Laserfiche WebLink
2. Initially, in our discussions on ways to counter the City of Oakdale's <br />attempt to annex the Mn/DOT property in Sections 32 &33, we knew <br />of House File 220 raised by Representative Pearlt. We expected a <br />Senate file to be raised. Later we knew that file to be Senate File 491, <br />sub witted by Senator Price. Both files had to be resisted to ensure <br />that the Oakdale motion could be defeated. <br />3. At our special, publicly announced, Council meeting on February 19, <br />attended by Representative Neary, Administrator Kueffner, Councilors <br />Conlin, Johnson and myself, the existence of a Senate file was <br />mentioned. Opposition to this file was always part of the City's <br />Resolution 93-10, though not specifically mentioned. At the end of the <br />meeting, we realized that no motion had been raised opposing the <br />Senate file. A motion was raised by Councilor Conlin, seconded by <br />Councilor Johnson to oppose the Senate File. This passed 3-0. <br />4. Subsequently, Administrator Kueffner telephoned Councilor Mottaz, <br />who had not been present at this and other meetings, to tell him of <br />developments, and to make him aware of the inclusion of opposition to <br />Senate File 491 - by name - in Resolution 93-10. She mentioned that <br />she .had three votes in support of the motion. I think Councilor <br />Mottaz then jumped to the conclusion that this was a telephone poll, or <br />part of some clandestine action, eventually resulting in his prolonged <br />statement at the last council meeting. <br />5. There was no telephone vote, nor any clandestine meeting. We were <br />in a battle with Oakdale, fighting on all fronts. We had many <br />