Loading...
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