HomeMy Public PortalAbout11/19/85 CCM348:
PAYROLL CHECKS - NOVEMBER 19, 1985
8610 Robert Anderson
8611 Jill Hodapp
8612 Mark Moran
8613 Michael Rouillard
8614 Michael Sankey
8615 James Dillman
8616 Robert Dressel
8617 Francis Pumarlo
8618 Karen Dahlberg
8619 JoEllen Hurr
8620 Donna Roehl
8621 Laura Skarda
8622 Sandra Larson
8623 Janice Petersen
8624 Farmers State Bank of Hamel
8625 Commissioner of Taxation
8626 P.E.R.A.
8627 Social Security Retirement Division
ORDER CHECKS - NOVEMBER 19, 1985
4312 Reynolds Welding
4313 Francis Pumarlo
4314 P.E.R.A.
4315 Social Security Retirement Division
$ 953.43
770.73
948.71
1,014.20
1,217.50
912.47
756.68
616.43
428.54
802.75
808.71
485.63
302.63
48.88
1,606.00
743.00
795.16
472.00
$13,683.45
38.10
150.00
1,075.57
472.00
$ 1,735.67
The Council of the City of Medina met in regular session on Tuesday, November 19, 349
1985 at 7:30 P.M.
Present: Mayor, Thomas Anderson; Councilmembers, Wilfred Scherer, Anne Heideman, William
Reiser, Robert Mitchell; Clerk -Treasurer, Donna Roehl; Planning and Zoning
Administrator, JoEllen Hurr; Police Chief, Michael Sankey; Public Works
Director, James Dillman; Building Inspector, Loren Kohnen; Attorney, Richard
Schieffer; Engineer, Glenn Cook
1. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS
Moved by Heideman, seconded by Scherer to discuss the following additional items:
Revenue Sharing, Statement of Assurances, Entitlement Period #17
Motion declared carried
2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 1985
Moved by Heideman, seconded by Mitchell to accept minutes'of November 5, 1985, as presented.
Motion declared carried
3. LORETTO FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTRACT
Moved by Reiser, seconded by Heideman to amend the Loretto Fire Department contract for
1986, for payment of $12,500.
Motion declared carried
4. HUNTER TRAIL PARTNERSHIP SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Moved by Heideman, seconded by scherer to adopt Resolution 85-120, Ordering preparation of
a partial reassessment of the Hunter Dr. south project and scheduling a Public Hearing on
December 17, 1985 at 8:00 P.M.
Motion declared carried
5. REVENUE SHARING STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES
Moved by Heideman, seconded by reiser to authorize the Mayor to sign the Statement of Assur-
ances for Revenue Sharing Entitlement Period # 17.
Motion declared carried
6. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Sandra Vrooman,Conditional Use Permit
JoEllen Hurr reviewed the application of Sandra Vrooman, 1475 Blackfoot Tr., to conduct a
commercial catering and bakery in her existing garage. She stated that Council approval
is needed prior to receipt of approval from Hennepin County.
Moved by Reiser, seconded by Scherer to authorize preparation of a resolution granting a
Conditional Use Permit to Sandra Vrooman to conduct a commercial kitchen operation at 1475
Blackfoot Tr., with the following conditions: Unlimited hours of operation; no retail
sales; no business sign; no outside storage of garbage relating to the business; variance
for use of a holding tank, with septic system to be converted to a mound septic system
within 12-18 months; approval from Hennepin County Health department.
Motion declared carried
Reed Bales, Conditional Use Permit
Richard Schieffer stated that Mr. Bales has not agreed to some of the conditions included
in the prepared Conditional Use Permit resolution.
JoEllen Hurr explained that the height of the fence could vary according to the height of
the dirt berm that will be constructed.
Moved by Heideman, seconded by Scherer to table action on the Reed Bales Conditional Use
Permit resolution pending agreement on conditions.
Motion declared carried
Jim Lutz, Elm Creek Addition
Movee by Reiser, seconded by Heideman to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign resolution
85-117 granting Jim Lutz a 120 day extension for filing of subdivision plat for Elm Creek
Addition.
Motion declared carried
350 Rolf Westgard, Conditional Use Permit
Moved by Reiser, seconded by Scherer to adopt Resolution 85-121, granting Rolf Westgard
a Conditional Use Permit for exterior improvements to building located at 640 Hamel Rd.
