Laserfiche WebLink
February 7,2005 <br />Page 2 <br />In talking with the Attorney General's Office, they believe this is the first NIERA <br />claim to proceed to triaL I am certain we will be seeing more of these claims <br />because the municipality does not receive a deferential standard of review in a <br />MERA claim, as it does in a MEPA claim. <br />I sent Wendy Nerr�mers, the Litigation Manager for the Minnesota Counties <br />Insurance Trust, an e-axiail on February 2 regarding the interplay between IV��PA <br />and NIERA claims and the unique challenge MERA claims present. We <br />suggested a training seminar for County employees regardingthe theories that <br />exist. In short, I believe we are uniquely qualified to aggressively represent the <br />interests ofthe City ofRosevil�e in this matter. <br />Lastly, it is equally important to note we have a very good working relationship <br />with the Ratwik law firm. Scott Anderson and 1 have worked togetheron a <br />number of land use cases and we have talked in the past about the interplay <br />between M��A and MERA claims. Ow offices have worked closely in a number <br />of cases including Lopez-Buric v. City of Waite Park; Pahnke v. City of <br />LaCrescent; City of Mahnomen, and Cline v. Clay County. I know we would <br />work together well on this case, as we have in the past. <br />Please let me know if you need any additional information. I look forward to <br />hearing from you. <br />Best Regards, <br />IV��S4N REUVERS <br />���� �� <br />Paul D. Reuve�s <br />Enclosures <br />