Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-94 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA `Waff wAda�, A�v,:e 27, 1 q94 7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES 1. AGENDA 2. Discuss issues on Section 32/33 3. Other 4. Adj ourn MINUTES APPROVED: 5-17-94 LAKE ELMO SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 1994 Mayor John called the special council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m in the council chambers. PRESENT: Mottaz, Conlin, John, Johnston, Johnson, Attorney Filla and Administrator Kueffner. 1. AGENDA ADD: 2. VBWD meeting on Olson Lakes Estates M/S/C Johnson/Conlin - to approve the April 27, 1993 Special Council meeting agenda. (Motion carried 5-0). 2. VBWD Meeting on Olson Lake Estates VBWD applied for a DNR permit to discharge on a temporary basis with no treatment to lower Olson Lake Estates pond by Wand allow the pond to operate as Intended for a 1-2 year period. John objected to this because he felt that they had the opportunity to treat the water with alum and then discharge it so we would at least have cleaner water. Mayor John asked Council support for him to approach the VBWD at its April 28th meeting asking that this be changed. Johnston suggested considering requesting the DNR make as a condition in granting this permit that the water be treated and the outlet be moved right away. M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to authorize the Mayor to make a request to the VBWD at their April 28, 1994 meeting that the Olson Lake Estates pond be treated before mass discharge. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/C Johnson/John - to direct Special Counsel, Chuck Dayton, conditioned upon the opinion of Dayton, to take legal action in the courts to stop the emergency action of discharging water to Olson Lake without treatment with alum to improve water quality as it is known that Olson Lake Estate pond is at a higher phosphorus content than Olson Lake and request that the court require treatment to improve the quality of water before it is discharged. (Motion carried 5-0). Councilman Mottaz asked the status of financial allocation for Attornev Chuck Dayton. He asked if this additional money will be coming out of the landfill money as the other monetary requests? Mottaz asked that this be clarified. LAKE ELMO SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 27, 1994 M/S/C John/Mottaz - to increase the funding authorization for support of our special counsel in relation to the Olson Lakes Estates water quality problem by an additional $5,000. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/C Johnson/John - to direct Special Counsel, Attorney Dayton to intervene by filing a verified pleading under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act Statute 116D.09 as indicated in his letter of April 22, 1994. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/C John/Johnston - to request Attorney Chuck Dayton attend the April 28, 1994 VBWD meeting. (Motion carried 5-0). 3. Section 32/33 Discussion: Councilman Mottaz reported that the State Statute states that you cannot annex property that does not abut. The annexation of the Brockman/Fraser property opened up the flood gate and was in violation of the statute because part of Minnehaha was Lake Elmo property and Lake Elmo's property went to the middle of 694. It was not possible for the Municipal Board to allow this property to go to Oakdale because it did not abut Oakdale. Mottaz asked the attorney to look into the possibility of going to court maintaining that because the Municipal Board acted in violation of the state statute what they did would have" to be declared null and void. Mottaz was at the Washington County court house today and found parcel 2701 is owned by the MN Dept. of Transportation. If these people made a deal in purchasing this property, they did not register this purchase. Therefore, it is still legally owned by MnDOT. If we cannot do this, he proposes to go back to the Municipal Board and point out they have the authority under the state statute to revisit this issue and straighten it out. . Administrator Kueffner reminded the council they had been given this option before and referred to Bruce Folz's letter. Bruce Folz took the MB findings (annexation petition March 10, 1989 by the MB) and that is how he arrived at the map of parcels detached from the City of Lake Elmo and annexed to the City of Oakdale without the owners signing the petition (highlighted in orange). The original petition was amended by the final order of the MB November 7, 1990. This final order added additional exceptions to the original petition. Result of their amendment was the retention of 9 parcels by the City of Lake Elmo. Folz obtained copies of the Wash Cty Tax parcel records and found that the county records are consistent with the final annexation order except Parcel 57033- 37033, 2611 in the S1/2 Section of 32. The County does not show the correct boundary and the county should be notified. Councilman Mottaz asked if