Motion declared carried
Paul Philli s, Subdivision
JoEllen Hurr reviewed application of Paul Phillips to subdivide 30 acres north of Co. Rd.
6, into 9 lots served by a private road, indicated as Outlots on plat map, which will be
held in common ownership by the 9 lot owners. She stated that lots could meet barn set-
back requirements and that park dedication fees would be paid on all lots of less than
10 acres.
Moved by Mitchell, seconded by Heideman to grant preliminary approval to Paul Phillips
to subdivide 30 acres south of Medina Morningside and north of Co. Rd. 6.
Motion declared carried
WCCO Hunter Dr. north, Assessment Deferral
Richard Schieffer reported that WCCO would be sent a copy of an deferral agreement for
assessments associated with the Hunter Dr. north improvement project.
JoEllen Hurr explained that the City Attorney was working to secure the north/south road
easement.
7. POLICE DEPARTMENT
Street Lights, Co. Rd. 19 and Lakeshore Ave.
Michael Sankey stated that a street light in the area of Co. Rd. 19 and Lakeshore Ave.
would assist traffic at that intersection.
Anne Heideman asked if there was a power pole that could be used.
Anne Theis stated that they had asked for street lights on Walnut and Fern Streets for
many years.
Chief Sankey stated that there is very little crime and no accidents in that area.
Mrs. Theis stated that they had called the police regarding young people running through
yards and that there had been a "Peeping Tom" in the area.
Mr. Sankey stated that the trespassing had not reoccured and the "Peeping Tom" had been
on Lakeshore Ave.
Jim Dillman reported that they would be marking intersections with reflective markers.
Donna Roehl asked if the residents would be allowed to install security lights.
Moved by Heideman, seconded by Mitchell to ask the Public Works Department to mark inter-
sections with reflective markers, to test for effectiveness, and to look favorably on
residents installing a security light in the Lakeshore Ave./Co. Rd. 19 area.
Motion declared carried
8. BILLS
Moved by Reiser, seconded by Scherer to pay the bills: Order Checks # 4312-4315 in the
amount of $1735.67 and Order Checks # 8610-8627 in the amount of $13,683.45.
Motion declared carried
9. COMPARABLE WORTH
Moved by Heideman, seconded by scherer to table action on the Comparable Worth Study
until William Reiser and Wilfred Scherer have reviewed the study.
Motion declared carried
10. BRUCE Neumann
Moved by Heideman, seconded by Reiser to table action on the Bruce Neuman matter until
December 5th.
Motion declared carried
11. WOODLAKE LANDFILL, VERTICAL EXPANSION APPLICATION, PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P.M.
Robert Mitchell left meeting for another committment.
Dick Nowlin, Attorney for Woodlake, explained that the reason for the request for the
vertical expansion of the landfill was due to the fact that work in Area II had been
delayed because of wet weather and would require about 15 days to complete installation
of the clay liner. He stated that the Leachate Collection system should be completed
by December 31, 1985 and that no additional capacity is being requested merely the
Transfer to a 5 ft. vertical increase in Area I. 351
Bob Vetter of RMT Inc., explained the procedure they would follow: a 150 ft. by 150 ft.4
area would be scraped and stockpiled for final cover; a 4 ft. waste containment berm
would be constructed around the area, at all times; they would begin from the southeast
corner and fill about 30 ft. per day and cover with stockpiled material before beginning
a new area; a total of 105,000 cubic yards of refuse material would be spread over the
20 acre site; final cover would be spread and the increased height of the area would be
5 ft. higher than allowed under the existing permit. He stated that the impact from in-
filtration would be from z to 11/2% from now until June, 1986.
Dick Nowlin stated that there would be no increase in the rate of disposal, no increase in
truck traffic, same amount of on -site equipment and would enable them to continue operating
should Area II not be completed before winter. he then presented a chronology of various
facets of the Leachate problem and their attempt to have it corrected.
Hydrologist, Bruch Liesch stated that the increase of z to 11/2% of Leachate would occur in
an area where little or no collection system exists,if the 105,000 cu. yds. of material
are added; also aesthetically an additional 5 ft. of fill would be more visable.
Richard Schieffer asked how much leachate would be generated over a stated amount of time.
Mr. Liesch stated that amount generated would depend on how long the area was exposed.
JoEllen Hurr stated that Medina was not notified of the Leachate problem until August, 1984
after it had been detected in April; that Metro Waste Control had handled it in an exped-
ient manner.
Thomas Anderson asked if there were other deficiencies in the permit.
