HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-16-88 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 16, 1988
Mayor Arlyn Christ called the City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
in the City Council chambers. Present: Christ, Johnson (arrived 7:07
P.M.), Armstrong, Moe, TKDA Engineer Tom Prew, City Attorney Knaak and
City Administrator Morrison. Absent: Councilman Graves
1. Agenda
REAPP requested their update (Item 5.) be moved before Item 10. Delete:
Public Inquiries
M/S/P Armstrong/Moe -- to approve the August 16, 1988 City Council agenda
as amended. (Motion carried 3-0).
2. Minutes: August 2, 1.988
M/S/P Armstrong/Christ - to approve the August 2, 1988 City Council
minutes as amended. (See 6A. Preliminary Plat, F.J. Crombie 2nd Addition)
(Motion carried 3-0-1<Abstain: Moe>).
3. Claims:
M/S/P Armstrong/Moe - to approve the August 16, 1988 Claims #90627 thru
#90686 as presented. (Motion carried 3-0).
4. Public Inquiries
Public Inquiries are on the agenda, the first City Council meeting of the
month.
5. UPDATE: Proposed Lake Elmo Regional Landfill
(Dan Novak/Todd Williams)
Todd Williams presented City Administrator Morrison with a letter
regarding the fact that REAPP would not have access to the copier because
of the key situation of City Hall.
Todd reported that the documentary video of what our park would look like
if the dump goes in was well received at the County Fair. Another 1500+
signatures were received on the petition to be presented to the Washington
County Board of Commissioners asking that the protective covenants that
now exist --which stated that the Lake Elmo Park Reserve shall remain
parkland forever, not be broken.
REAPP also obtained all the County Commissioners and the candidates to
state, in public, that they favor upholding the covenants; excluding Don
Scheel who refused to comment.
The County Board will meet August 23rd at 9 a.m. to approve the scoping
decision. City Administrator Morrison reported that Attorney Dayton will
attend this meeting and that Councilman Johnson had suggested a cap of
$700.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1988 PAGE 2
There will be a tour of the RDF Plant in Newport, Thursday, August 18th at
10 a.m.
6. PLANNING/ZONING/LAND USE
A. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance from Lot Size
Sally Ziebell, 10572 43rd St. N.
Mayor Arlyn Christ opened up the public hearing at 7:32 in the City
Council chambers.
There was no one to speak for or against the variance request.
City Engineer Bohrer reported in his letter, dated August 11, 1988, that
the right -of -•way acquisition for the 43rd Street and Kimbro Avenue
construction project will require the taking of approximately two acres of
land and the house from Sally Zibell. Appraisal on the land and house are
almost complete and an offer will be made soon. The appraisal assumes
that the remaining land after the taking will be considered buildable for
valuation purposes. The lot prior to the taking is 5.09 acres and
includes one-half of 43rd Street and all of Ki.mbro Avenue right-of-way
within its boundaries. The lot after the taking will be approximately
2.88 acres and will not include any road encroachments.
The zoning is Rural Residential which requires 10 acres lot size without a
variance. The applicant has applied for a lot size variance so as to
construct a replacement home on the remaining 2.88 acres. Bohrer
recommended that this variance be granted because the hardship was created
by the City project.
Mayor Christ closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
M/S/P Armstrong/Johnson - to approve a lot size variance for Sally A.
Zibell, 10572 43rd St. N., to construct a single family dwelling on a 2.88
acre parcel of land in the Rural Residential zoning district based on the
hardship created by the City Project; no new lot is being created and the
overall density of the neighborhood is not changed. (Motion carried 4-0).
B. PUBLIC HEARING: Shoreland Permit/Variance
Joseph Kiesling, 9359 Jane Rd. N.
Mayor Christ opened up the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. in the City Council
chambers.
The representative for Joseph P. Kiesling stated Mr. Kiesling has applied
for a variance to the setback requirements from the Ordinary High water
Mark/100 foot flood elevation, and a shoreland permit for the construction
of a 24' x 34' (816 square feet) double garage and advised that the
applicant did not have a hardship.
This lot was previously owned by David Keane. The Keane's abandoned their
home when Lake Jane was at its all-time high. In September, 1987, after
the implementation of the 509 Plan, the Keane's were before the Council
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1988 PAGE 3
asking for permission to raise the existing house and attached garage
above the 100 year flood level. The Keane's were granted permission to
fill 35 feet out into the lake bed.
The Keane's have since sold the home to Mr. Kiesling who has asked for a
variance to construct a detached garage. The permits to continue the work
that was originally granted to the Keane's have been transferred to Mr.
Kiesling, but both the DNR and the VBWD have stated that the transfer is
only for what was originally applied for and granted to the Keane's.
The house is now at "0" setback and the addition of the garage would not
meet the criteria for setbacks from the OHWM or 100 year flood elevation.
Also, it appears that the proposed garage would not meet the 20 foot
setback from the newly installed "201" mound septic system. Based on this,
the VBWD and DNR have recommended denial of this request.
A letter was received from Margaret Paul, 9367 Jane Rd. N., stating that
approval of this variance would be satisfactory with her.
Mayor Christ closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Councilwoman Armstrong stated that the purpose of the Shoreland Ordinance
is to regulate construction on shorelands to minimize property damage
during periods of high water. The staff will check if the minimum
building elevations have changed since the 509 Plan was implemented.
M/S/P Armstrong/Moe - to deny the variance/shoreland permit request of
Joseph Keisling, 9359 Jane Road N., for setback requirments from the
Ordinary high water mark for conversion of an attached garage to living
space and construction of an accessory garage based on the following
Findings of Fact: (Motion carried 4-0).
1. The applicant's representative has stated there was no hardship.
2. The conversion of the present garage to living space would alter
the present building beyond normal maintenance. This is not allowed
in this case. The existing structure is now at "0" setback and
according to City Code #301.050B., does not fall in the
exception range of allowed alterations.
3. The proposed garage would add an additional non -conforming
structure to the lot.
4. It appears the garage would not meet the 20 foot setback from
the newly installed 11201" mound septic system.
