HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-86 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 7, 1986
Mayor Morgan called the City Council meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in
the City Council chambers. Present: Morgan, Armstrong, Dunn,
Mazzara, Christ, City Administrator Overby, City Engineer Bohrer and
Attorney Steve Carlson.
1. Agenda
Add: 1A. Acknowledgement of gift from the Lake Elmo Lions Club, 11F.
Water Safety Committee
M/S/P Armstrong/Dunn - to approve the Agenda for the October 7, 1986
City Council meeting as amended. (Motion carried 5-0).
A. Lake Elmo Lions Club
Mayor Morgan acknowledged the gift of $1,500.00 from the Lake Elmo
Lions Club to the City of Lake Elmo for recreation and park purposes
such as horseshoe court and volleyball court and a sandpit for riding
toy animals.
M/S/P Morgan/Christ - to send a letter of appreciation to the Lake
Elmo Lions Club for their $1,500 gift for recreation and park
purposes. (Motion carried 5-0).
2. Minutes: September 16, 1986
M/S/P Dunn/Mazzara - to approve the September 16, 1986 City Council
minutes as presented. (Motion carried 5-0).
3. Claims
M/S/P Christ/Mazzara - to approve the October 7, 1986 claims #87822
thru #87873 as presented. (Motion carried 5-0).
4. Public Inquiries
John Schiltz, 3442 Lake Elmo Avenue, explained that he had a collapsed
tank and was turned down for help by the City Engineer, but yet
another resident with the same type of problem got immediate help.
Bohrer responded that he explained to Mr. Schiltz the procedure that
had to be followed to get John Prokosch's situation approved. From
their discussion, Bohrer understood Schiltz needed immediate relief,
within a day or so, and could not wait for this time consuming
procedure.
John Schiltz stated that his blueprints propose to put in the three
tanks that it called for in the exact same spot and asked if he could
be reimbursed or could this be the first leg of this system if it is
going in. He felt that this is a waste of money and time and has a
great concern if he is going to get his new system. Morgan reassured
Schiltz that if his system is in the 201 Poject he will get it.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE 2
Bohrer responded that under this grant program there are really no
emergency provisions, but there is a small purchases procedure for
expenses under $10,000. They did get the MPCA to expand the
interpretationto take care of what he considers an emergency situation
under $10,000 before going out for public bids. The reason they don't
allow a rebate is because if you did your installation and asked to be
reimbursed, that installation would not have complied with all of the
grant provisions. These provisions include: bidders having a certain
amount of small woman or minority business enterprise, bidders have to
agree to pay certain minimum federal prevailing wage rates, and many
other provisions that would not have been complied with.
Schiltz added that the 201 Project was supposed to be the solution to
his problems, but he was told by the City Engineer that he would not
be able to do his laundry when this problem is solved. Now, he asked,
does this sound like a correct solution when you cannot even do your
'laundry? Schiltz hoped that the capacity he needs should be considered
before the system is put in because he would like the business to be
looked at as full seven days a week. He also asked why the MPCA did
not visit this restaurant to inspect his problem, as he had requested.
Amen ed 10-21-86 Business & personal Laundry)
Bohrer replied that the meeting they had with the MPCA ran late and so
they were unable to visit Mr. Schiltz's situation because the MPCA had
other committments. Morgan added that people making these grants base
it on the most cost effective way and the people making these grants
felt the 201 Project was the most cost effective way.
Ed Gorman, owner of the White Hat restaurant, asked the following
questions regarding the 201 Program.
What factors were considered in selecting his property for off -site
installation? Bohrer responded that back in the facility planning
stage they identified where the needs were in the community. In a
preliminary way, they determined which ones could be fixed up on -site
and which ones could not -either because of lot size or suitability of
the soil. Then they looked at the location of home and businesses
that could not solve their problem on their own property. Then they
looked for the closest vacant land and if it was suitable for the
intended purpose by examining county soil surveys, water table
records, well logs or any available information they had. If again, it
was found to be suitable and in close proximity, that was their
primary choice.
When he develops the remaining property would he be able to hook-up to
the off -site system? Bohrer answered that it would be unlikely,
because in any new development he would have to show that he has
enough land on his own property to do what he wants. This is not only
regarding sewage disposal, but things such as surface water, ponding,
landscaping requirements, and adequate parking have to be considered.
