Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITYiCOUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 22, 2007 <br />7:00 jo'clock p.m. <br />(City Engineer's Report, Continued) <br />Bremer stated she would like to see the City A <br />up to this point. <br />Kellogg stated the primary reason City Admini <br />to be a bigger issue than what was originally c< <br />Bremer recommended the city attorney look to <br />on this issue. <br />Moorse indicated he has been working with <br />involved in this issue if he has not been involved <br />Moorse attended the meeting was that it appeared <br />lated. <br />if there is any case law involving MN Statute 169.01 <br />Knutson on this issue. <br />Mattick stated his office has looked into this issue and did provide some input into the letter that was <br />sent to MN/DOT. Mattick indicated the definition of a public road is pretty vague under Statute 169.01 <br />and that the language used in the City's easement says the road is open to public use. The City does <br />maintain control of the underlying easement and the City has the right to come in and take the road over. <br />The issue appears to be over the labeling of the roads as private. Mattick stated the easement in his <br />opinion is more of a maintenance agreement and that he is unsure whether all of the City's easements <br />contain that language relating to a public's right io use the road. <br />Murphy stated in his view the City should take the position at the meeting tomorrow that a statewide <br />audit be conducted of the certified city streets due to the unclear language contained in the statute. <br />Murphy noted some of this information has already been provided to Representative Gen Olson and that <br />other alternatives besides the Screening Board should be considered. <br />Bremer inquired whether there is an appeal process <br />Moorse stated it could be appealed to the top person at State Aid and then the top person at the <br />Department of Transportation. Moorse indicated'the information has been provided to the top person at <br />State Aid but that it should be pointed out that a subcommittee should not be interpreting the language <br />and making a decision on what is required by state statute. <br />Mattick stated their involvement was limited to t: <br />process would be. <br />White recommended that City Administrator Mo <br />McMillan suggested some examples be provided <br />years. <br />Murphy reiterated that a statewide audit of the cii <br />CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT <br />City Attorney Mattick had nothing to report. <br />letter and that he is unsure of what the exact appeal <br />contact Representative Gen Olson tomorrow. <br />ting the language the City has used over the <br />should be requested. <br />PAGE 9 <br />