5. The Department of Natural Resources has recommended denial and
both DNR and the Valley Branch Watershed District have made
it clear that the permit transferred from the Keanes to Kiesling
is for the improvements granted in 1987 only. Those improvements
allow for a reasonable use of the property.
6. The City Staff has recommended that neither these proposed nor
any future variances be allowed on this property based on its
close proximity to the lake.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1988 PAGE 4
C. Planning Commission Recommendation:
Impervious Surface Coverage, General Business District
The Council, at their meeting of July 19th requested the Planning
Commission review the 20% impervious surface coverage factor in the
recently adopted amendment to the General Business Zoning classification.
The Planning Commission recommended the maximum density allowed for a
commercial development as follows:
35% coverage for 1.5 acre lot
25% coverage for 1.51 - 5 acres
20% coverage for 5.1 acres and over and;
to adopt more stringent landscape and architectural design requirements
and recommend the PZ review these requirements.
Councilman Moe did not want to make it so limited that variance requests
would come in for parking.
buildin only) amended 9-6-88
M/No Second/ Moe/ - to recommend 5% covNage and let parking be dictated
by our code.
M/No Second/ Moe/ - to recommend 30% coverage per Mahtomedi
M/No Second/ Armstrong/ - to recommend 35% overall coverage.
M/No Second/ Johnson/ - to recommend 30% building coverage and let the
type of business dictate the size of the parking lot.
Since the Council could not come to a consensus, the following motion was
made:
M/S/P Moe/Armstrong - to table the discussion on Impervious Surface
Coverage in the General Business District until the September 6th meeting.
(Motion carried 4-0).
D. Final Plat: Brockman 3rd Addition
The Planning Commission reviewed the Final Plat of Brockman 3rd Addition
on August 8th, resulting in a recommendation to approve the Plat, without
dedication of the additional 10' as requested by Washington County on Hwy
17.
City Engineer Bohrer stated in his letter dated August 11, 1988 that the
Developer has offered to leave the 50 feet dedicated and provide an
additional 10 feet of permanent road easement to equal the 60 feet
requested by the Council. With the Council's acceptance of this
condition, Bohrer recommended that the final plat was ready for approval.
When asked about protective covenants, Bruce Folz indicated there were no
covenants on this addition.
Councilwoman Armstrong suggested the following changes be made on the
Resolution: Since this plat had no variances; delete:"or for which
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance were granted variances;"and add
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1988 PAGE 5
(...providing for the construction of all streets and related improvement
to City Standard to be completed within one year,)
M/S/P Armstrong/Johnson - resolved that the Council hereby adopts
Resolution No. 88-36, as amended, for approval of the Final Plat of
Brookman 3rd Addition; contingent upon the developer meeting conditions
specified in the City Engineer's letter of 8-11-88; upon providing a
letter of credit and an acceptable Developer's agreement; upon payment of
park dedication fees and pass-thru costs.
Bruce Folz stated that when the land was donated for the new City Hall,
the City waived all park dedication fees on the Brookman Addition. The
City Staff will check into this and will have the Parks Commission discuss
the possibility of increasing the park dedication fees. The Council
requested the developer provide an appraised market value of the property.
M/S/P Moe/Johnson - to amend the motion to exclude the park dedication fee
because of their donation of land to the City for the new City Hall.
(Motion carried 3-1<Armstrong>).
M/S/P Moe/Johnson - resolved that the City Council hereby adopts
Resolution No. 88-36, as amended, for approval of the Final Plat of
Brookman 3rd Addition; contingent upon the developer meeting conditions
specified in the City Engineer's letter of 8-11-88; upon providing a
letter of credit and an acceptable Developer's Agreement, upon payment of
pass-thru costs; and to exclude the park dedication fee because of their
donation of land to the City for the new City Hall. (Motion carried
3-1-0<Abstain: Armstrong>).
E. Request to Revoke our 87-29 Resolution: Jim Friedrich
In March of 1985, the City Council granted a road frontage variance to
Joseph Kaiser which enabled him to build a single family residential unit.
In June of 1987, Jim Friedrich applied for, and was granted, a simple lot
subdivision with the intention of selling the parcel split to Mr. Kaiser.
Mr. Friedrich has advised the City that the sale to Mr. Kaiser never went
thru. In fact, Mr.. Kaiser never finished his house and it is now on the
market. However, the resolution granting this lot split was recorded with
Washington County and the parcel split off from the Friedrich property now
shows to be part of the Kaiser property --which would be correct had the
sale gone through.
Mr. Friedrich has asked that this resolution be revoked so that the
County's legal description will show the parcel belongs to him and not Mr.
Kaiser. Mr. Friedrich has also asked that this parcel be shown as a
separate parcel rather than combining it with his parcel, as was the case
originally. Mr. Friedrich would like to be able to sell this parcel as a
separate building site, provided it meets all code requirements for
septic, setback, etc.
Mr. Friedrich and the person who is interested in purchasing the existing
Kaiser house would eliminate the private road access to the property over
Mr. Friedrich's property and propose to enter off of Stillwater Blvd. as
do the other homes in the area.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1988 PAGE 6
Prior to granting the lot split, there was an easement given to Mr.
Friedrich from Mr. Kaiser so that the Friedrich property would not be
landlocked. The Council will have to decide as to whether or not this
easement to the back property was an indication or acknowledgement that at
some point in time another home would be built on the property. If this
was the case, should Mr. Friedrich go through the process of applying for
another simple lot subdivision or will the original lot split suffice.
The Council directed the City staff to invite Joseph Kaiser to the next
meeting in order to get his input before any Council action is taken.
7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
A. Resolution 88-35:
Accepting Bid for 1988 Bituminous Overlay Project
On August 15, 1988 bids were received for the above referenced project.
Five bids were submitted and tabulated as follows:
Bidder Total Bid
Valley Paving, Inc. $69,248.55
Tower Asphalt, Inc. $69,577.55
Ace Blacktop, Inc. $70,204.80
Alexander Construction $71,248.80
Bituminous Materials, Inc. $72,708.60
Engineer's Estimate $72,407.50
The City Engineer recommended that the work be awarded to the .low bidder,
Valley Paving, Inc. in the amount of $69,2.48.55.
