Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 8, 1988 <br />LAKE MINNETONKA REGIONAL PARK CONTINUED <br />cities should join in the lawsuit but not expect that Minnetrista <br />will resolve the entirf matter. Should they settle the park <br />issue and drop cut of the lawsuit, the other cities could proceed <br />with the constitutional issue. City Attorney Barrett stated that <br />Minnetrista's settlemen. may end the lawsuit entirely. There may <br />not be a basis for litigating the constitutional issue unless <br />Orono can prove that damages occurred within Orono as a direct <br />result of that issue. It will be difficult to substantiate the <br />lawsuit based upon theory only. Councilmember Nettles asked if <br />the City could cite a problem, i.e. increased traffic resulting <br />from the impending park. Councilmember Callahan stated that he <br />could not see how the proposed park would increase traffic <br />throuah Orono. Councilmember Nettles inquired as to involving <br />the Lague of Cities in this matter. Councilmember Callahan <br />agreed that Orono should get the support of the other <br />municipalities, not only for legal strength, but for financial <br />support as well. Mayor Grabek asked whether the filing of the <br />amicus brief would be sufficient to hancle this. City Attorney <br />Barrett stated that it would not be !sufficient to keep the <br />lawsuit alive if Minnetrista settled. <br />Councilmember Goetten stated that her pri:no concern was the <br />constitutionality of this particular condemnation issue. She <br />inquired as to the most efficient way to proceed in lieu %.,f the <br />amicus brief. City Attorney Barrett responded that the amicus <br />brief would be appropriate in that it would tell the Court Orono <br />is concerned about these devices because they limit the <br />sovereignty of cities in a way that is unacceptable under Orono's <br />interpretation of the Constitution. He said that the next <br />question to consider is whether Orono would seperately be <br />pursuing a lawsuit if Minnetrista had not initiated it. Mayor <br />Grabek interpreted Attorney Barrett's comments to indicate that <br />Orono would get more for their money if they became a party to <br />Minnetrista's lawsuit. Attorney Barrett stated that the Court <br />can only make a ruling in a case if they can award a remedy, <br />which in this case would Ls disallowing the Park Board <br />condemnation and stop or delay the development of the park. <br />Mayor Grabek asked whether it would be better to wait rather than <br />jumping in now. Councilmember Callahan suggested waiting to see <br />if Minnetrista will settle and then proceed from there. City <br />Attorney Barrett suggested that it may be best to agree to <br />intervene at some stated price, but let Minnetrista and the other <br />parties know that Orono may have a separate interest in this <br />matter which they are unwilling to compromise. He felt that this <br />was the way that Mr. Thornton would like the cities to proceed. <br />Councilmember Nettles asked if perhaps the City could initiate <br />their own lawsuit and later consolidate it with the existing <br />Minnetrista suit. Callahan stated that Orono could agree to <br />become a party plaintiff, but specify to Minnetrista that they <br />are doing so with the ag-eement that Minnetrista will not settle. <br />Mayor Grabek stated that the driving force at this time is <br />