Laserfiche WebLink
CALL TO AN SPECIAL MEETING <br />6/04/92 (9:30 A.M.) <br />TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR <br />| <br />. HIS NOTICE IS PROVIDED ACCORDING <br />TO MN. STAT" <br />471^705 (SUBO" IC) -NOTICE OF MEETINGS, <br />SPECIAL MEETINGS" <br />IT IS INTENDED <br />AS A WRITTEN <br />DIRECTION BY THE UNDERSIGNED FOR THE <br />PURPOSE OF FILES <br />AND NOTIFICATION <br />OF CITY COUNCILPFRSONS AND 'NEWS MEDIUM THAT HAVE FILED <br />A REQUEST' TO BE <br />NOTIFIED: <br />DATE AND TIME <br />OF MEETING: JUNE4, 1992 AT <br />7:00 P.M, <br />PURPOSE: NOT FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH STATEMENTS MADE BY OUR CITY ENGINEER THAT HE <br />HAD HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH MR" PETER SCHILTREN AND HAD GOTTEN ASSURANCES THAT MR" <br />SCHILTGEN WAS FAVORABLE TO THE PURCHASE OF A PORTION OF HIS PROPERTY FOR A COMMUNITY <br />DRAINFIELD: I HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SCHILTGEN LAST WEEK (AFTER INSISTING <br />THAT l HAD TO TALK TO PETE AND NOT HIS ATTORNEY) AT WHICH HE INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD NOT <br />BEEN NOTIFIED OR CONSULTED ON THIS CITY'S PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 9RAlNFIELD ON HIS <br />PROPERTY (HE STATED THAT HIS FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROJECT CAME FROM READING ABOUT IT IN <br />THE STILLNATER PAPER) NOR THAT HE AGREES TO THAT, HE STATED THAT HE KNEW ONLY THAT <br />BORINGS HAD BEEN MADE ON HIS PROPERTY TO TEST THE PERK OF THE PROPERTY BUT NOTHING MORE <br />AS TO PURPOSE. l TOLD HIM THAT OUR CITY ENGINEER HAD INFORMED THE COUNCIL THAT HE HAD <br />HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM AND THAT HE (PETER) WAS IN GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH USING A CORNER <br />OF HIS PROPERTY FOR THIS PURPOSE" MR, PREW, OUR CITY ENGINEER NOW STATES THAT HE HAS HAI) <br />DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. SCHILTGEN'S ATTORNEY (AND IF HIS EXPERIENCE WAS LIKE MINE, A MEMBER <br />OF MR" SCHILTGEN'S FAMILY PROBABLY DIRECTED MR" PREW TO TALK TO HIS ATTORNEY EVEN THOUGH <br />OUR EXPERIENCE lS THAT ONE MUST TALK TO MR" SCHlLTGEN HIMSELF) AND NOT PETER SCH7LTG5N" <br />HOWEVER, IF YOU WILL RECALL, THE LAST TIME WE DEALT IN THIS MANNER, WE ASSUMED THINGS <br />BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ATTORNEY THAT WERE NOT SATISFACTORY TO MR, SCHILTGEN. <br />BASED ON MR" SCHILTGEN'S RESPONSE (I.E. HAVING NO INFORMATION OF OUR INTENTIONS), IN <br />| HAT CONVERSATION, I TOLD HIM THAT THE CITY HAD OPTIONS AS TO THE LOCATION OF A <br />URA7NFIELD AND THAT HIS PROPERTY WAS NOT CAST IN STONE, I TOLD HIM THAT THE WHITE HAT <br />RESTAURANT HAD APPROACHED THE CITY WITH A STATEMENT OF WILLINGNESS TO SELL PROPERTY TO <br />THE CITY FOR THE DRAINFIELD PURPOSE AND THAT THAT OPTION WAS GENERALLY REFUSED BECAUSE OF <br />ANTICIPATED COST BUT THAT I WAS CERTAIN WE WOULD EXPLORE ALL OPTIONS. <br />YESTERDAY I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY AT WHICH HE INSTRUCTED ME THAT <br />IF WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO CONDEMNATION OF MR" SCHILTGEN'S PROPERTY (I.E. HE IS, IN FACT, <br />NOT A WILLING SELLER) THE QUICKEST THAT WE COULD GAIN CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE <br />ABOUT 3 MONTHS - THIS WOULD PUT US BEYOND THE DATE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLETION OF <br />AUGUST, 1992. FURTHER, AND PERHAPS A GREATER FEAR, I AM NOT CERTAIN THAT WE HAVE A WRAP <br />ON THE SURFACE WATER EASMENT ACCROSS THIS PROPERTY! AT A MINIMUM, WE MUST ESTABLISH THAT <br />NE HAVE OR CAN GET AGREEMENT WITH MR" SCHILTGEN TO PURCHASE SOME PROPERTY DR CONSIDER OUR <br />ALTERNATIVES ~ TIME IS SIMPLY AGAINST US AT THIS TIME AND WE DO NOT WANT TO INJURE OUR <br />NEGOTIATING POSITION WITH THE WHITE HAT RESTAURANT IF WE MUST DR FIND IT IS SIMPLY BETTER <br />TO GO TO THE WHITE HAT RESTAURANT WITH THE EFFLUENT! <br />DAVID D" JOHNSDN,L-MAYOR <br />CITY OF LAKE ELMO <br />C.C. AND NOTIFICATION: <br />CITY ATTORNEY <br />CITY ENGINEER <br />