M/S/P Johnson/Moe - resovled that Resolution 88-35 is hereby approved
awarding the bid of $69,248.55 to Valley Paving, Inc. (Shakopee, MN) for
the 1988 Bituminous Overlay Project. (Motion carried 4-0).
B. Resolution 88-34:
Declaring Cost to be Assessed (and Setting Assessment Hearing);
1988 Municipal State Aid Improvement (47th Street)
The 1988 MSA Project--47th Street and the 1988 Bituminous Overlay Project
will be completed shortly and an assessment hearing will be scheduled for
Thursday, September 8, 1988 to rule on the proposed assessments. The
Council determined that the Unit Method of assessment should be used for
the 1988 MSA Project and the 1988 Bituminous Overlay Project.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1988 PAGE 7
For the Municipal State Aid Improvement project, the assessments shall be
payable in equal installments extending over a period of five years and
shall bear interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date of
the adoption of the assessment resolution.
For the 1988 Bituminous Overlay Project, the assessments shall be payable
in equal installments extending over a period of five years, and shall
bear interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date of the
adoption of the assessment resolution.
M/S/P Armstrong/Moe - resolved that Resolution No. 88-34 is hereby
approved calling for preparation of assessment rolls for the 1988
Municipal State Aid Street Improvement and the 1988 Bituminous Overlay
Project, and setting the assessment hearing for. September 8, 1988; and
further, that; (1.) the 1988 Bituminous Overlay Project shall be assessed
on a Unit Method basis and (2.) assessments on the improvements shall. be
spread over a five year period, bearing interest at a rate of nine
percent. (Motion carried 3-1<Johnson: he favored the combination method
of assessment>).
8. Update on Lake Jane Landfill: Mary Luth and Paul Josephson
Mary Luth and Paul Josephson, of Washington Co. Public Health, gave a
summary on the 1988 SW-1 Work Plan and Site Activites. (See Exhibit A) The
level of contaminants has decreased 90 percent at test wells since pumping
began more than a year ago. However, according to Mary Luth, it appears
that the pumping possibly in combination with the drought, has reversed
the flow of groundwater at the site.
In a report that was recently presented to the Washington County Board
stated that it would cost between $160 million and $200 million to
excavate the Lake Jane Landfill, remove the waste, ship it to other sites
and fill the hole that is left behind. Given these cost figures, the
County Board decided this past June, that it would not proceed with
further consideration of the proposal.
Councilman Dick Johnson asked why didn't the County consider options other
than a $200 million excavation; such as, placing a liner in the excavation
and replacing the refuse. That, responded Washington County, was not
considered as an option. Johnson added, there was no use going through
the study because of shortsightedness in how to alleviate the problem.
Councilmember Don Moe argued that the health of human beings is far more
important than the dollar signs.
Residential wells and monitoring wells will be sampled again in October,
and the County will report back to City officials after the first of the
year.
9. Report of Al Dornfeld, Chairman VBWD
A. Floodproofing Program
Allen Dornfeld, VBWD, explained to the Council that the Managers of Valley
Branch Watershed District are considering implementing a fl.00dproofing
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1988 PAGE 8
program which was included in their approved 509 surface water management
plan. (See Allen Dornfeld's letter dated August 5, 1988 for explanation).
B. Discuss Useage of Lake Elmo Public Works Crew for
VBWD Maintenance Work
Mr. Dornfel.d asked the Council's permission to use our Public Works crew
for minor maintenance of VBWD's facilities based on the fantastic job our
crew had done on a small job last Winter.
The Council had concerns on City liability and exposure to working in
another municipality and questioned if our Maintenance Crew would have
time to perform these duties.
The City Staff will review the City's liability and possible impact on the
Workers Compensation and will report back to the City Council.
10. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Contract: Leonard, Street & Deinard
The City Attorney was forwarded a copy of the proposed Contract for review
and recommended approval of this contract with this firm (for LE Regional
Park landfill) as directed by the Council at the last meeting, together
with the Council's direction for amendment to the contract to funnel all
functions with this law firm through the Administrator's Office.
At the suggestion of Councilman Johnson, Ellen Sampson has been advised of
a $700 cap for fees for preparation and attendance at the County Board
meeting for the scoping document.
M/S/P Armstrong/Johnson - resolved that the Council hereby approves, as
recommended by the City Attorney to include paragraph 5 for clarification
based on the minutes, the contract with Leonard, Street and Deinard for
services rendered in connection with the Lake Elmo Regional Park landfill.
(Motion carried 4-0).
B. Other matters
11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. Compost Agreement (Junker Sanitation)
Mr. Junker had been asked to come in and discuss his contract prior to the
August l6th meeting; but he has not been in.
City staff reported that in the interest of the overall waste abatement
program, it is very important that this site be kept open. When this
program was started last year, the goal was to make enough money so we
could start a "Waste Abatement Fund". Our compost and recycling are now
both subsidized by the County, but no one is sure how long this subsidy
will last and our goal is to get enough money to cover our costs when the
subsidy does cease.
The staff recommended that the per cubic yard cost be increased from $2 to
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1988 PAGE 9 I
$5, with the provision that hereafter Junker Sanitation be required to
open all their compost bags, upon delivery of the bags to the Lake Elmo
site. Also, the continuance of this contract be contingent upon full
payment, to date, in the amount of $5,115.34 to the City for the use of
this site in 1988.
M/S/P Armstrong/Moe - to approve continuing the Junker. Sanitation Compost
Agreement until August 31, 1989, contingent on the per cubic yard cost
being increased fom $2 to $5 retroactive to August 1st, with the provision
that Junker Sanitation furnish personnel to open bags and empty all bags
that are brought in within two days; on full payment to the City for use
of this site in 1988 in the amount of $5,115.34. (M6'ion carried 4-0).
B. Resolution 88-37: Adopting a Records Retention Schedule
The State Dept., of Administration, together with the Minnesota Historical
Society and a Committee of City Officials, in 1986, compiled and approved
a records management program for local government agencies. This program
outlines a records program for retention and disposal of the majority of
records a City has access to. Being we are at near peak capacity in our
files, the City Administrator recommended Council adoption of this system
so that we can cull our files to make space available.
A concern was raised by Councilmembers as to what records will be thrown
away. A reference book was provided for their information.