Mrs. Hurr stated that Boyer Rd. had finally been paved, long after they had agreed to have
it completed; that there is an ongoing discussion regarding payment of fees, which they
believe that they do not need to pay.
Wilma Wakefield, 3385 Co. Rd. 24, asked for clarification of the fee issue.
JoEllen Hurr stated that Browning -Ferris had agreed to pay$.02 plus $.10 per cu. yd.
plus the Conditional Use Permit included language which allowed for an additional $.15
if State law provided for an additional fee.
Jim Warner, Pollution Control Agency, stated that their agency had not completed review
of the application.
James Renier, 3392 Hamel Rd., asked if a landfill should be allowed to continue in an area
where three million gallons of leachate had been found in designated, Area II.
Mr. Liesch stated that inspections during the past three years had uncovered vertical frac-
tures and sand lenses and that no studies had been done in Area I where a retrofit Leachate
collection system is now being installed.
Thomas Anderson asked at what stage of construction they were at, with the project.
Mr. Liesch stated that they were delayed five weeks, due to weather, but that they could
have started work earlier. He did believe that they were near completion.
Sheldon Coplin, 1595 Hamel Rd., asked for a definition of Leachate and how it is formed.
Steve Vanderbon, Pace Labratory, stated that rainwater absorbs compounds as it filters
through the landfill and is not considered hazardous waste under the strict definition
but are contaminated waste and need to be properly treated and disposed.
Gary Petrucci, 2975 Co. Rd. 24, stated that he was spokesperson for Citizens Opposed to
Woodlake Landfill and that an eight page paper would be read into the record by Attorney,
Trudy Gasteazoro, but that he had several comments he wished to present.
He stated that he did not believe that BFI had been good neighbors and had not proceeded
in good faith regarding payment of fees, blacktopping of road and completion of the Leachate
collection system. He stated that the Citizens group was sick of it and expect Council to
adhere to the terms of the contract. He asked that Medina hire a competent Attorney, who
specializes in landfills, to defend the city. if suit i-s--brough I.
352
Trudy Gasteazoro then read the Citizens group posistion paper (Exhibit A, attached), which
she said was prepared in response to Mayor Anderson's request for such -a written posistion.
She then commented on the condemnation and injunction issues that had been brought forth
by several concerned residents. She stated that if Hennepin County were to comdemn the
property the County would then be in the chain of title and be considered liable under
the Superfund Law. Regarding an injunction, she stated that Hennepin County would
need to decide what the impact on the environmental health would be as one year has
passed since Leachate was discovered and RMT Inc. had been hired to design a collection
system. She suggested that the Council make some finding of fact to support a decision.
Ed Montelone stated that the County would not act to condemn the property.
Bob Viosca, 2872 willow Dr., asked if Leachate was confined to a definite area.
Mr. Liesch stated that Leachate is usually generated and can be contained through a
collection system.
Dick Nowlin stated that he needed to go on record with a reply to the Citizens, if the
matter should go to court. He stated that they accept the conditions listed in the
Conditional Use Permit and agree that they will use the vertical expansion only if Area
II cannot be completed in a reasonable time; they agree to an end date for filling of
Area I with the completion of the Leachate collection system by December 31, 1985.
Regarding the fee collection issue, he stated that they disagree with the determination
and have explained their posistion to Council and staff through a letter and will adhere
to an Attorney General's opinion or upon litigation commenced by the city. He stated that
design and approval of the Leachate collection system was a complex issue and that he had
not said that anyone was delinquent in proceeding with the plan approval.
Don of RMT Inc. explained the Leachate collection system stating that they could
revise final grade for Areas II, III and IV, if allowed to expand vertically. He stated
that if they had ten days of good weather they could complete the area and lay the pipes
after the ground has frozen.
Don Duffy of Pace Laboratories, explained the process for collection of leachate and
also the disposal plans.
Jim Kangas, 3712 Hamel Rd. asked how many well casings there would be an asked if they
could work through the winter.
Mr. Duffy stated that 3 to 4 trucks per day would haul from 5-8000 gallons and that the
system was designed so that they could work through the winter.
Robert Bradley, 6115 Co. Rd. 11, stated that Medina had worked for several years to get
to this stage of the permit and he asked how long it would be before it would all end.
Thomas Nelson, 2035 Hamel Rd., urged the Council not to delay action. He stated that
BFI has not had a good record for compliance and probably will not meet any new deadlines.