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has appropriated $125,000
for land acquisition, if the land acquisition exceeds this amount what
is the probability this project would proceed as planned.? Bohrer
responded that some land will be purchased by negotiations and other
land by condemnation. By condemnation, the Court -appointed
commissioners will determine that value. If the value is more than
what the MPCA has already approved, they will go back to the MPCA and
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE 3
show them these land values the commissioners came up with and ask
them to concur in those amounts. If they agree, then the grant will
be increased to participate in that land acquisition to the same
percentage as they did for the $125,000 that was already approved.
Has the Council made any determination as to how the City will handle
failure of systems either unreported, not known now, failing, or which
will fail in the future? Morgan answered if we are aware of the
problems, we will enforce our codes the best way we can. We will
first insist that the owners repair those systems and if they refuse
to repair them, then we will go in and repair the systems at the
owners' expense.
Is significant commercial development going to be impaired by the
inability to treat large volumes of waste? Morgan answered that is a
matter of the Comprehensive Plan and reality. The City of Lake Elmo
at the present time does not have a central sewer system and it is
unlikely that we will be getting one. There is almost no possibiity
that we could ever get federal funding for bringing in a central sewer
system or building our own plant. In the event that we would, the
land that would have to be taken for the sewer from people would far
exceed the land and cost we are taking today. It would totally change
the complextpn, of the City of Lake Elmo. Today, we do not have the
services in any area, except Section 32-33, to handle any development
that would require such a large system.
Has the Council made a conscious decision to limit growth by means of
not installing a municipal sewer and water treatment plant or by
providing access to existing neighboring systems? Morgan, speaking
for himself, felt that the Council has not made a decision to limit
growth by not trying to install a central sewer system, but is just
facing up to reality that the possibility of getting a sewer system is
not very likely and we are zoning and planning accordingly. Armstrong
added that even if we want a system, there is no room for Lake Elmo to
be included in the Metropolitan system.
Bohrer responded that there are only two ways to serve this area with
metropolitan sewer. There is an existing interceptor that goes to the
metro plant and this ends at the intersection of 94 and 694. That
pipe was sized back in the 1960's for only a certain area of Woodbury,
Oakdale and Lake Elmo. There is a certain amount that is reserved in
that pipe for Lake Elmo which was set aside for Section 32 and the
landowners were assessed for that so there is no excess capacity in
that pipe. If it were to be served with the Pig'sEye Plant, there
would have to be another interceptor built or an increase in size of
that existing one. Another alternative would be to upgrade an
existing wastewater plant in Cottage Grove and run a new pipe north
through Cottage Grove through Woodbury and into Lake Elmo. Neither of
these two are feasible, because the need does not appear to be there.
Recently, the Metropolitan Council has taken the position that there
is enough sewered land already in the east part of the Metro that is
not developed yet, and they feel that those areas should be infilled
before new interceptor areas are expanded further.
The City of Wyoming, Minnesota which has a population of 1,800 have
their own sewer disposal plant done by TKDA. What is the difference
between Wyoming and Lake Elmo? Bohrer replied that the type of system
that Wyoming has is a sanitary type sewer that goes into a sewage
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE b
lagoon that receives all of their raw waste water. There is no stream
or river that goes through Wyoming that this treated sewage can be
discharged to, so they have a system where the effluent is pumped
through a spray irrigation system and it irrigates City land. This
was the type of system that was considered for Lake Elmo. A study was
done in the 1970's and the cost was estimated over $5 million dollars.
It was technically feasible, but it would not have been funded by the
grant that the City got, because it was not the lowest cost
alternative.
John Schiltz asked why is cost always a factor when the health and
welfare of the people are concerned. Morgan did not feel this was a
valid comparison and was not aware of anyone's health being
Jeopardized in any way in the City of Lake Elmo.
Morgan added that the Council trys to make their decision based on
what the majority of people want and can afford in Lake Elmo. The
cost to bring in sewer across undeveloped land would mean extreme
costs and cause economic hardship to people of the community. The 201
Project is helping over 100 families, and he feels they have tried to
avoid condemnation of land every way that they could. Morgan regrets
that, from a technical point of view, that Mr. Gorman's land was
chosen and wished there was a way the City could work with him so he
would not be hurt in any way.
Mr. Gorman asked why wasn't he included in the process years ago?
Bohrer answered that one of the reasons Mr. Gorman was not approached
is that the plans had to be approved by the MPCA. Until that time,
Bohrer did not know if they were going to approve a site or not.
Because the MPCA scrutinized the sites extensively, the approval did
not come until January or April of 1986. Gorman stated that his
lending institution will call his loan if this goes through, because
their interest is at stake and their interest is his land. This is
the consequence he feels the City is accepting.
