Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83 <br />Page seven <br />of it and they showed up would satisfy it, but the State statute doesn't say it <br />quite that way and I think one of the things we have to do is clear up our City <br />zoning to conform to the State statute. I think on that basis I could <br />reasonably determine that some effort was made because if the people were here, <br />if it wasn't direct there's some indirect response. <br />• Fraser - I would like to speak to this from the point -of -view of what I see <br />the City facing. My belief is that if this motion passes, the railroad will <br />follow through as they have informed us in a very specific detailed way and that <br />they will sue the City for damages of many millions of dollars. I also believe <br />amended *fey ion a very good solid case. I have believed this from the start of this <br />5/17/83 'sM4 : The City carries insurance of approximately $1 million; the amount <br />that the City has at risk if we pursue that action is many millions of dollars, <br />and I think it would be a great detriment to the taxpayers. Now the other <br />alternative if this motion is defeated is that the landowners, if they believe <br />that they were really not informed and that this was a seriPus matter, may go to <br />court. And I think they should go to court. Then the City °&LbEbe ordered to, <br />if the court decided in that way, to repair it and would not face those damages. <br />I cannot make a decision where I think the law, the Constitution and procedures <br />will get the City into a situation where we would be liable for many millions of <br />dollars. Vhe the alternative, even though there is a question there, is of much <br />lesser Aa So I think the only responsible decision here is to defeat the <br />motion. <br />e Mazarra - I will reiterate my stand. I think Laura's reasoning is possibly <br />valid in that the City does stand less of a risk if Mr. Moosbrugger decides to <br />go ahead with his suit. Again, we obviously are not going to reach a consensus <br />with the City Council. I would again bring it back and say my feeling is that <br />we ought to have the courts make the decision. In order to make a proper <br />decision, we would probably have to make a 4-1 vote; we're obviously not going <br />to get that and my feeling still stands it ought to be left up to the courts so <br />I would vote against it. <br />Motion failed. (Morgan and Dunn ayes; Eder, Fraser, Mazarra nays) <br />• Gordon Moosbrugger - I don't want to address the merits of anything tonight; <br />but I think you should complete the record, however, by incorporating into the <br />minutes the letter of advice that you saw and obtained from Mr. Lammers and from <br />your own City Attorney, Mr. Marshall, and the letter threatening the lawsuit <br />which each of you Council members would, I'm sure, indicate for the record that <br />you received from the attorney for Chicago & Northwestern Railroad. I think it <br />is essential to complete the record by incorporating these things by reference <br />in the minutes of tonight's meeting; and this is necessary for a full <br />pesentation of the tapes and will have to be done one way or another. <br />M/S/P Morgan/Dunn that the documents Mr. Moosbrugger mentioned be included <br />with the minutes of tonight's meeting. <br />s Eder - Mr. Lammers, since we requested it in the record and it is referred to <br />in the memo, the response, and so forth, are they in fact a part of the record <br />without a motion? <br />