Chris Renier, 3392 Hamel Rd., asked what the advantage would be to the city if a vertical
expansion were granted to Woodlake.
Mr. Nowlin stated that seventeen communities in Hennepin County need to have a place for
garbage disposal.
JoEllen Hurr read comments of opposistion from Leo Leuer and Phil Zietlow.
Thomas Anderson stated that the Hamel Bank and S.J. Groves Co. had sent letters of
opposistion.
Moved by Scherer, seconded by Heideman to close the Public Hearing.
Motion declared carried
Public Hearing was closed at 9:50 P.M.
EXHIBIT A
november 19, 1905
POSITION STATEMENT
November 15, 1985
Citizens Opposed to Woodlake Landfill Expansion
Trudy R. Gasteazoro
Briggs and Morgan
2200 First National Bank Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 291-1215
Attorneys for Citizens Group
t
I. INTRODUCTION
"Citizens Opposed to Woodlake Landfill Expansion" is a
group of Medina residents concerned with preserving a healthy,
high quality rural environment for its City. This citizens
group was organized in 1983 to oppose any expansion of the
Woodlake Sanitary Landfill ("Woodlake"). The group continues
to exist today because of its concern that the on -going operations
of Woodlake remain in strict compliance with the Conditional
Use Permit issued by the City on February 7, 1984.
On November 19, 1985 the Council will consider an amendment
to the Final Grading and Excavation Plan dated August 25, 1981.
In preparation for the November 19, 1985 public hearing on
this matter, Mayor Anderson requested that the citizens group
provide the Council with a position paper on the requested
amendment.
II. SUMMARY OF POSITION
At the time the Council granted the Conditional Use Permit
to Woodlake it stated publicly that the Council and staff would
require Woodlake to adhere to all of the conditions of the
permit. The Council must not retreat from its pledge requiring
Woodlake to strictly
and therefore should
of the Final Grading
be bad precedent for
adhere to the conditions of the Permit
deny Woodlake's request for a revision
Plan. To take any other action would
future requests by Woodlake for other
revisions to its operating permits.
In addition, the Council should immediately enforce all
other conditions of the permit that have not been strictly
adhered to including:
a. The timely completion of all
work required by the Permit;
and
b. The payment of all fees owed
to the City by Woodlake.
Finally, the use of landfills and environmental concerns
associated with such use are so complex that the citizens group
recommends that the Council hires special counsel experienced
in these areas to advise the Council and the residents of Medina
on an on -going basis. Special counsel would be able to reassure
the Council and community of the strength of their positions
in requiring Woodlake to adhere at all times to the Conditional
Use Permit as well as all other rules and regulations.
III. DISCUSSION
A. THE COUNCIL SHOULD DENY WOODLARE'S REQUEST TO REVISE
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
On February 7, 1984 the City Council pledged to the citizens
group when the Conditional Use Permit was granted that the
conditions of the Permit would be adhered to at all times.
(See attached minutes dated February 7, 1984) The Council
indicated its belief that the Permit, as developed, is fair
to the City and Woodlake. The Permit specifically addresses
the concerns of the City, including traffic and litter problems,
water pollution and the general public health, safety and welfare
2
of Medina. In granting the Permit, the Council balanced these
concerns with those of Woodlake which desired to continue its
operations.
The Council through the Conditional Use Permit placed
specific controls on the operation of Woodlake and based any
operating restrictions upon various permits and accompanying
plans noted in the Permit. Woodlake is now petitioning the
City to revise one of these plans, the Final Grading and Excavation
Plan. Woodlake suggests that it is merely requesting a relocation
of certain landfill capacity and is not changing operation
or construction techniques or the permitted volume. It is
not so simple. The revision would result in significant impact
on the residents of Medina. The question the Council should
ask on behalf of all residents is why should the City grant
any revision to the Conditional Use Permit since it was carefully
formulated to balance the City's and Woodlake's concerns.
Woodlake states that the objective of the revision "is
to allow landfilling operations to continue uninterrupted during
the approved construction of Area II." What incentive does
Woodlake have to finish Area II expeditiously if its request
is granted and it can continue its landfill operations in Area
I for eight months or more?
Woodlake's proposal is to remove existing cover on twenty
acres of the original twenty-eight acre landfill. Woodlake
would then place 105,000 cubic yard of waste in the landfill
3
resulting in an overall increase to the existing topography
of 1038 feet to that of 1043 feet. As proposed, Woodlake would
fill in Area I for approximately eight months before the proposed
contours would be reached and as the solid waste settles in
the next few years, Woodlake would add other waste to the same
area to "maintain drainage".