5. Interview Planning Commission Applicants
There are two vacancies on the Planning Commission for First and
Second Alternate members. The following two people have applied for
the vacancies:
1. Lee Gordon Hunt, 8810 55th Street North (applied 8-23-86)
2. David D. Johnson, 11291 30th Street North (applied 9-10-86)
When interviewed, Mr. Hunt stated that one of the reasons he moved to
Lake Elmo a year ago was because of the nature of the way the
community was evolving-- which was a residential area with high
standards and with a small town atmosphere. Mr. Hunt would be willing
to spend the necessary time needed, as his schedule is flexible.
Mr. David Johnson expressed that he liked Lake Elmo the way it is;
primarily residential, with keeping some agricultural and with really
no major development, but with some commercial aspects to support the
residential.
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn - to appoint to the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
Lee Gordon Hunt as First Alternate member and David D. Johnson as
Second Alternate member. (Motion carried 5-0).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE 5
6. Public Hearing: Request for Variance to the Development
Moratorium Ordinance, Ken Sovereign
Mayor Morgan called the public hearing to order at 7:46 p.m. In the
City Council chambers.
This request was originally discussed at the September 2, 1986 City
Council meeting. At that time, the City Council was informed by the
City Attorney that a public hearing be held to allow the City Council
take official action on the variance request.
Councilman Christ stated that this application has been in front of
the Planning Commission prior to the implementation of the moratorium
unlike any other moratorium variances that have been denied and this
was not Mr. Sovereign's doing.
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
M/S/P/ Dunn/Christ - to grant Ken Sovereign a variance to the
Development Moratorium Ordinance on the basis that the timing of the
moratorium prevented him from following through with City Council
action on his subdivision and preliminary plat, such action having
been tabled from a council meeting prior to the enactment of the
moratorium. (Motion carried 5-0).
7. Public Hearing: Variance to Minimum Lot Size in R-1 Zone;
Variance from Minimum Shoreland Frontage; Variance from
"One Percent Rule" for Ponding Area; Simple Lot Subdivision:
Preliminary Plat - Ken Sovereign; -Mayor 'Morgan called the public hearing to
order at 7:46 p.m. -in the City Council chambers.
Mr. Sovereign is proposing a two lot subdivision. Since this property
is unplatted, the single lot subdivision does not apply and platting
is required. The plat abuts Olson Lake, therefore Shoreland
Regulations also apply. The following is the City Engineer's review.
Variances are required for lot size on Lot 1 and lot width
requirements on both lots.
1. Lot 1 is 1.0 acres where 1.5 acres is requiried and is part of a
11 acre parcel. Lot 2 is 1.65 acres.
2. Both lots have the required 125 feet of .frontage on a public
street (CSAH 13)•
3. Each lot has 125 feet of lot width at the lake, where Shoreland
Regulations require 150 feet.
4. Percolation tests and soil borings were furnished for Lot 1 which
indicate there is sufficient land available for a drainfield plus an
alternate. The actual sizing and layout of the system will be done at
the time of the building permit application. Lot 2 has an existing
house on it, which is owned by Mrs. Sovereign but rented out.
5. Access is presently provided to the rented house on Lot 2 by
sharing a common driveway to the Sovereign home. At the time Lot 2 is
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE 6
sold, a separate driveway should be constructed to Lot 2 to eliminate
the need for a private road.
6. In the past, the VBWD has exempted single lot subdivisions from
ponding requirements.
Bohrer explained that the piece of property that has the original
house on it has a separate legal description (metes and bounds) and is
like an island with no road frontage and is contained inside the
boundaries of the 11 acre parcel that is owned jointly. Bohrer added
that what Mr. Sovereign wants to do with this little island is to
redraw the property lines so it has lake and road frontage. If this is
done, then a piece of the 11 acres is severed which would become Lot
1.
Mr. Sovereign stated that if you believe that a husband and wife are
two separate entitities, this will be the burden of the hardship
because there is no place to go because his wife will not give him
anymore land, and it is nbnt-ing-ent to the sizes of the surrounding
area lots. He added that 125 feet on the lake is one of the biggest
lots on Olson Lake. (Amended 10-21-86 consistent)
In his legal opinion, Attorney Steve Carlson felt Mr. Sovereign does
not have a hardship.
Bart Mueller, 8080 Hidden Bay Trail, commented that the variance
ordinance was passed for specific reasons and unless it is an
emergency it should be held to. He personally has no feelings against
the variance for the lot size, as he does on the lakeshore frontage
variance. Mueller feels the time has come to change approving such
variances in view of all the problems the City has with water.
