Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 01/10/05 <br />Minutes - Page 15 <br /> <br />Vicinity of Cleveland Avenue and County Road C (PF 3595) <br />- Continued from the December 20, 2004 City Council <br />Meeting. <br />At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Beets provided <br />a brief update on the litigation issue and proposed process. <br /> <br />City Manager Beets advised that the City had not yet retained an <br />attorney, but was in discussions with the League of Minnesota <br />Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), as the litigation was a covered <br />situation under the City's policy. Mr. Beets noted that this <br />consultation was the first step prior to selecting appropriate legal <br />counsel to represent the City; and that the City intended to file an <br />answer to the litigation within the twenty-day filing deadline. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka sought further comment regarding <br />potential requests for summary judgments or dismissal of the <br />allegations. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that the lawsuit was an attempt <br />to overturn a decision by the Ruling Governmental Authority <br />(RGU) related to an environmental review, and would be an <br />administrative decision, not a jury trial upon review of the on- <br />the-record written materials. Mr. Anderson anticipated that <br />written arguments would be scheduled, followed by oral <br />arguments with a decision rendered by the judge. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned if it was normal procedure and <br />if outside counsel would be an additional legal expense. <br /> <br />City Manager Beets noted that the retainer with the City <br />Attorney did not include outside litigation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned if staff would be providing a <br />litigation budget that would estimate anticipated legal fees. <br /> <br />City Manager Beets noted that staff could attempt to prepare one, <br />if the City Council would so request one, but that typically it was <br />a matter of discussion between staff and the LMCIT, but actual <br />costs would be determined on the plaintiff s handling of the <br />lawsuit, the number of depositions required and the briefing <br />schedule. <br /> <br />Mixed-Use Concept <br />Proposal to <br />Redevelop Twin <br />Lakes, (PF 3595) <br />