05-03-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83 Page nine �- do have an attorney retained. Also, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the City asking for a declaratory judgment on the action that they took; that action should be coming from adjacent landowners. Dunn withdrew the motion; Morgan withdrew second. • Eder - I appreciate your patience and cooperation and you've been helpful to the City Council by controlling yourselves; I want to commend you and hopefully as I mentioned earlier, whether this issue is right, wrong or indifferent, it is a sense of awareness as to what's happening to the law and the world around us. Hopefully, you'll increase the participation. Procedures we've followed have been the same going back several years, but maybe we need to look at them, rethink them. If you have comments in that regard, you're welcome to send them to the City Office as to what should be changed in the code; plus if you're get- ting information and how the Newsletter could be improved for greater awareness. 9. OLD BUSINESS Item 7.A., Cottage Grove Ravine, Cont'd... • Whittaker - Framework for joint powers hasn't been discussed yet, most of the discussion was that each city would have one vote. • Eder - Couldn't a city have more than one representative and still have one vote? • Tom Armstrong - You should try to get in there a complete veto. There are a lot of things that could be negotiated and the agreement could be worked out in a number of ways. I'm willing to work on that and I've got the resources to do it. I've put together here a 3-page handwritten motion which I'll give to Larry. Basically it quotes the statute on the first page and states the philosophy and policies for adoption by the City of Lake Elmo. A lot could be added onto later, but if this could be accepted in principle and if the Council would adopt this motion with whatever changes you'd like, then from that position we could do some negotiating and be in a position to come up with a favorable agreement. • Tom Armstrong - (In answer to Mazarra's question regarding engineering costs), you can't assess it out because it's not an improvement under 429; you can't put a tax on that particular area because it can't be done until it's too late legally; and the thing would be to take voluntary donations but it's never going to raise the money needed. You may be able to negotiate this entire agreement without the engineering cost of determining the amount; engineering figures are what they are. • Eder - you could put them on notice that you would expect in that budget the cost of determining this. • Whittaker - I think we should give it a try; my feeling is that they're going to ask us to have that engineering data before they negotiate the agreement. • Eder - we don't know until we try it. (Fraser agrees.) • Tom Armstrong - Either in that motion or a separate motion, I would appreciate the appointment basically to assist the City in their negotiations of this. • Fraser - Let's state here that those meetings the City Administrator would attend he would continue to attend. M/S/P Dunn/Fraser that Tom Armstrong be appointed City representative to assist in negotiating this agreement with the Cottage Grove watershed district. (Carried 5-0) M/S/P Morgan/Dunn that the policy statement written by Tom Armstrong be accepted by the City for a negotiating position. (Carried 5-0)