there is any way the court can direct the Board to straighten out this mess? Filla did not think so at this point in time. There is a possibility that the Board on its own initiative or at our request would consider concurrent annexation and detachment of all of the areas surrounded by Lake Elmo. In the annexation statues there is a 7 day period to request the Board to amend, and then there is a 30 day period from the day of the order to appeal to LAKE ELMO SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 27, 1994 3 the District Court. The appellate court very specifically said that procedures need to be followed. If they aren't, you loose your right to assert those errors. Mottaz: We never really got a chance to appeal the MB decision. Attorney Filla explained one of the things that Lake Elmo can do is petition the Board to initiate a proceeding if there are any parcels in one city that are completely surrounded by another. The problem with this Is discretionary with the Board. There may be arguments to the effect this area is not completely surrounded. By looking at the map, the northern boundary of the public right-of- way is the dividing line between Woodbury and Lake Elmo --not the centerline of 1-94 Freeway. It is important to establish this southern border. Council member Conlin asked what are the consequences of petitioning the Municipal Board other than being denied: Attorney Filla responded that Oakdale cannot make the same kind of petition because they cannot show that a good part of Lake Elmo is surrounded by Oakdale. Administrator Kueffner indicated that when she talked to Terry Merritt, Municipal Board, he indicated that if we petition the Board they would take a look at this issue. Attorney Filla pointed out we need to define our priorities as a council if we are going to continue these negotiations with Oakdale. They still have not signed a letter of undertaking. If this goes back to the legislature again, they will create another avenue to allow the MB to take a look a this. The legislature is not going to solve the problem. If that's what occurs next year, it would be nice to have some legislation that allows the Board to reexamine the whole issue (the West half of 33 and part of 32) as opposed to just a small part of it. Attorney Filla explained that pursuing something in front of the Municipal Board is one thing to do, but didn't think the city should abandon negotiations or stop thinking about what form of legislation should be introduced on our behalf next Spring. All of these things can be pursued at the same time in order to achieve a specific goal whichever the Council thinks that goal should be. Council member Johnston indicated if we are going to pursue a strategy, we have to go into it with the thought it could go either way. If we start petitioning the MB in this manner, does that give Oakdale a good reason to say you are not serious with these negotiations so we would not make any progress. Councilman Johnson stated the land in trade for a joint project would give us some sewer capacity to the east. From what I heard in the negotiations, there is no SAC capacity to give. Oakdale is of the opinion that they need every bit of sewer capacity that is available to them if they want to develop according to their current comp plan. So what is there to negotiate. Mayor John responded in the LAKE ELMO SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 27, 1994 4 very early discussions that we had with Mayor Bearth in Pam Neary's office, he indicated he had sewer capacity, more than enough. Attorney Filla thought it was a good idea for Administrator Kueffner to talk to Terry Merrit and let him know what will be forthcoming. M/S/C Mottaz/John - to petition requesting the Municipal Board on its motion to consider the detachment and annexation of the property located in Section 32/33 South and East of the MnDOT property and including the missing portion. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/C Mottaz/Johnston - to instruct Mayor Wyn John to participate in a meeting with Mayor Ted Bearth on May 9, 1994 together with city managers/ administrators and engineers to discuss the issues between the city's relating to Section 32/33 and the possibility of implementing a joint utility project to serve the area subject to the following conditions: (1) The Mayor shall not be considered a committee or subcommittee of the council for this purpose as those terms are used in the MN Open Meeting Law, (2) The Mayor shall have no authority to act on behalf of the city without further council approval, (3) The Mayor shall report to the Council regarding the content of such discussions, (4) The Council reserves the right to reevaluate the efficacy of the discussion process after the meeting of May 9th. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/C Mottaz/Johnson - to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. (Motion carried 5- 0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES 1. AGENDA 2. Discuss issues on Section 32/33 3. Other 4. Adj ourn