Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and our point too - don't do it - or at least don't assess us <br />(inaudible) . <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: <br />could go ahead and <br />assess you? <br /> <br />David, how can you say that the Council <br />seek it from the other parties but not <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: What I'm saying is that the Council could <br />decide to do this project and seek - by (inaudible) potential <br />lawsuit - costs of the assessments as a response cost to the <br />contamination problem in the community. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: But we can't go ahead with the project <br />until we know we have some method of getting the money. We <br />could never order it on the contingent that we might recover <br />in a lawsuit. A lawsuit can take two or three years <br /> <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: I have some questions here. As you <br />were talking about EPA damages - what about private damages <br />if the army is found guilty of not going through EPA? A <br />private lawsuit against the Department of the Army or whoever <br />is responsible. In respect to (inaudible) fear of future <br />contamination - my house is worth $50,000. If there was no <br />fear of that contamination, by a potential buyer, it would <br />be worth $60,000. Say you had that assessment and say you <br />could get that - you might be able to too because of future <br />fear. Couldn't you go for private damages without (inaudible). <br />And on that basis, any action the Council takes would not <br />prejudice that. <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: I'm not sure about that. <br /> <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: I'm not pushing for this improvement. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: We are seeking those damages. We are <br />claiming that the property values have been diminished because <br />of the contamination problem. We '.re seeking those types of <br />damages. We're also seeking a safe water supply for these <br />residents. We would ideally like to have - this water system <br />has advantages - it is a safer water supply because it's <br />coming through the City of St. Paul system and they can <br />monitor it much more closely than we can monitor private <br />wells. We very well may ask for this remedy eventually, when <br />we get to that point of the lawsuit, so we are doing those <br />things. I guess I would be somewhat concerned - if this <br />improvement was put in, I think the residents here have - <br />they don't feel they should pay that money up front. That's <br />what would be happening. They would be paying those assess- <br />ments until we were able to establish - through a lawsuit - <br />if we were able to establish - the liability of some other <br />responsible persons. As Mr. Popovich pointed out, our law- <br />suit could take several years and during that period we're <br />asking these people to pay for it. Also, while I hope an <br />action on your part (inaudible) I'm not absolutely sure of <br />that. This new Minnesota Superfund law is so new, we don't <br />even know what all the provisions mean. Just reading over <br /> <br />-9- <br />