Laserfiche WebLink
LF <br />Council member Johnston stated it seemed that both cities <br />have indicated a willingness to negotiate and talk to each <br />other at this point, so why do we need somebody imposing <br />conditions on us to continue to do that. <br />Mayor John's proposal to legislation: Page 1, Line 20, <br />Delete "any" and change "proposed" to "constructed". Page <br />2, Line 3, Delete "any". Line 5: change "proposed" to <br />"future". Line 7, Delete "any". Line 8: Filla suggested <br />Inserting: The municipal costs for sewer and water, lift <br />stations and the tax value and special assessment value of <br />land transferred must be shared a portion to benefits <br />received as agreed to by each city. <br />John suggested wording added: A review of the total SAC <br />capacity of Section 32 and west half of Section 33 shall be <br />conducted by City Administrative staff in relation to <br />currently proposed development plans excess SAC capacity is <br />to be divided between the two cities. <br />Administrator Kueffner suggested: Page 1, Line 18: Should <br />"may" be changed to "shall"? ...before an order shall <br />become effective. <br />Council member Conlin suggested Attorney Filla respond to <br />Attorney Caswell's letter, dated April 22, 1993, <br />(Oakdale/Lake Elmo/MnDOT Property/Sec. 3203), indicating <br />the City of Lake Elmo welcomes this, that we will respond to <br />this, appreciate this as a way of building trust between the <br />two cities. <br />Mayor John requested the City Administrator prepare an <br />update of our response to Rep. Neary's proposed legislation <br />and let Pam Neary know the City of Lake Elmo is not ready to <br />support this legislation because we feel there are avenues <br />which we can approach with Oakdale to try and get a <br />resolution which will occur faster than what has already <br />been done. <br />M/S/P Conlin/Johnston - that the City does not approve any <br />legislation in regards to allowing Oakdale to petition for <br />detachment or annexation of any additional land in the City <br />based on the reasons: we still feel that it is inappropriate <br />legislation, it is a local issue, there is an indication and <br />willingness on the part of each City to sit down and resolve <br />this problem and are in the process of doing it and feel <br />that any legislation could disrupt this process. (Motion <br />carried 4-0). <br />M/S/P Conlin/Johnston - to direct Attorney Filla to respond <br />to Attorney Caswell's letter with direction that this is a <br />positive sign to move ahead. (Motion carried 4-0). <br />