M/S/P Armstrong/Johnson - to table the adoption of the Records Retention
schedule in order for the City Council to further look into what records
will be kept through this system. (Motion carried 4-0).
C. Planning Service Contract
The Council had requested that Michael Black, Director of Planning, (James
R. Hill Inc.) submit a Resume and a Contract for services performed in
connection with the Morton/Engstrom proposal; this was enclosed with
Council materials.
Councilman Johnson suggested amending the contract (Item #3 Additional
Services) to clarify any additional planning services in 1988, beyond the
Willard Morton/Bob Engstrom subdivision, shall be subject to City Council
approval.
M/S/P Johnson/Armstrong - resolved that the Council hereby approves the
Agreement for Professional Services between James R. Hill, Inc., and the
City of Lake Elmo, for Planning Services in conjunction with the Willard
Morton/Bob Engstrom proposed subdivision, as amended. (Item #3 Any
additional planning services in 1988, beyond the Willard Morton/Bob
Engstrom subdivision, shall be subject to City Council approval). (Motion
carried 4-0).
D. Employment Request
City Administrator Morrison requested Council approval to hire, on a
part-time basis, Bill Leary, a seasonal employee who worked for the Public
Works Dept. since last Fall.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1988 PAGE 10
Funds were budgeted in 1988 for part-time help within the Parks
Maintenance, Personnel Services, Category. It was recommended that 30% of
the salary be contributed from the P.W. Salt & Sand budget (as a portion
of the work will be street maintenance). Council approval is requested to
retain this employee through November 4, 1988: August 22 - November 4,
1988.
55 days @ 8 hrs/day = 440 hrs. x $6 hrs. _ $2,640.00
(70o Park Maintenance: $1,848)
(30% Sand & Gravel: $792)
Under the provisions of PERA, a seasonal employee is defined as a person
working less than 67 working days (536 hours) in a calendar year"; "...a
seasonal employee becomes a public employee on the 68th day of employment
within a calendar year". Mr. Leary has worked 550 1/2 hours, of. which 185
hours have been billed to Park Maintenance and 365 to Compost. Also,
under provision of PERA, after $3,900 is earned in a calendar year, an
employee is subject to payment of PERA qnd FICA (to date, Leary has earned
$3,118).
M/S/P Armstrong/Moe - resolved that the Council hererby approves
employment of Bill Leary as a part-time public works employee, for the
period of August 22, 1988 through November 4, 1988, at a salary of $6.00
per hour. (Motion carried 4-0).
E. Lighting of Flag, City Hall
Complaints have been received about being able to locate City Hall;
therefore, the staff recommended having our flag at City Hall lit.
Allied Electric has advised they could install a light, and timer for
$340.00. Lighting of the flag may eliminate some of the location problems
and would also eliminate the need to take down the flag every night and
weekend. The City Administrator will look into identification signs.
M/S/P Moe/Johnson - to approve installing a light and timer by Allied
Electric in the amount of $340.00 for the purpose of lighting up the flag
at City Hall. (Motion carried 4-0).
M/S/P Moe/Johnson - to adjourn the City Council meeting at 10:00 p.m.
(Motion carried 4-0).
- Resolution 88-34calling for preparation of assessment rolls for the 1988
Municipal State Aid Street Improvement and the 1988 Bituminous Overlay
Project
Resolution 88-35 awarding the bid of. $69,2.48.55 to Valley paving Inc. for
the 1.988 Bituminous Overlay Project
Resolution 88-36 Final Plat of Brookman 3rd Addition
C.
101
surrounding those original ten homes were sampled. The results
of this residential sampling show:
-- Reduction of the contaminant plume is occurring. Three of
ten originally affected wells (Weber, L. Richert, F.
Downs) have now been below detection limits for several
samplings. The remaining affected wells are below MDH
Recommended Allowable Limits (RAL).
-- No new detection of VOC in residential wells has been
found.
-- Two wells continue to have granular activated carbon filters
which render their treated water below detection limits for
VOC's.
2. Monitoring Wells
-- Background, upgradient wells remain below detection limits
for contaminants.
-- Of the 26 on -site and perimeter wells, 14 show no detectable
concentrations of VOC's; five show detectable concentration
below the Recommended Allowable Limits; and seven wells (A,
I, H, GC2, S, V, R3) show evidence of contaminants exceeding
RAL.
-- Volatile scans (for 54 of the most commonly found VOC's) has
been completed on GC1, GC2, V and A. No new priority
pollutant compounds were found through these scans.
Site Excavation Report
Washington County Board of Commissioners, on June 14, 1988, received
and considered the site excavation feasibility report they had
requested be completed. After review of the report and discussion on
liability and cost issues, the Board determined that it would not
proceed with further consideration of this option at this time. A
copy of this report as well as correspondence from MPCA is attached.
Activities for the Remainder of 1988
-- Decision on NPDES permit by MPCA and County determination of next
actions based on that decision.
-- Quarterly sampling, October.
-- Completion of 1988 Evaluation Report and submission to MPCA in
October.
-- Development of 1989 Work Plan.
2
EXHIBIT A
Summary on 1988 SW-1 Work Plan and Site Activities
A. The Counties had four major tasks outlined to be accomplished during
calendar year 1988:
1. Northwest Pumpout System at Wells A and I
Well A -- Underground pipe had been installed and electrical
power connection made; continuous pumping and spray
aeration is occurring; reduction in contaminant levels
has been observed since initiation of pumpout
treatment.
Well I -- Decreasing water level at this well has compromised our
ability to do continuous pumpout; a load monitor -timer
has been installed to cycle pumping on a regular basis,
ie., every 15 minutes. Contaminants are slowly being
removed. If water levels continue to decrease at this
site, we will need to reevaluate our Well I pumpout
plans.
2. Treatment Area 2
Development of this treatment area (to the north of the existing
spray treatment site) has been completed; this site is currently
being used while treatment area 1 site work (to improve
infiltration) is being completed. It is anticipated that both
treatment areas will be used simultaneously when Gradient Control
Well #3 is turned on and until the approval for off -site
discharge of GC1 is received.
3. Gradient Control Well #3
This gradient control well (designed to enhance clean-
up/treatment of the R series wells) has been installed.
