent owner hold this City harmless from any requirement that the
property be sewered prematurely because of this system?
--Bohrer - I have no problem with the first part, i.e. conditions are
reasonably related to protecting public health. Second part should be put
on record so any subsequent purchaser would be on notice as to City's
view on it.
--Marshal, Attorney - Code book doesn't say you have to put two systems
side by side to use the maximum amount of real estate. I think it's
possible ordinance was drafted to anticipate all the sophisticated and
very technical systems that are being developed. I would think that
the systems as proposed comply with the ordinance, provided that there are
no other engineering and technical problems related to the public health.
--Eder - the burden we have is to assure citizens the guarantee of public
health; however, this system cannot assure that. Need strict requirements.
mc
--Bohrer - could this system or any other system be guaranteed to prevent
a possible health hazard? No, I can't say that about a system sitting
alone on 40 acres 50' above the water table. The only thing I can address
is whether this system as proposed meets current ordinances and codes.
--Eder - code is prepared under very theoretical conditions, and those
conditions may or may not exist here.
--Novak - I have difficult time with your saying system is safe as far as
you know. Our ordinances are for the protection of people, not to
punish people with certain lot sizes. All information received from PCA
and state officials has required us to set up ordinance specifying an acre
of dry land, enough for two sites, to protect people. I only hope if this
is approved, we require the most checking possible to protect them and
their neighbors and that the City is not held responsible for giving a
building permit when they shouldn't have. Your recommendations didn't
include any specifics on this. Two sites for systems doesn't mean to me
one on top of the other or one directly in between; but if it's not
written correctly, that's something that has to be taken care of,:,not the
intent from where I was coming from when ordinance was drafted.
M/S/P Eder/Mottaz to recess for anexecutivesession with legal
counsel since we were threatened with a law suit if decision is not in
the affirmative for the applicant. Carried 5-0.
Eder reconvened the meeting at 8:43 P.M. Eder asked for comments from
Johnston.
--Bruce Malkerson of Popham,Haik,Schnobrich Kaufman & Doty, J:.Qhnston's
attorney, referred Council to his previous fetter to City Council and
staff outlining important facts of this and prior application and legal
reasons why variances should be granted. In light of the executive.
session you've had on this matter, to which we're not privy, I don't see
why we should make a presentation at this point as it would probably be
moot if you've made up your mind as to what you're going to do.
M/S/P Novak/Fraser to grant Dean Johnston the following 3 variances:
1. Allow structure to be built 50' from High Water Mark instead
of 100';
2. Allow structure on lot that has 25,038 sq. ft. above the High
Water Mark; and
3. Allow the septic tank to be placed 10' from unoccupied garage
instead of 201.
And to approve Dean Johnston's shoreland permit, contingent upon the
following conditions:
a. that system be built as well as possible;
b. construction be controlled as much as possible;
C. owner assumes full responsibility for its construction and
its failure should it fail;
d. certain assurances be put into an agreement that the owner signs
that we have open trench inspections;
e. that every requirement of the ordinance be met that can possibly
be met;
f. that he would provide as -built plans as called for in the City
Engineer's letter;
g. that there would be an annual inspection similar to the one
required of Steven Larson and determine that the system is still
working;
h. the City would be held harmless if this permit creates a need for
sanitary sewer and/or new on -site sewer systems;
i. the home be limited to 2 bedrooms per his amended application;
j. that he not drive over or park on the drainfield at any time;
k. that he meet all the other conditions set forth in Larry Bohrer's
9/16/82 letter:
-5-
k-1. Property lines and setbacks be clearly marked on the
ground and the system laid out before construction
begins;
k-2. City provide inspection during construction to make
sure drop boxes are installed at the proper elevation
and distribution ;pipes• are laid parallel to the
ground contours;
k-3. Access pipes to drop boxes be extended above ground
surface;
k-4. An as -built drawing providing tie measurements to the
end of each drainfield run, each bend point to the run,
and all system access points be prepared and placed
on file with the City Building Official.
1. that he sign a developmental agreement with the City containing
these conditions which would be recorded against the property
in Washington County.
Carried 4-0; Morgan abstain.
