06-09-92 Special CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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