Connection to the pumpout/spray treatment system is being
completed at this time. We anticipate actual start-up of pumping
by September 1, 1988. This system will be pumping at a rate of
approximately 130 gallons/minute.
4. GCi Discharge to Off -site
The Counties' NPDES permit request is in its final review stages
by MPCA. Valley Branch Watershed District, on July 28, 1988, did
approve a permit for the off -site disposal of GCi into the
TriLakes Outlet. Because the Counties' existing permit expires
on September 30, 1988, we anticipate that MPCA will make a
decision on this request in the next several weeks.
B. Annual sampling was completed in July pursuant to the Counties'
schedule.
1. Residential Wells
Nine of the ten (excluding Christ) residential wells originally
having concentrations of VOC's as well as twelve homes
1
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
February 18, 1988
Ms. Mary Luth
Washington County Public Health
Department
14900 61st Street North
P.O. Box 6
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Dear Ms. Luth and Mr. Ohlund:
Mr. Dennis Ohl and
Ramsey County Division of
Environmental Health
610 American Center Building
150 East Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Re: 1988 Progress Report No. 1/Washington County Landfill No.l
As indicated by the above -referenced report, and as Mary Luth and I discussed on
February 9, 1988, the Counties have begun discussions regarding a work plan to
evaluate the feasibility of excavating solid wastes from the landfill.
As you are aware, this response action alternative was evaluated in the report
entitled "Phase III Final Report: Washington County Landfill No.l
Investigation," E. A. Hickok and Associates (Hickok), May 19, 1983. Removal of
wastes was not recommended by Hickok because of the prohibitive expense of the
removal and disposal of the wastes. Instead, upon review of the Hickok report,
the Counties selected the installation and operation of a ground water gradient
control well and air stripping treatment system as the response action
alternative. This alternative was approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) staff and became the alternative selected for the Response Action
Plan in the Response Order By Consent (Order) between the Counties and the MPCA
dated October 24, 1984.
The MPCA staff believed then, as we do now, that the ground water gradient
control well and air stripping treatment system alternative is the most
appropriate, reasonable, and necessary response to the release of hazardous
substances from the landfill to protect the public health and welfare and the
environment. For this reason, it is the position of the MPCA staff that the
discussion of the work plan for the feasibility study to excavate solid wastes
from the landfill is beyond the scope of the Order. It is also the MPCA staff's
position that the expenses associated with this work and any related subsequent
work are not eligible for inclusion in the Counties' aggregate liability under
Part XVII of the Order.
Phone:
520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
Ms. Luth and Mr. Ohl und
Page Two
C
Please contact met at 296-7818 if you wish to further discuss this issue.
Sincerely,
&UM LEA r�)�
David N. Douglas
Project Manager
Responsible Party Unit I
Site Response Section
Ground Water and Solid Waste Division
DND:dmc
cc: Paul Josephson, Wenck Associates, Inc.
TABLE 1
COST ESTIMATE FOR EXCAVATION/DISPOSAL OF WASTE
FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO. 1
Item
No. Cost Item
1 WASTE MONITORING
35 Borings in Refuse
Sample Analysis
Verification Sampling
at Disposal Facility
2 WASTE EXCAVATION
Site Preparation
(10) Dozer & Crew
(650 cy/day)
(10) Front End Loader
+ Crew (650 cy/day)
(1) Surveying Crew
Unit
Quantity Unit Price
1,000 VF $ 35
1,250 Samp. 700
12,500 Samp. 200
SUB TOTAL
35 Ac 2025
390 Day
1220
390 Day
1270
390 Day
850
SUB
TOTAL
3 WASTE TRANSPORTATION
(via truck)
To Solid Waste LF 100,000
To RCRA Landfill* 25,000
4 WASTE DISPOSAL (includ-
ing Disposal Tax)
80% at Solid Waste LF 800,000
20% at RCRA Landfill 200,000
5 BACKFILL/SITE RESTOR.
Common Borrow 130,000
Backfilling 130,000
Compaction 130,000
Grading/Seeding 35
6 SITE SAFETY
(3) Site Safety Pers. 3,120
Monitoring Equip. 390
Sample Analysis 1,700
Equip./Pers. Decontam.
Facilities/Operation 1
Safety Equipment 10,000
Loads 105
Loads 2450
SUB TOTAL
Ton 65
Ton 125
SUB TOTAL
CY
7
CY
.93
CY
1.71
Ac
8000
SUB
TOTAL
Hrs 50
Days 300
Samp. 500
L.S.
M-Day 50
SUB TOTAL
Total
$ 36,750
875,000
2,500,000
$ 3,400,000
$ 71,000
4,758,000
4,953,000
331.500
$ 10,000,000
$ 10,500,000
61,250,000
$ 72,000,000
$ 52,000,000
25,000,000
$ 77,000,000
$ 910,000
120,900
222,300
280,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 468,000
117,000
850,000
250,000
500.000
$ 2,200,000
TABLE 1 (continued)
TOTAL CONTRACTOR COST $166,000,000
ENGINEERING, DESIGN, ADMIN. & SOPERVISON (10%) $ 16,600,000
CONTINGENCIES (10%) ,$ 16,600,000
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE = $200,000,000
For Truck Trans.
$160,000,000
For Rail Transport
*If via rail, estimate at $100/ton or about $20,000,000 for a
cost -savings of about $40,000,000 if rail access to landfill
were available.
1 COST ESTIMATE FOR EXCAVATION/DISPOSAL OF WASTE
FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO. 1
cost`-estima�e was prepared for the excavation and off -site
disposal of the waste currently landfilled at the Washington
County Sanitary Landfill No. 1. The estimated cost for this
alternative, as presented in Table 1, is $200,000,000. The
cost estimate was itemized into six major cost categories which
include: Waste Monitoring; Waste Excavation; Waste
Transportation; Waste Disposal; Backfill/Site Restoration; and
Site Safety. A standard 10 percent of the total contractor
cost was added for engineering and contingencies, respectively.
