Lawyers for Aurora, Oconomowoc argue points in hospital case
Judge gives no time frame for decision
Waukesha Freeman, Feb. 10, 2006
By BRIAN HUBER Freeman Staff
WAUKESHA Attorneys for Aurora Health Care and the city of
Oconomowoc returned to court Thursday to argue several motions in
the revived battle between the company and city over efforts to
build a hospital in the Pabst Farms development.
Aurora sued the city in 2001, alleging that its rezoning of an
88-acre parcel of Pabst Farms at Highway 67 and Interstate 94
blocked the Aurora plan in an effort to protect ProHealth Care,
which operates Oconomowoc Memorial Hospital. Aurora alleged the city
violated open meetings laws by discussing the matter in closed
session and violated open records laws by failing to provide
minutes.
But the sides agreed to hold off on the lawsuit while Aurora
sought to build in the town of Summit. The town approved a plan for
the hospital, but it was overruled by the county, prompting Aurora
and the town to sue the county.
Aurora has since filed a motion to reconsider earlier rulings in
the case regarding what it alleged were violations of the state law
regarding open meetings and open records. Oconomowoc has since filed
a motion for summary judgment on one claim and to dismiss other
parts of the Aurora complaint.
Oconomowocs attorney, Lisle Blackbourn, argued Auroras claim
for violating Auroras due process rights ought to be dismissed
because Aurora never filed a notice of claim or notice of injury,
precursors to a lawsuit, within the legal time frame. Blackbourn
referred to statements by Oconomowoc Clerk Ardyce Senfleben where
she was not aware the city of Oconomowoc ever received a notice of
claim or notice of injury from Aurora.
A letter Aurora considers its notice of claim was filed before
the city took any action, when a notice must be given after the
event that gives rise to the claim, Blackbourn said.
Blackbourn said that the other damages Aurora sought should be
dismissed because Aurora has not exhausted all the remedies
available to it.
 Further,
Aurora has not alleged they were denied proper use of their
property, or that they lost any vested interest in it. All Aurora
invested in the property was an offer to purchase it, Blackbourn
said.
Aurora attorney Brian McGrath, however, said the citys decision
to rezone the parcel was made in closed-session meetings in March
and April of 2001, and any actions taken by city staff after that
were only
following through on decisions that had been made.
The decision to rezone this property was for an improper
purpose, one not under the citys zoning powers, and therefore was
arbitrary and capricious, he said.
McGrath also asked Circuit Court Judge James Kieffer to
reconsider prior rulings made by Circuit Court Judges Kathryn W.
Foster and Lee S. Dreyfus Jr. regarding alleged open records
violations and open meetings violations.
Blackbourn
said Foster ruled the rezoning took place very much in the public
eye and encouraged Kieffer to uphold those decisions, saying Aurora
brought no new arguments to support reconsideration of the rulings.
Kieffer, holding his first hearings on the case, agreed with
McGrath that he ought to at least revisit the prior rulings so he is
not bound by decisions made by prior judges during the trial.
However, Kieffer got both attorneys to agree that he had the
authority to overrule prior decisions as well as let them stand.
Kieffer gave no timeline as to when he will issue decisions on
the matter, saying he would contact the parties when a ruling was
imminent.
|