Further discussion of above:
--Mottaz - we've been advised by our attorney that if we vote no on this
request, it would probably not be defens'able in court; therefore, I voted
yes. But I don't think, as a biologist, this type of design is safe --
no evidence to that effect right now. _.':- After this, I'm going to try to
get ordinance changed so as not to allow one system on top of the other.
--Eder - I don't like it but will vote in favor ... so much of what's being
done is this area is being done by technicians/engineers, not biologists
or health persons. Problems on island are existing -.and are going to get
worse. Have to find, outside this decision, a better method.
--Bill Schumacher, Lot 3 - What policing policy do you have for annual
inspections? (Whittaker - inspections to be held on anniversary date
of system installation.)
BREAK - 8:54 to 9:05 P.M.
9. VBWD, PETITION of I94 OUTLET
Managers of VBWD--Allen Dornfeld, Dick Murray and Bob Rosas--were present
to respond to Council's concerns.
--Dornfeld - didn't ask County Board to grant petition since community was
against project,as newspaper points out. We at no time asked them to
petition over your heads.. Responsibility gets back to local communities
to solve these problems. Watershed can't solve problemsy but can keep
them from getting worse. To put blame on any one doesn't solve anything.
--Whittaker - the outlet from County 21 to St. Croix is not ggoing to be
accessible under this proposed system; there's not going to be a connec-
tion from Barton Pit to County 21. (Dornfeld - we have to talk about what
cost would be ... 16 cfs capacity from County 21 east could be used if all
other connections built. Esitmated cost of $225,000 is same whether
earlier 35 cfs or present 16 cfs.)
--Whittaker - what kind of protection do we get if we build the connection
from the W. Lakeland storage site to Barton Pit without extension to
St.Croix? Would that give us pretty good insurance policy for 10-20
years? We're going to have to build that connection soon; why do the
extension now until we see if W. Lakeland/Barton Pit connection handles
problem?
--Dornfeld - in letter of 8/27 we mentioned removing water from the
rest area storage site via pump ,as.._ I feel we're going to have water
coming faster than seepage capacity into all the channels all the way down
to storage site - once the system equalizes, you won't have to do pumping.
--Whittaker - if we pumped, could we fit it into present Mn/DOT 16 cfs
pipe? (Dornfled - you could use 16 cfs pipe, would have to do it when it
i wasn't being used.)
--Eder - they wouldn't ask us to pay something if we wanted to use it for
emergency at off-peak time for, say, 30 days?
--Rosas - Department has policy that requires some kind of cost participa-
tion to use their drainage facilities. To use this facility would require
Federal Highway Administration approval, and the feds are probably not
going to approve something unless- there's cost participation. Can't
say for sure about emergency situation. If someone wanted to put
water in there for a few days, I don't image there's a problem. But an
emergency probably would take more than a few days. With the situation
under 35 cfs system, it would take 100 days to handle water, so if we go
to 16 cfs system it would probably take twice as long. We've gotten into
a problem that could last considerably longer than 30 years. The Federal
Highway Admin. and Mn/DOT deal with communities on joint storm water
systems all the time; actually this proposal they've given us is more
favorable to local communities than what was done a couple years ago.
--Dornfeld, in answer to Eder's question - If the communities are
satisfied with the 16 cfs outlet and whatever has to be negotiated with
Mn/DOT in the future, there's no petition needed ... if pipe is to be
enlarged, then a hearing is required.
--Whittaker - still have to anticipate cost of W. Lakeland storage site
to rest area. (Dornfeld - that can be negotiated anytime, big enough to
handle 35 cfs pipe.)
--Whittaker - is W. Lakeland/rest"area pipe low enough?
--Dornfeld - we have to raise ours 4' but means we store more water at
W. Lakeland permanently... floods more land...cost of land is as in
( original outline, it's just that we have less bounce. Have to consider
100-year event, once system gets balanced out there won't be continuous
bounce. To lower pipe to original elevation, added cost to City.
--Eder - under 25 cfs system, it talked about raising the outlet, the
amount of permanent storage then has been increased and the temporary
storage decreased... the cost of the improvements to allow flow at this
overflow level has also been substantially reduced to about 150,000.
Is $554,000 for entire site? (Dornfeld - that's appraised land cost --
appraised 1 to 1-1/2 years ago --with no contingencies, doesn't include
5th Street improvement.)
--Mottaz - history tells us that W. Lakeland storage site was once a
lake. What happens if nothing is done and water fills up old lake bed?
