10-05-93 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JL.11 DI ,l LI UI JV.\ I IN -AM OLAUJI.Y.V 1 0 "L1-UQ 114, 101 J1 II LI UI JU.V I A.i.11 ULAUJI.i- .:r U; } 1 i Mary Kue£fner September 21, 1993 ( Page 2 4, A statement of objectives should be prepared. Does the City want to try and prevent all discharge from Olson Lake Estates Pond directly to Olson Lake? Does the City want to construct control structures which would regulate the discharge from Olson Lake Estates Pond to Olson Lake? The City may describe both short --term goals (i.e. reshaping, dredging, and control structures) and long- term goals (i.e. redirecting the flow of water entirely). 5. The City should request, in writing, that the valley Branch Watershed District, the DNR, the PCA, the Army Corp, of Engineers and the City of Oakdale take all appropriate steps to insure that Olson Lake Estates Pond will function as originally designed. This may mean that additional ponding sites will be necessary in Oakdale and it may mean that potential development plans will have to be modified. Obviously, time tables for compliances should be requested. If the City wishes to obtain immediate relief in Court, it would request a Temporary Restraining Order or a Temporary injunction. Normally, a Temporary Restraining Order does not require notice to the opposing party before the Court grants interim relief. However, this rule does not apply if other parties are governmental units. Therefore, in our case, the procedures followed in order to obtain a Temporary Restraining order or a Temporary Injunction would be the same. Before it would allow injunctive relief, a Court would analyze the following factors: MGM Liquor Warehouse v. Forsland, 371 N.W.2d 75 (App. Ct. 1985), and BioLine, Inc. v. Burman, et al. 404 N.W.2d 318 (,App. Ct. 1987): - ".,,...,_ 1. The relationship between the parties before the dispute arose; 2. The harm that the Plaintiff may suffer if injunctive relief is denied, Compared to the harm inflicted upon the Defendants if injunctive relief is granted; 3. The likelihood that the party will prevail on the merits; 4. Any public policy factors; and 5. The administrative burden imposed on the Court if the injunctive relief is granted.