Laserfiche WebLink
LAwsON, RANUM & RALEIGH <br />L A W Y E R S <br />RODERICK A. LAW'SON <br />ALBER'i E. RANUM <br />104 N0R1'H MAIN B-EET <br />DONALD T. RALEIGH <br />STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55062 <br />RAYMONO ❑. MARSHALL <br />IS 12) 4 3 9 - 4 1 4 3 <br />Please <br />Reply <br />to: <br />OF COUNSEL: <br />11329 STIL Ll/ATER BLV D. NORTH <br />CHESTER S. W;LSON <br />LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 <br />VACIL O. KALINOFF <br />(612) 777-6960 <br />April 5, 1976 <br />FORMERLY <br />WILBON A THOREEN 19 2-1925 <br />W "BON. THOREEN 6 LINOB,DDN <br />1.25-1936 <br />REUBEN O. THOREEN 1936 1941 <br />THOREEN, THDREEN 6 LAWSDN <br />1948 1969 <br />Mr. Lloyd Shervheim <br />3065 Klondike Avenue North <br />Lake Elmo, MN 55042 <br />Dear Lloyd: <br />I have looked over the memorandum prepared by you on April 2, 1976, from <br />the minutes you kept of that meeting. Following are my comments: <br />1. On page 2, third paragraph, second line, I believe the elevation <br />reference should be 925.5 instead of 929.5. <br />2. On page 3, second paragraph, Tom Noyes' response to your question <br />that we could pump Lake Jane for $23,000.00 as compared to $7,000.00 <br />in temporary flood -proofing. I think it might be helpful to PQ o t <br />that the $33,000.00 permanent flood -proofing cost should be►�,t "rAt <br />only in this year's pumping cost of $23,000.00 but the potential cost <br />of pumping in future years. <br />3. On page 3, third paragraph, relating to my opinion, the sentence be- <br />ginning in the 8th line with the words "He had advised that the city <br />had a right under the common enemy doctrine to remove excess surface <br />water . . I might suggest you change that to read "He had advised <br />that the City, in his opinion, had a right . . ." My purpose in this <br />correction is to emphasize that the distinction I made to justify the <br />emergency of last year, while it is in my opinion a valid and compel- <br />ling distinction under the circumstances which existed last year, <br />nonetheless arguable and in fact rejected by the DNR - although I <br />have yet to hear the argument rejected by the DNR's legal advisors. <br />Except for the one correction and the two additions I suggest I think your <br />memorandum states completely and with appropriate emphasis the relevant <br />comments and the action taken at the meeting. <br />YourXTRaleigh, <br />Dona for <br />LAWSON, RANUM & RALEIGH <br />DTR:ml Attorneys for City of Lake Elmo <br />