Woodlake proposes to strip off the existing final cover
on the affected twenty acres only as it needs to move into
the new area. Any removal creates the environmental concern
that leachate will be generated faster. Last year a cell containing
over three million gallons of leachate was discovered in the
general area Woodlake is proposing to uncover. Even if the
leachate and dewatering system under construction in Area I
is completed this year (of which there is no guarantee) why
should the Council approve a disruption to an area already
containing final cover and run the risk of increasing the generation
of leachate? The question becomes even more critical without
the leachate system actually being in operation. The environmental
impact of having Area I open in Spring when rain and run off
will cause even greater amounts of leachate is a valid concern
of the Council and residents. There is also concern that even
if the proposed dewatering and leachate system is operational
before the end of the year it may not accomplish the removal
of the leachate in Area I and a redesign including additional
wells may be required by the PCA.
4
(
The uncertainty of the commencement of operations of the
leachate and dewatering system as well as the ultimate effectiveness
of such a system once it is operating are findings the Council
can make which provide a reasonable basis for the denial of
the requested revision by Woodlake. See, Chanhassen Estates
Residents Association v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335,
340 (Minn. 1984).
On November 14, 1985 Woodlake stated that it "much prefers"
not having to reopen Area I. The Council's action on November
19, 1985 of denying the proposed revision can further encourage
this "preference". If Woodlake has no other alternative for
operating in Medina, it shall not hesitate to complete the
leachate collection system immediately.
B. THE COUNCIL SHOULD STRICTLY ADHERE TO ALL PROVISIONS
OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
The Permit requires the timely completion of certain work
by Woodlake in order to remain in operation in Medina. Woodlake
has complied with the requirements of fencing and landscaping
the area as well as allowing residents access for dumping.
However, the Permit required Boyer Road to be blacktopped by
June 1, 1985. The blacktopping was only completed in the last
•
few weeks. There is no justification for such delay. Similarly,
the implementation of the dewatering and leachate systems has
been unreasonably delayed. The Council should give written
notice to Woodlake and the surety that has provided a bond
5
I
guaranteeing compliance with all the terms and conditions of
the Permit of all such infractions.
To not insist upon timely compliance of all Permit requirements
sets a bad precedent and does not encourage further compliance.
The citizens group believes that Woodlake must be put on notice
and kept on notice that the Council is adamant regarding timely
and continued compliance with work required by the Permit.
The Permit also requires timely payment of charges and
fees Woodlake refuses to make payment of certain charges.
It is presumed that both the City and Woodlake signed the Permit
in good faith. The Council should seriously consider Woodlake's
refusal to pay all fees as provided by the Permit as well as
the surcharge permitted by the state legislature and assessed
by the City as acting in bad faith.
Discussions held before the final adoption of the Permit
as well as the Permit itself are clear that the agreed upon
contractual obligations of Woodlake to pay ($.02) per cubic
yard to the City for the City to maintain its roads and up
to ($.10) per cubic yard to the City for administrative expenses
is separate from any other obligation Woodlake may have to
make payment to the City as authorized by state law. Pursuant
to such state law, the City has placed a ($.15) per cubic yard
surcharge on Woodlake. Payment of such surcharge has been
formally requested and Woodlake's response has been "sue us".
Such a response from Woodlake is completely unacceptable and
6
the Council must take appropriate action so that Woodlake adheres
to the terms and conditions of the Permit as well as any other
rules and regulations.
C. THE COUNCIL SHOULD HIRE SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR ALL ENVIRONMENTAL
MATTERS.
In order to assist the Council in obtaining compliance
by Woodlake of the Permit and all other rules and regulations,
the citizens group believes it is imperative for the City to
hire special counsel. The use of landfills and environment
concerns associated with such use as well as the many layers
of government involvement in environmental matters are so complex
that having counsel with special experience in these areas
is essential. Special counsel would be able to reassure the
Council and Medina residents that Council actions are legally
enforceable.
The citizens group recommends that a request for proposals
from various law firms experienced in this area be sought immediately.
Members of the citizens group would be happy to assist the
Council in preparing the request.