Bohrer felt it would make things.clearer if the map showed the
property lines for the existing lot, property that is in Mr.
Sovereign's wife name only, as it is today.
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing at 8:18 p.m.
In regard to a variance needed from the "One Percent Rule" for surface
water runoff ponding areas, Bohrer advised the Council that the City
has waived the ponding requirements for simple lot subdivisions.
Morgan and Mazzara stated they would like to see the lines redrawn for
clarity. Councilwoman Armstrong felt the fact Mr. Sovereign was
looking for two variances, both lakeshore and lot size with 11 acres
to work with tells the Council that there was not a hardship.
Councilman Dunn interpreted it as 11 acres owned by one individual and
the property lines can be redefined.
M/No Second/F Morgan/No Second - to grant Ken Sovereign the simple lot
subdivision and grant the variance for the lakeshore frontage,
contingent on the lot lines being rearranged so that they meet the 1.5
acres of both lots.
Councilman Dunn would prefer a motion and vote at the time a new
proposal comes in. Mr. Sovereign stated he did not want to go through
the expense and come in with redrawn property lines unless the Council
takes the position that the lakeshore lot size is acceptable.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE 7
Attorney Carlson stated despite what Mr. Sovereign feels, this does
not prevent him from coming in with another proposal which would meet
all the variances based on the property that he owns. Carlson
confirmed, from a legal standpoint, tht Mr. Sovereign does not have a
hardship for either variance request.
M/S/P Mazzara/Morgan - to deny the simple lot subdivision and
preliminary plat request by Ken Sovereign based on lot size. (Motion
carried 5-0).
M/S/F Christ/Morgan - to approve a lakeshore frontage variance of 125
feet based on the circumstances that this is one of largest lake
frontage on Olson Lake and provide direction for another proposal
which would not require a lot size variance to be brought in. (Motion
Failed 2-3<Mazzara, Dunn, Armstong> Mazzara: He was not comfortable
with the motion, but he would be in favor of the request if Sovereign
came in with a 1 1/2 acre lot which meets the subdivision ordinance.
Dunn: He voted no because he does not feel that the City should be
sending out mandates in form of motions on these other variances.
Armstrong: In the Northrup/Smith request, they too had enough acreage
to divide and she voted they should have the correct amount of
frontage. She would vote the same way on this application.)
8. Public Hearing: Request for Variance to the Development
Moratorium, Joseph Rogers
Mayor Morgan called the public hearing to order at 8:25 p.m. in the
City Council chambers.
Attorney Don Raleigh was representing ,Toe Rogers who is requesting an
application to rezone his 17 acres on Hwy 5/Cty 6 to any zoning
classification that would permit the use proposed by Brockman Trucking
for storage of truck trailers and eventually building a repair garage.
Brockman's timetable will allow them to wait for a longer period of
time so December will not be too late to set a public hearing for the
zoning request. A request was made by Attorney Raleigh to withdraw
Joseph Rogers' request for a variance to the Development Moratorium
until the moratorium expires.
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m.
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
A. 201 Program
1. Update on the Condemnation for Land Acquisition
City Engineer referred to the letter written to City Administrator
Overby by William Schwab, Penfield Inc. dated October 2, 1986. In
this letter Mr. Schwab states the latest status report on the
remaining parcels that the Council has not made a decision on. It had
appeared to Mr. Schwab that he was going to be able to negotiate these
purchases, but due to the time constraints the City has he is now
recommending condemnation.
Parcel #3 William and Jane Dahl (Old Village Remote C-1 acre)
Parcel #7 Philip Koubele (E. side of Lake Jane--3 of acre)
Parcel #8 Irve and Sari Robins (easement in Lanes DeMontreville)
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE 8
Parcel #10 Brian and Patricia Dennis (34 th St. easement --
Parcel #11 Joel and Judith Eder for sewer pipe to treatment area)
Parcel #12 Eugene Siedow, dba Custom Mold (no longer needed)
Parcel #16 Joseph Rogers (no longer needed)
Parcel $15 Richard and Jean Pearson ( easement for sewer line)
Bohrer reported there has only been one parcel and three easements
that have been negotiated on for'purchase. Bohrer also added that it
was not uncommon to go through condemnation proceedings for public
acquisitions.