For cost item no. 1, Waste Monitoring, it was assumed that one
boring would be drilled per acre of filled area (approximately
35 acres). The purpose of the borings would be to characterize
the waste according to MPCA/U.S. EPA regulations to determine
the appropriate disposal facility for the waste. Each boring
would be drilled to the total depth of the fill collecting
samples of the refuse at one -foot intervals for sample
analysis. The analytical costs associated with analyzing the
samples comprises the significant portion of the cost. The
costs for analytical services were obtained from a quote
submitted by Interpol) Laboratories.
Cost item no. 2, Waste Excavation, was based on an estimated
volume of landfilled waste of 2.5 million cubic yards. It was
assumed that a maximum of ten crews of operators and laborers
with ten dozers and 10 front-end loaders could be working
on -site at any one time. It was also assumed that the daily
output capacity of the dozers and front-end loaders would be
about 33 percent less for working with wastes than the daily
output for working with soils which is about 1,000 cubic yards
per day per crew as given by Means Construction Costs Data,
46th Annual Edition. Thus, a daily output of 650 cubic yards
of waste excavation per crew per day was assumed. Based on
this daily output, the time to excavate the landfilled wastes
would be 390 working days or about 1-1/2 years.
For cost item no. 3, Waste Transportation, it was assumed that
the basic unit cost for truck transportation was $3.50 per
loaded mile for a 20 cubic yard capacity covered gondola truck
(U.S. Pollution Control, Inc. Personal Communication with Earl
Finder). A 30-mile haul to Pine Bend Landfill was assumed for
80 percent of the waste and a 700-mile haul was assumed for 20
percent of the waste assumed to be characterized as hazardous.
It should be noted that a cost savings of about $40 million
could be saved if rail access to the landfill were available
and wastes were shipped via rail.at unit cost of $100/ton.
Cost item no. 4, Waste Disposal, Was calculated assuming that
80 percent of the landfilled wastes would be capable of
disposal in another solid waste sanitary landfill such as the
Browning -Ferris, Inc. (BPI) landfill in Pine Bend, Minnesota.
It was assumed that the other 20 percent of the wastes would
have.hazardous characteristics as determined by sample analysis
(cost item no. 1) and would need to be disposed of in a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulated
landfill for hazardous wastes. The unit costs for disposal
were obtained from Mr. Mike Ayers of BFI and several hazardous
waste landfill operators in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan
and Oklahoma. The volume of waste to be excavated was
converted to tonnage for calculating disposal costs using the
ratio of 2.5 cubic yards per ton of waste. Thus, 2.5 million
cubic yards of waste was assumed to be equivalent to one
million tons. It should be noted that if the non -hazardous
solid wastes were incinerated off -site the cost for disposal
would increase about $4,000,000 based on a unit cost of $70/ton
for incineration including ash disposal.
For cost item no. 5, Backfill and Site Restoration, it was
estimated that 130,000 cubic yards of soil would need to be
backfilled and compacted on the site for restoration. The unit
costs for site restoration were derived from Means Construction
Data 46th Annual Edition and experienced costs at other sites.
For cost item no. 6, Site Safety, costs were estimated based on
a total crew of 50 that would daily personal protective
equipment and three on -site safety personnel for implementing
proper safety protocol as well as collecting necessary
industrial hygiene samples to ensure worker health and safety.
These costs were derived from experienced costs at other sites.
In summary, the costs for excavating the landfilling and
disposing of the contents at other waste disposal facilities is
estimated to range from $160 - $200 million depending upon mode
of waste transportation. Waste transportation and disposal are
the significant cost items involved with this alternative. The
total cost estimate includes costs for engineering and
contingencies.
August 5, 19£
<Name>
<Address>
<City>
Dear <Last>:
Project 1007 was designed and built to control flooding in the Valley
Branch Watershed District. Certain properties,because of their elevation,
could not be totally protected from flood waters in the case of the
100-year precipitation event.
Costs of floodproofing certain homes were included in the total cost of
the Project 1007. Your property was identified as one of those which might
suffer damage in the 100-year event. You may or may not want to floodproof
your home. If you desire to floodproof your home, you may choose to
construct an earthen berm between your house and the body of water or
stream and install drain tile and a high -capacity pump or you may want to
raise your home above the 100-year flood elevation.
The Managers have determined the maximum amount of money that will be
expended by the District on each parcel, based on analysis of the specific
parcel by Barr Engineering Co. The maximum amount was determined to be
realistic based on quotes which have been obtained from two contractors,
namely, Croixland Excavating and Triple A Pollution Control. The ,Valley
Branch Watershed District will not be doing the work. Each property owner
will hire his or her own contractor to do the work. You will be reimbursed
up to the maximum amount determined for your parcel. See the attached
sheet for conditions. If you plan to take advantage of this offer, please
notify the Board of Managers by September 15, 1988. The Board is proposing
that all floodproofing be completed by August 1, 1989.
The contact person regarding floodproofing is either Allen Dornfeld
at 777-5590 or Nels Nelson at 830-0542.
Sincerely,
Allen Dornfeld
AD/mmm
Enclosure
VBL/315,0
ALLEN DORNFELD RUSSELL KIRBY GORDON C. MOOSBRUGGER RAY BRENNER WILLIAM ROHRER
VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 838 LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042-0538
REIMBURSEMENT CONDITIONS
You will be reimbursed up to $ for the flood proofing
cost at You must comply with the
following procedure:
1. Prepare a plan for the proposed floodproofing project.
If your project is complex, you may wish to contact an
engineer or landscape architect to assist you. A file
of information describing floodproofing techniques and
case histories has been placed in the Lake Elmo Branch
Library, 3459 Lake Elmo Ave. N.
Your plan should include a location map, a grading plan
with necessary cross -sections or contours showing the
existing and proposed site configuration. A description
of construction methods and copies of any calculations
used in the design should also be included.
2. Submit plans for your proposed work to the Valley Branch
Watershed District c/o Barr Engineering Co., 7803
Glenroy Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55435.
3. The District Engineer will review the plans within two
weeks and either place them upon the next agenda for
Managers, review or send you a letter requesting
additional information.
4. The Managers will review the proposed work at one of
their regularly scheduled meetings on the second and
fourth Thursdays of each month at the Lake Elmo City
Council Chambers, 3800 Laverne Ave. N. If acceptable, a
permit will be issued and a letter of commitment between
the District and yourself will be signed.
