Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> City Council <br /> September 8, 1980 <br /> Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> RESOLUTION N0. 80-9-334 - CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON <br /> IMPROVEMENT N0. 78-12 <br /> The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Hanson. <br /> Ayes (5) Scalze, Elanson, DeBace, Nadeau, Fahey. <br /> Nayes (0). <br /> Resolution declared adopted. <br /> This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 6, Page 218. <br /> Mr. DeBace introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> RESOLUTION N0. 80-9-335 - ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT <br /> ROLL FOR IMPROVEMENT N0. 78-12, AUDITOR'S IMPROVEMENT N0. 78-6, <br /> AUD. N0. 1809, D/P N0. 1809, INTEREST -10%, INSTALLMENTS - 15 <br /> YEARS <br /> THE foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Fahey. <br /> Ayes (5) DeBace, Fahey, Nadeau, Scalze, Hanson. <br /> Nayes (0). <br /> Resolution declared adopted. <br /> This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 6, Pages 218 and 219. <br /> Public Mr. Herb Garske appeared before the Council. Mr. Garske stated that he <br /> hlearing felt Payne Avenue, which is Improvement No. 79-1, is about 8 to 10 inches <br /> Improvement too high. This caused the lots along Payne Avenue to have to be filled. <br /> No. 79-1 <br /> The Engineer stated that the storm sewer along Payne Avenue was installed <br /> as low as it would go. The Engineer also stated that by having the lots <br /> higher this helped yet farther away from the ground water. <br /> Mr. Garske also was concerned over the $35,000.00 easement that was <br /> paid to Mr. Jespersen. Council pointed out that Mr. Jespersen is being <br /> assessed approximately $93,000.00 for Payne Avenue. <br /> Mr. Deane Paisley of 640 County Road D appeared before the Council. <br /> Mr. Paisley felt that the assessment proposed for his property is too <br /> high. Mr. Paisley stated that if he split 75 feet from his property, <br /> the assessment would be $6,010.50 for this resulting lot. Mr. Paisley <br /> stated that an assessment of $9,0?.4.98 would be left on the remaining <br /> property. Paisley objected to the $9,024.98 as he felt his property <br /> was not benefited by that amount. <br /> Mr. Paisley stated that there is a 40 foot strip of property that was <br /> acquired separately from the 142 feet of his property. This 40 feet <br /> is adjacent to the NSP power lines and does not derive any benefit from <br /> the improvement of Payne Avenue. <br /> Mr. Fahey stated that if Mr. Paisley split a 75 foot lot from his property <br /> he would have a 107 foot lot left. Fahey stated that other property owners <br /> with large lots have been treated in the same manner. page -10- <br /> <br />