M/S/P Morgan/Armstrong - to adopt Resolution 86-45 authorizing the
commencement of condemnation on the parcels designated by City
Engineer Bohrer, with the City Attorney's recommendation to
incorporate the parcels already approved, that are needed to complete
the 201 Program. (Motion carried 4-1<Mazzara: the City has not
exhausted their options and that condemnation is the final step that
should happen>).
2. Update on MPCA Response to the Redesigned Treatment System
at Parcel , Old Village It Site Gorman
City Engineer Bohrer reported that he has provided a preliminary
design to the MPCA for making a combined site at Site D that would
also treat the sewage that was intended to go to the Joe Rogers
parcel. The reason for doing this was because of the very high
difference in the potential appraised value for the Rogers' parcel
from the City's initial estimate. The MPCA has given verbal approval
that Site D is of sufficient size to handle both of the combined
sewage flows.
Councilman Mazzara asked if the Lake Elmo Inn's busines does increase,
would this present a problem. Bohrer answered there is generally
oversizing built into the system. The oversizing is built in for what
MPCA calls "management purposes". The system that is going into Site
D is actually 50% oversized. The reason for that is there are three
separate treatment beds and only two are used at any one time. The
third one sits idle and the beds are alternated at certain time
intervals to allow one of the beds to rest and for the soil to become
re -aerated during this process. Because of this oversize factor, a
certain fluctuation in sewage flow wouldn't cause any problem. But
they are not sizing the system for future development or for future
people to be hooked into them. If there is any maintenance needed on a
bed like this, it would be the City's responsibility and that will be
returned to the people using it in the form of sewer bills.
Todd Williams, 3025 Lake Elmo Avenue North, explained that because of
the bad weather, Widmer's schedule has been thrown off significantly
and they will not be able to get to as many systems as thought,
William's system included. This spring he will be faced with load
limit restrictions for getting his heavy equipment on City streets.
Widmer will work on the City street projects now and put off anyone
that is on a County road until next Spring. Mr. Widmer told Mr.
Williams that the only reason he is doing this is because he is
worried about the deadline and would like to get an extension -then he
could go back to his original plan. The MPCA was contacted and they
felt; that the tme extension is between the City and the contractor.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE 9
However, the City would also require an extension of the budget period
with the MPCA.
City Engineer Bohrer responded that we cannot dictate to the
contractor whose systems they do and when. However, Mr. Widmer has
been very accommodating with troublesome systems and have established
a priority list of sixteen which Mr. Williams is on. In talking wth
Mr. Widmer, he is willing to accommodate the priority people, but he
wants the City to remember that next Spring, if he has to come in for
a time extension. Bohrer advised Widmer to write a letter to the City
outlining the difficulties he feels he had in September so we could
have something for the record. Mayor Morgan voiced concern regarding
given an extension before it is absolutely essential and felt this
would be a reasonable approach. Councilman Dunn felt this should be `
taken up at the time it is needed rather than prematurely.
Tom Okoneski, Attorney representing Ed Gorman, asked if you put a
system in on the 1.4 acres and Mr. Gorman's goes to improve the other
property, what pressure does the utilization of 1.4 acres put against
the rest of the property. If he has to put in seltic systems to drain
three buildings what are the probabilities that he is going to be
denied the ability to drain because of the pressure of 1.4 acre
system. Bohrer responded he didn't believe it should put any pressure
beyond the boundary lines of that 1.4 acres. That is the purpose of
taking 1.4 acres so there is enough land with the proper setback so it
doesn't affect the adjoining property. This will be a bed system and
there are really no pipes that come to the surface like vent pipes.
There are also two groundwater monitoring wells so they can check the
height of the watertable or sample the watertable.
Attorney Okoneski added that there appears to be open Agricultural
land adjacent to Mr. Gorman's property, what is the cost of running
pipe 100 feet further and taking different property. Bohrer answered
there would be the cost of the pipe to get it there and the cost of
the right-of-way that we would have to acquire to get there because
there is no street or access to the property. Administrator Overby
added that another cost would be if that owner is not a willing seller
we would be looking at condemnation at that site also.
B. Escrow Release No. 2, Teal Pass Estates, 3rd Addition
City Engineer Bohrer reported that
Addition has been completed except
asked for a partial escrow release
base. Bohrer recommended that the
amount of $45,930.00. There will
account until the clean up is comp
all work on Teal Pass Estates 3rd
the clean up. The developers have
to pay for the paving and gravel
escrow can be released in the
remain $2,000.00 in the escrow
leted.