IV. CONCLUSION
On November 19, 1985 the Council has an opportunity to
provide Woodlake with a very important message. That message
is that all the terms and conditions of the Conditional Use
Permit shall be strictly complied with if Woodlake wishes to
continue operating. The citizens group supports the Council
7
and is willing to assist the Council in any way it can to enforce
the Permit.
8
353
Thomas Anderson stated that the attorney should be asked to prepare rationale whether
the permit is approved or disapproved.
Richard schieffer stated that the issue is the Conditional Use Permit and whether it should
be amended, the other issues of fees and Leachate collection is not germaine to the issue.
He stated that Council had a right to place conditions on approval and the ultimate question
will be whether or not the conditions were so onerous so as to prevent BFI the use of its
property.
Robert Mitchell arrived at 9:55 P.M.
Mayor Anderson polled the Council and all indicated that they were in favor of denying the
vertical expansion.
Moved by Heideman, seconded by Scherer to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying BFI
permission to vertically expand Woodlake Landfill.
Motion declared carried
Anne Heideman stated that Woodlake had agreed to provide a monthly report on the progress
of construction of the Leachate collection system and that she had not seen any reports.
Rollin Smith of Woodlake stated that he would provide the reports.
Thomas Anderson stated that the next step in the process would be to collect the fees not
now being paid.
Richard Schieffer stated that they were proceeding through District Court with a Declaratory
Action.
12. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, YEAR X, AMENDMENT, PUBLIC HEARING, 10:05 P.M.
Donna Roehl reported the amount of funds remaining in Year X of the CDBG program and the
need for an additional amount of $500 in the Hamel Sewer Assessment fund and an amount for
a new project to correct a drainage problem at Lake Ardmore.
Jim Dillman stated that the estimated total cost of the project would be $3600.
Moved by Reiser, seconded by Scherer to close the Public Hearing.
Motion declared carried
Public Hearing was closed at 10:15 P.M. pes, g.b11a`a-
Moved by Heideman, seconded by Scherer to reprogram $500 of Year X, CDBG funds to the Hamel
Sewer Assessment grant fund and $3600 to establish a new project to correct Lake Ardmore
drainage.
Motion declared carried
13. PADDY AND ANNE THEIS SOIL BORING REPORT
Glenn Cook explained that soil borings were done on Lot 5 and part of Lot 6, Block 9, Inde-
pendence Beach and on Lots 1,2,3, and 4, Block 9, which are tax forfeit lots. He reported
that it would cost $10,000 to prepare the tax forfeit lots for building and $25,000 to pre-
pare the Theis lots, 5 and part of 6, for building.
Anne Theis stated that she did not consider their lots a building site as it would cost to
much to excavate and haul fill, which costs could not be recovered in a sale in that area.
Richard Schieffer stated that there is a reassessment procedure that covers mistakes that
were made when properties are assessed, which allows for removal of an assessment.
Mr. Cook reported that it would also cost $20,000 for a storm sewer on the tax forfeit lots.
Mayor Anderson asked if it would be possible to install some type of catch basin on the tax
forfeit lots.
Mrs. Theis stated that it would have to be done in such a way that it would be safe.
Moved by Reiser, seconded by scherer to authorize preparation of a resolution removing
assessments from Lot 5 and 30 feet of Lot 6, Block 9, Independence Beach and require
consolidation of said lots with adjacent lots owned by the Theis'.
Motion declared carried
14. HAISLET BUILDING CODE APPEAL
JoEllen Hurr explained that the Haislets had written a letter explaining their posistion
on the State Building Code requirement regarding compliance with the Energy Code. She
also stated that Loren Kohnen had gotten a letter from the State explaining compliance
requirements.
354
Loren Kohnen stated that a variance cannot be given from the State Building Code and
that an Engineer would need to complete heat loss calculations and determine savings.
Richard Schieffer suggested that the applicant hire a proper person to complete a study
and ask Loren to act on the report a Hearing Examiner or Court of Appeals could then
decide the matter.
Robert Mitchell asked that the Haislets answer the letter written by the State of Minnes-
ota.
Moved by Mitchell, seconded by Heideman to table the matter at the request of the Haislets.
Motion declared carried
15. WOODLAKE LANDFILL COUNSEL
Councilmembers discussed the request of the Citizens Group to hire another legal firm
to represent the city LE_ egal_action is taken against the city by Browning -Ferris..
Members decided that it would not be necessary to hire another law firm.
Moved by Heideman, seconded by Scherer to adjourn.
Motion declared carried
Meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
Clerk -Treasurer
November 19, 1985