--Dornfeld - if we don't get involved in altering any of the outlets and
upstream lakes, there's no problem; if altered you can have lawsuit.
--Dornfeld, in answer to Eder's question - if you're satisfied with
16 cfs pipe, I don't see any reason to petition.
--Whittaker - and also if we're satisfied the pipe is 4' higher than
planned.
--Rosas - we're pretty much stuck with that. With unavailability of
W. Lakeland site, Mn/DOT went to site south of Highway 94 which they
bought; with higher ponding site, they raised pipe 41, reduced cost of
excavation; we would have to pay cost of lowering that pipe 4' all the
way down to W. Lakeland storage site ... suspect cost is very high. They
were able to reduce drainage cost by using higher ponding site.
--Eder - earlier they talked of paying some part of the $700,000; now are
we going to pay the whole cost?
--Rosas - we were going to buy the W. Lakeland site, and use part of
that cost as credit against using our system. Using the W. Lakeland site
would reduce our cost participation; now department is not using W. Lakeland
site and don't feel there'll be any credit; however might be negotiable.
B. Alternates, DeMontrev_ille Access - Bohrer met with Washington
County traffic engineer regarding realignment of DeMontreville Tr. They
won't go less than 35 mph. County Highway Department wants City to
furnish horizontal realignment plan - from bend in County 13 up to
Highlands Trail North, as it has to be approved as segment. Cost to go
this far is $350. Would like City to furnish any additional right-of-way.
--Fraser - concerned that City will be spending additional and unncessary
money down -the road on realignment.
M/S/P Mottaz/Eder to authorize $350 for above project. Carried 4-0p
Fraser nay.
C. Contract for Cathodic Protection for Water Power - Corrosion
protection contract was increased 450 to $474 a year (January 1 thru
December 31). Since there has been no dissatisfaction with service,
Administrator' was given authorization to proceedwith $474 contract.
D. Painting of Water Tower - Contractor will give $3,000 credit if
sandblasting eliminated from legs and underside of tower since it can be
handled by wirebrushing instead.
M/S/P Mottaz/Morgan to approve change order for $3,000 credit on
painting of water tower. Carried 5-0.
11. OLD BUSINESS _
A. LeMire Assessment - M/S/P Mottaz/Morgan to hold public hearing
on LeMire ssessmen /82 at 7:15 p.m.
B. Coasters for Truck Plow - Whittaker said snow plow coasters cost
$392.70 to do work. on .7.5th. St.-, for example.
M/S/P Mottaz/Morgan to approve purchase of coasters. Carried 5-0.
C. Sign for Cityon Brookfield II Si n - M/S/P Mottaz/Eder to
approve $145 expenditure to post City sign on Brookfield II sign on
Laverne Avenue and Highway 5. Carried 5-0.
--Fraser - City sign area should not be used as place for political
signs as itimpliesendorsement.
D. Quotes, Computer - Whittaker, in answer to Eder's question
regarding need of software, said hardware package is only thing necessary
to do utility building system and fund accounting. $5,000 is in 1982
budget, and $5,000 is in 1983 budget, so would have to take additional
costs out of contingency fund. If software purchased now with total
package, could perhaps get reduced rate.
--Fraser - hold off on most software as it'll take awhile to become
accustomed to basic system.
--Eder - prices seem to come down every day.
M/S/P Eder/Mottaz to buy the following computer hardware and software
as presented in Whittaker s memo of 10/l/82:
Hardware:w/Alternative Printer, $5,625.22 Total
Diablo 620 w/interface
and peripherals
Software: Wordstar 375.00 ) -i;•.
Carried 5-0. Supercalc/Calcstar 200.00 )
E. Relief Association B ZLaws - Fire Department Board of Trustees
were in attendance to explain by-law changes they would like enacted.
(REF: Whittaker memo dated 10/18/82 to City Council re "Liability/Assets,
Firefighter's Relief Association.")
OM
--Whittaker - memo summarizes financial position of special fund which
is basic pension fund. If we adopt by-laws they're proposing, the
program would be fully funded, would be financially sound, and we'd have
surplus at the end of 1983 of $9,133.11.
--Fraser - how does this relate to what's in existence now?