M/S/P Morgan/Christ - to approve the partial escrow release no. 2 in
the amount of $45,930.00 for Teal Pass Estates 3rd Addition based on
the City Engineer's recommendation for release of payment. (Motion
carried 5-0).
10. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Oak Wilt Disease
This subject was discussed at the 9-2-86 City Council meeting where
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE 10
Bob Krostue made some comments about the oak wilt problem in the Eden
Park area of Lake Elmo. Councilwoman Armstrong had talked to Steve
Kunde and was told this group effort of trenching looked like it would
be effective. Aerial photos can be taken in June at a cost of $250.00
There was some discussion about reviewing the tree ordinance, hiring a
possible certified forrester and looking at what adjacent communities
are doing. The Council decided to address this situation next Spring.
11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. Adopt 1987 City Budget; Set the Tax Levy
There were no changes or additions to the proposed 1987 City Budget as
presented by Finance Director Marilyn Banister. No action had been
taken to include either Fire Station Number 2 and related Maintenance
storage or anything for Oak Wilt Disease.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara - to adopt Resolution 86-46 adopting the 1987
City Budget as presented and setting the tax levy. (Motion carried
5-0).
B. Valley Branch Watershed District Manager Nomination
The term of Manager Gordon Moosbrugger will expire November 13, 1986.
Mr. Moosbrugger is still interested in serving another term as
Manager. However, the municipalities in the watershed district have
the opportunity to submit nominees to the County Board for their
consideration as part of the appointment process. If Lake Elmo wishes
to submit a nomination, it must be sent into The County prior to
November 4, 1986.
The manager vacancy will be mentioned in the City Newsletter in order
to develop local interest by potential nominees.
C. County Landfill Site Selection Authority Nomination
The Washington County Board is requesting that the City of Lake Elmo
submit its nomination of a representative to serve on the landfill
Site Selection Authority. The County Board will appoint the Lake Elmo
representative after it has consulted with the City.
M/S/P Christ/Dunn - to appoint David Morgan as Lake Elmo's nomination
for their representative to serve on the Landfill Site Selection
Authority. (Motion carried 5-0).
D. Road Grading Maintenance
In order to address the problem of maintaining the City's gravel
roads, City Administrator Overby had contacted the County Public Works
Department. The following data compares the cost in 1987 for the
present schedule and the new schedule.
3-week schedule: Assumes first trip March loth, last trip October
27th. 12 trips times $211.50 per trip = $2,538.00
2-week schedule: Assumes first trip March loth, last trip November
3rd. 18 trips times $229.12 per trip = $4.124.16
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1986 PAGE 11
The increse cost for the new schedule would be $1,586.16.
M/S/P Dunn/Christ - to approve the 2-week road grading 1987
maintenance schedule with Washington County. (Motion carried 5-0).
E. Approval of Additional.Eleetion Judges
Because a couple of judges that worked the primary election are unable
to work the general election (Don Moe, Rick Opland), there are four
new judges that require council approval. These judges have been
trained for this election and all but one has worked previous
elections.
The election judges that require city council approval are:
Maxine Dickhausen
Pat Mielke
Sandy Nazarian
Rita Schoenecker.
M/S/P Armstrong/Dunn - to approve Maxine Dickhausen, Pat Mielke, Sandy
Nazarian, and Rita Schoenecker as election judges for the November 4,
1986 General Election. (Motion carried 5-0).
F. Appointment of Water Safety Committee Members
A Water Safety Committe of concerned lakeshore property owners was
formed becasue of concerns raised earlier this Summer about water
safety problems on Lake Elmo.
1. David Gear, 2813 Lake Elmo Avenue N.
2. Carol Kelm, 10975 32nd Street N.
3. Pat Hagberg, 2976 Lake Elmo Avenue N.
4. Emma Smith, 10941 32nd Street N.
5. Jim Schaefer, 2986 Lake Elmo Avenue N.
6. Tom or Jean Scheuerman, 3077 Klondike
7. Gary Horning, 2586 Oakgreen Avenue, West Lakeland
M/S/P Morgan/Armstrong - to approve the above Water Safety Committee
members and invite them to the City Council meeting on October 21,
1986. (Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/P Christ/Morgan - to adjourn the City Council meeting at 9:50 p.m.
(Motion carried 5-0).
----------------
(Amended 10-21-86) See Page a & page 6
Resolution 86-45 authorizing the commencement of condemnation on the parcels
designated by City Engineer Bohrer
Resolution 86-46 adopting the 1987 City Budget as nresented and setting
the tax levy