Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL <br />HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY <br />T!iESDA'Y, SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 <br /> <br />Memhers Present: Mayor Hinkle, Counci1member Gunkel, Williams, Engstrom and Schuldt <br /> <br />Members Absent: None <br /> <br />Staff Present: Tom Bublitz, City Administrator; Terry Maurer, City Engineer; and <br />Phil Hals, Street Superintendent <br /> <br />1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Hinkle <br /> <br />2 . Agenda <br /> <br />Items 17B - Gates Avenue and 17E on Jackson and School Street were added to the <br />agenda. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1985 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS <br />COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />3. Minutes <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1985 CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />Counci1member Gunkel noted that on the August 26, 1985 minutes on the first page under <br />item 3(2), it should state "the general public not aware". <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 26, 1985 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS <br />AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />4. Open Mike <br /> <br />No one was present for this item. <br /> <br />5. Consideration of School Street Sanitary Sewer Project <br /> <br />Terry Maurer, the City's Consulting Engineer, stated that the City Council, at their <br />last Council meeting, had directed him tp do further analysis of the alternatives <br />for the proposed School Street Sanitary Sewer Project. Mr. Maurer further indicated <br />that he had sent the Mayor and City Council a memo regarding these alternatives <br />for the sanitary sewer project. <br /> <br />The City Council reviewed the memo from Terry Maurer and discussed the alternatives <br />listed in the memo. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he was in favor of alternative <br />number three which would amount to subtracting $2,260.32 from the Creative Estates <br />assessment because of the fact that this was the amount which was assessed for <br />santitary sewer against the property previously. Subtracting this amount from <br />Creative Estates would result in a small increase in the assessment against the <br />remaining properties. <br />