5. When you are ready to begin construction, contact the
Valley Branch Watershed District Engineer who will set
an elevation benchmark for your property at the 100-year
flood elevation.
If you choose the berm method, the top of berm must be
1 foot above the 100-year event elevation.
-Float.
If you raise your home, the lowest --lbame level must be
1 foot above the 100-year event elevation.
6. When work is complete, submit copies of receipts for the
cost of the work done and make an appointment with the
District Engineer so that he can inspect and verify that
work has been done properly. If he must make more than
one compliance inspection, additional costs of
inspection will be deducted from your reimbursement
allocation.
7. You must submit a flowage easement on your property up
to 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. The
easement will be prepared by the Watershed District
Attorney for your review prior to signing. When the
easement is signed, a check will be issued for work
completed, up to the maximum amount described above.
M
VBL/315,0/sam
CITY OF
LAKE
ELMO
City of Lake Elmo
August 12, 1988
TO: Mayor and Council
777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
FROM: Pat Morrison, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Informational Items
Councilman Chuck Graves will not be present at this meeting.. City
Engineer Larry Bohrer is on vacation; Tom Prew, his assistant will be
available at meeting.
1. Payment of Back Taxes, 201 Project:
Steve Carlson, of the Rauenhorst Law firm, called August 2nd to advise
that the City will probably be receiving reimbursement from Washington
County for the back taxes in the amount of $851.51 ($382.80, 1987) and
($468.71, 1988) which was paid for the Gorman property.
Fritz will report on this at the August 16th meeting, as well as the
two other claims for back taxes which the City received at our last
meeting.
2. MPCA Permit: Washington County Landfill $1:
The MPCA has requested a meeting with staff in response to our letter
of June 13th requesting a hearing. As you may recall, they responded
to our letter on July 29 (copy sent to you August 2nd), and would like
to discuss our reaction to their response to determine if this would
eliminate the need for a formal hearing. Larry Bohrer suggested
Councilmembers Graves and Johnson be in attendance at this meeting, so
their expertise would be called upon. I have tentatively set the
meeting for Wednesday, August 31 at 11:30 a.m.
In order to give us direction, may we get clarification as to if
Council desires an informal, or formal, hearing (attached is their
initial criteria sheet, as well as a copy of VBWD's permit response).
It was may understanding you desired a full MPCA Board hearing.
3. Lighting of Flag, City Hall:
With your approval, I would like to recommend having our flag at City
Hall lit. We have received some complaints about being able to locate
City Hall.
Allied Electric (electrical. installer for City Hall) has advised they
could install a light, and timer, for $340.00. (We have now ordered a
new flag). Lighting of the flag may eliminate some of the location
problems and would also eliminate the need to take down the flag every
night and weekend.
1
The money would be expended from the Building Fund Reserve which has a
current balance of $5,188.
If you have any concerns, or questions, about this expenditure, pleasdi
let me know. Also, if the Council. wishes, I can ask Brockman
representatives if we can add our identifi-cation to their
free-standing sign on Laverne Avenue.
4. Lake Elmo History:
In the few months I have been here, some of Lake Elmo's history has
seeped through in conversations with residents and staff. I would
like to propose that the Council authorize and support the formation
of a vounteer historical committee, charged with the task of
culmination of historical facts, figures, pictures, etc. of the City.
We have, I think, a rather interesting and rich history which is
deserving of some documentation. Marilyn Banister has stated she
would be interested in being on such a committee (having been a
long-time employee of the City, as well as a resident for some 30+
years), and I'm sure there are residents of the community who could
contribute a wealth of information. Maybe it would be appropriate to
start this in 1989.
5. Section 32 Annexation:
Attorney Steve Carlson has advised that, in recent conversation with
the Municipal Board staff, he was advised, the Board conference call
will probably take place in early September, after the Draft Order has,
been compiled. Although, we will not: be allowed input, Steve and I C
will be at their office to listen to the call and encourage
Councilmember attendance as well. The Final Order and decision is
made after the phone conference call..
6. Candidates' Forum a
r
If the it desires, we will call the League of Women Voters and re-
quest at ey conduct a Candidates' Forum for local and State offices.
M
-4pn-
Date: MAY 17 IQ88
Permit No: MN 0054348
The Commissioner's s determination
Permit action. are that the permit should b The comment to submit written co a issued
this Notice. Period begins and comments upon the proposed
tentative.
Period will begcensoarnen s received no later thanupoas n
indicated on proposedage one of
in the formulation of f last day of the
Any comments submitted are r Final determinations, comment
the following information: equi
1 a statement of
draft Permit;
red by Minnesota Rules Part 7001.0110 to include
the person's interest in the permit application or the
a statement of the act including specifiic referenceson the Person wishes Person believes should be t0 sections the Agency to take,
changed; and °f the draft permit that the
the reasons supporting the person's position
spectftcity as to allow the Commissioner to
the Persons position stated with sufficient
Duringinvestigate the merits of
the comment period, an
informational meetingY Person may
A public informationl or a contested case hearing a request for a to help clarify meeting is an informal meetin the Public
hlpb y and resolve ch posed permit action, efore a state Administrative°LawsJudge.g which the A
case hearin gency may hold/roceeding
n re g is a fornial
Any request
fora ubl'
iteres ms 1 through 3 listedaboveand or o contested case
contthe estedncasetthe
Agency to hold a and also a s hearing
addresshearing and the issues that n ° tfte reasonst
at the info rn;ational meeting informational meeting or
Public person would like the
In the absence of g °r contested case hearhe Agency to
case hearin any requests for
the D' g, the final decision ofathebltc info
Minnesota for of ion Control q Informational meeting or contested
the Division of Water quality proposed permit action
this permit be considered b Qency Board. Ho under a delegationtmadeebytheby
Such requests y the A howeveroard, any person may
Subp. 6, must be made in accorrdance0ith prior i request that
with Minnesota
final Permit action.
tnnesota Rules Part 7000.0500,
i
-5pn- Date: MAY 17.1988
Permit No: MN 0054348 f
Comments or requests should be submitted in person or by mail within the comment
period to:
Regulatory Compliance Section r
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
The application/permit and public notice numbers should appear next to the above
address on the envelope and on each page of any submitted comments or requests.