--Whittaker - we'd be in much better shape if we stayed with existing
system, now at $40/month pension. Second element is they're proposing
that a bonus be paid for service over 20 years, and present liability
in the general fund for that bonus would be $10,820. Under the Statutes,
this bonus cannot come out of the special fund, it has to come out of
general fund. Present accrued liability for that bonus as proposed is
$10,820; at this point, money isn't in the general fund and that could be
a real problem; however, would not have to pay $10,820 in 1983, would
have to pay $5,100. The State statutues require the City to make
sure special fund is balanced; there's enough there for accrued liability;
does not require that we balance the general fund or that we provide
for this bonus. Two key policy decisions tonight: whether or not we
want to go to this new pension plan in the special fund, and whether or
not we want to approve by-laws that provide for a bonus (that I know we
can't finance right now)... perhaps firemen can tell us how it'll be
financed. Firemen have said they're not looking for any City levy in 1983.
--Bruce Kuettner, Fire Chief - we're looking to get into a lump sum...
easier to administer and more beneficial to firemen at retirement age.
Also explained incentive bonus program and survivor's benefits.
What we're looking at is a simplified set of by-laws that'll cost less,
approximately $600-1,000 a year to maintain.
--Fraser -- I need to know where we're at now, reasons for changes, and
where we want to be. Is of sufficient complexity I'm not going to
understand this in a few minutes.
--Whittaker - reviewed 9/2/82 memo where policy issues were dealt with -
what this change means in terms of the ultimate pension the average
fireman would get and the increase in liability to the pension fund
because of these changes. In effect, it's going to double the effective
pension each fireman gets, and it may double the liability for the pension
fund because more people qualify at 10 years than 20 years. Present
money in pension fund would support this proposal without special levy
in foreseeable future. Special fund has accrued through the years
through State aid (2% of insurance premiums collected in City), money
added by the City, and interest earnings. Money can't be used for
anything except for fireman benefits. Any change in benefits - i.e.
by-laws - would have to be approved by the City. Change in character of
fire department (more members, age changes, etc.) could affect this in
next 10 years.
--Mottaz - if there are changes such as more members, more 2% would be
going into fund to compensate. Feel we've been getting pretty good
service without much outlay on the City's part.
--Whittaker - bonus is not funded, and money has to come .from someplace.
If we approve by-laws, we're tacitly accepting a $10,000 liability_£or-
1983. Will it be paid by donations, firemen's activities, or City levy
at some point? What we would have to pay next year is $5,100'if two
men retire as planned, plus our $500 increase in liability because five
firemen would be eligible for this.
--Jim Bjorkman - we've been dumping extra money we've earned (such as
( from RR) into this special fund, and now we can't use it. We could
probably have paid for this if we had put it into general fund.
--Fraser - what we have here is something that is good and desirable,
but more information is needed before we can act responsibly and would
take more time to study.
-11-
K. Housing Conference - Whittaker cannot to attend. Fraser
indicated an interest in attending.
L. Business Association, Highways 5 and 7 - deferred until next
meeting.
M. Business Association, Use of City Loqo for Letterhead -
Consenus of Councillors was that it was okay for Lake Elmo Ausiness
Association to use City logo.
N. Renaming Highland Trail Ct. N._to_ Highlands_ Court North -
Deferred to next meeting. ��-
O. Report, Metro Park Maintenance Committee - Mottaz sugggested
that reimbursement should include more than things they're talking
about. Whittaker asked to submit comments to him before next meeting_
after reviewing 10/4/82 letter from association.
P. Metro Chairman, C. Weaver, Breakfast Meeting - Mottaz favored
attendance.
Q. Fri.day Off - M/S/P Mottaz/Novak that Larry Whittaker have
Friday off as requested.
The meeting adjourned at 10:52 p.m.
Submitted by:
Ilene Johnson, Acting Secretary
RESOLUTION: R-82- 52 Vacation of Parts of
DeMontreville Beach
W
R-82-52
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE; ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION VACATING PORTIONS OF DEMONTREVILLE BEACH
IN LANE'S DEMONTREVILLE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION.
