10-19-93 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mary Kueffner October 5, 1993 Page 2 5. Maintaining control over Lake Elmo property located in Sections 32 and 33 allows the City to finance its share of the cost of a joint project more economically. 6. The City has submitted a proposal for a joint project which will accomplish the objectives of both Lake Elmo and Oakdale in a more economically efficient manner than either City could accomplish alone. 7. The state legislature should not adopt legislation which could frustrate existing state policies encouraging cooperation between local units of government and which would result in a greater combined cost to state citizens. The above scenario would have to be fine tuned and details would have to be added in order be persuasive for local representatives. However, it seems of primary importance to me that a feasible plan for a joint project be approved by the City of Lake Elmo and presented to Oakdale, within a reasonable time frame and in advance of the introduction of any new legislation. The City needs to ask itself if it is committed to a joint project. Taking reasonable action toward the implementation of a joint project would place the City in a better position before the municipal board and the District Court if those avenues need to be pursued. I believe it is important to be able to argue to the municipal board that the City of Lake Elmo is ready, willing and able to provide necessary services to its citizens. It is possible that the City may expend a great deal of energy in trying to accomplish long-term goals and lose sight of short-term objectives. Expanding the MUSA area and undertaking a three city project to expand the capacity of the sanitary sewer interceptor may have to take a temporary backseat to the City's effort to undertake a joint sewer and water project if the City's attempts to defeat anticipated legislation are going to be effective. JPF:bap Very truly yours, CJ:e me Fills.