Please be advised that the public is entitled to participate in the activities
of both the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Board and the Commissioner in
accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules 7000.1500 and 7000.1600.
The permit will be reissued if the Agency determines that the proposed permittee
ar permittees will, with respect to the facility or activity to be permitted,
comply or undertake a schedule of compliance to achieve compliance with all
applicable state and federal pollution control statutes and rules administered
by the Agency and the conditions of the permit, and that all applicable
requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1160 and the rules promulgated thereunder
have been fulfilled.
Please bring the foregoing to the attention of persons whom you know would be
interested in this matter.
CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED AT AUGUST 16, 1988 LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING
(all claims are within budget unless otherwise noted)
tyJ627
Commissioner of Revenue - July State withholding
$ 1,149.00
90628
Menard's - Parks - reimbursed by Jaycees
49.44
90629
Washington County - recording fee
10.00
90630
thru Office $ 31.06
90634
Cleaning - Beeman Fire Hall 14.20
45.26
90635
Boy Scout Troup # 81 - Compostt worlers
600.00
90636
Rauenhorst Carlson & Knaak - General $ 1,722.05
201 Sewer 185.00
1,907.05
90637
TKDA - General $ 3,227.69
Pass Thru 337.85
201 Sewer 1,035.71
MSA 144.00
4,745.25
90638
Pitney Bowes - copier supplies
514.00
90639
American Typewriter - office supplies
151.80
90640
Elmo's Lumber & Plywood - Office maintenance
154.12
90641
Four Seasons - cups
12.45
90642
Bellaire Sanitation - Office dumpster
46.80
90643
Hagbergs - Office maintenance supplies
7.19
90644
Tursso Companies - Office supplies
8.09
90645
Stillwater Motor - Maintenance parts
12.67
90646
T.J. Auto Parts - Maint. Dept.
36.62
90647
Carlson Tractor &Equip.- Maint. parts
109.09
90648
Washington County Public Works - signs
20.00
90649
Glenwood Inglewood - Maint. dept
57,.40
0650
Garelick Steel Co. - Maint. Dept
539.50
651
Bryan Rock Products - Maint. Dept.
30.93
90652
Valley Auto Supply - Maint. parts
122.31
90653
Battery & Tire Warehouse - Maint. Dept.
35.58
90654
Junker Sanitation - Maint. dumpster
45.00
90655
Jim Hatch Sales - Maint. supplies
77.52
90656
Gopher State One -Call - membership fee
25.00
90657
Lake Elmo Oil - Building Insp. $ 94.15
Maint. Dept. 1,551.13
Fire Dept.. 25g.77
1,904.05
90658
Peoples Plus - Fire Dept.
51.05
90659
Oswald Fire Hose - Fire Dept equipment
2,423.50
90660
Allnet Communications - Fire Dept.
3.10
90661
Moelter Electric - Fire dept. bldg maint.
52.50
90662
Road Rescue - Fire Dept, supplies
94.26
90663
Astleford International - Fire dept truck parts
153.25
90664
Hardware Hank - Fire Dept. $ 95.21
Parks 105.53
200.74
90665
Arrow Building Center - Parks Dept.
471.18
90666
Lunde Mfg., Inc. - Parks Dept.
74.06
90667
Midwest Wire & Steel - Parks Dept.
633.00
90668
Associated Enterprises - Parks Dept.
325.00
90669
Polar Plastics - Parks Dept. - reimbursed by Jaycees
89.70
90670
Metro Waste Control - sewer service charges
68.54
90671
Water Products Co. - Water Fund
139.27
90672
Chapin Publishing Co. - 1988 Overlay road project
79.05
9673
First Trust - Park Bond Payments
33,326.88
J674
thru
90686
August 26th payroll
9,132.34
Total
S 59,733.54
Since we do not have time to discuss every point presented, it may seem
that decisions are preconceived. However, background information is
provided for the City Council on each agenda item in advance from City
Staff and appointed Commissions; and decisions are based on this
information and past experiences. In addition, some items may also have
been discussed at previous Council meetings. If you are aware of
information that hasn't been discussed, please fill out a "Request to
Appear Before the City Council" slip; or, if you came late, raise your
hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated.
Items requiring excessive time may be continued to another meeting.
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 16, 1988
7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
1. Agenda
2. Minutes: August 2, 1.988
3. Claims
4. Public Inquiries
5. Update: Proposed Lake Elmo Regional Landfill
(Dan Novak/Todd Williams)
6. PLANNING/ZONING/LAND USE
A. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance from Lot Size
Sally Ziebell, 10572 43rd St. N.
B. PUBLIC HEARING: Shoreland Permit/Variance
Joseph Kiesling, 9359 Jane Rd. N.
C. Planning Commission Recommendation:
Impervious Surface Coverage,
General Business District
D. Final Plat: Brookman 3rd Addition
E. Request to Revoke our 87-29 Resolution
Jim Friedrich
7. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
A. Resolution 88-35: Accepting Bid for 1988
Bituminous Overlay Project
B. Resolution 88-34: Declaring Costs to be Assessed
( (and Setting Assessment Hearing); 1988 Municipal
State Aid Improvement (47th Street)
RE A K ---------------------------------
8. Update on Lake Jane Landfill
(Mary Luth & Paul Josephson)
9. Report of Al Dornfeld, Chairman VBWD
A. Floodproofing Program
B. Discuss Useage of Lake Elmo Public Works crew
for VBWD maintenance work
10. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Contract: Leonard, Street & Deinard
B. Other matters
11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. Compost Agreement (Dunker Sanitation)
B. Resolution 88-37: Adopting a Records Retention
Schedule
C. Planning Service Contract
D. Employment Request
12. Adjourn
FUTURE MEETINGS
August 22 Planning Commission Meeting
August 30-Sept. 13 Local Council Filings Open
August 31 MPCA Meeting re: Permit
September 6 City Council Meeting
Septmeber 8 Special Council Meeting (Assessment Hearing)
September 8 Residential Estates Committee Meeting
September 12 Planning Commission Meeting
September 19 Parks Commission Meeting
September 20 City Council Meeting
September 26 Planning Commission Meeting