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota, held on
October 5, 1982, a Petition was presented to the City Council
praying for the vacation of certain portions of a public beach
in the plat of Lane's Demontreville Country Club Addition
described as follows:
Demontreville Beach lying adjacent to Lots
912 through 919, inclusive, 870 through 871,
inclusive, 876 through.888, inclusive,
892, 588 through 595, inclusive, 60$ °
through 634, inclusive, 665 through 668,
inclusive, 673 through 674, inclusive,
693 and 216, and 718;
WHEREAS, said Petition came on for hearing before said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held at 7:15 p.m.
on Tuesday, October 5, 1982, in the City Council Chambers pursuant
to Notice thereof published and posted as .required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has .reviewed this Petition with
concern for the interests of the public; and
WHEREAS, the portions of Demontreville Beach proposed for
vacation have never been opened or used for a public beach and
it is improbable that there will ever be any public need for
said beach; moreover, by vacating the same, the property will
be returned to the tax rolls and would enhance the taxable
value of all the lands abutting thereon or affected thereby; and
WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, it appears to be in
the public interest to vacate the portions of Demontreville Beach
as described above;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVBD, that the portions of
Demontreville Beach described above dedicated in the plat of
Lane's Demontreville Country Club Addition be, and the same
hereby are, vacated.
RE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk shall prepare a
Notice of Completion of these proceedings which shall contain
the name of. the City, and the identification of the facation,
a statement of the time of completion thereof and a. description
of the real estate and land affected thereby. Such Notice
shall be presented to the Washington County Auditor who shall.
enter the same in his transfer records and note upon the
instrument over his official signature the words "entered
in the transfer records". The Notice shall then be filed with
the County Recorder, all as required by Section 412.851 of the
Minnesota Statutes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo
this 5th day of October, 1982.
Maynar Eder, Mayor
ATTEST:
cc
Laurence E. Whittaker, City
Administrator
C
-2-
CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED AT OCTOBER 5, 1982 CITX COUNCIL MEETING
83001
Eckberg,Lammers, Briggs & Wolff - Legal MSA project $
140.00
83002
Peterson Building Maintenance - August cleaning
65.00
83003
Commissioner of Revenue - Sept, state wh.
762 00-
83004
State Bank of Lake Elmo - Sept, fed, wh.
1 602.70
83005
St.Treas.-Soc.Sec.Contr.Fd. - Sept, soc.sec,contr.
1,561.96
83006
Void
83007
Lake Elmo Feeds - Tablyn Park Grass Seed
55.00
83008
Washington National Insurance - hosp.
729.56
83009
Minn. Benefit Ass'n
26.40
83010
Allied Insurance Trust
88.32
83011
Laurence Whittaker - $50.Oct.Exp. - $629.00 Conf. Exp.
679.00
63012
Mary Meyer - 9/28/82 newsletter
175.00
83013
James McNamara - Sept, mileage
153.00
83014
Ringwelski - park gate July, August & Sept,
180.00
83015
Ilene Johnson - 9/20 Park Minutes $ 41.65
9/27 PZC minutes 40.15
81.80
83016
Gerald Dahlberg - Sept, animal control officer
310.00
83017
Oakwood Animal Hospital - Sept. impounding
172.00
83018
Lake Elmo Associates Ltd. - Oct, rent
1,689.00
83019
Stillwater Book & Stationery
138.27
83020
Copy Duplicating Products - copy paper
386.75
83021
Walter S. Booth - Election supplies
8.34
83022
Four Seasons Services
13.05
83023
Lawson, Raleigh & Marshall - General $ 331.50
Prosecutions 1,519.00
83024
MSA 125�.00
T K D A - General $ 230.93
1,975.50
MSA 6,528.34
Water Tower painting 950.00
7,709.27
83025
Northern States Power
873.03
83026
Northwestern Bell
294.77
83027
Minnesota Toro, Inc. - Toro blades
81.49
83028
Boyer Truck Parts - Truck parts
185.32
83029
Bahls Motor & IMp. - Truck parts
21.77
83030
Paper, Calmenson - plow blades
234.96
83031
University of MN - Dave Wisdorf-Public Works Equip Op.school
60.00
83032
Water Engineering & Mgmt. - 3 year subscription
38.00
83033
St. of MN - Federal Surplus Property membership charge
25.00
83034
Lake Elmo Hdw.Lbr. - Fire Dept, bldg. repair
6.78
83035
Motorola, Inc. - Fire dept. radios
712.31
83036
thru 83046 - October 15th payroll
4,800.00
$ 26,g35.35