My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-13-1985 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
03-13-1985 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2013 7:49:53 AM
Creation date
3/19/2013 7:49:08 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Thomas M. Sweeney <br />James J. O'Connor <br />John H. LeMay <br />George F. Borer <br />Marcus S. Teichner <br />Sweeney, O'Connor & LeMay <br />Professional Association <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Suite 1200 <br />Northern Federal Building <br />St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 <br />January 9, 1985 <br />Mr. Joseph G. Chlebeck <br />City Clerk <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 <br />Re: St. Jude's, et al vs. City of Little Canada <br />Our File No. 5019 <br />Dear Joe: <br />Telephone <br />(612) 222 -2541 <br />As we have previously discussed on numerous occasions, the <br />above - captioned matter was set for trial on a day certain for <br />January 9, 1985, in the Ramsey County District Court. The <br />historical facts are as follows: On September 7, 1983, the <br />City Council assessed Improvement Project 81 -8, which included <br />certain assessments against St. Jude's property, as follows: <br />sanitary sewer, $7,915.50; water, $10,683.00; and street, (Jackson <br />Street) $12,793.50, which total $31,392.00. The attorneys for <br />St. Jude filed the appropriate Notice of Appeal of Assessment, <br />which alleges, among other things, that the improvements do not <br />benefit the St. Jude's facility. <br />The attorney for St. Jude also indicated that the north <br />and east boundaries of their property is subject to a 100 foot <br />buffer zone. He further has indicated that there was an agree- <br />ment with the City that St. Jude would convey the necessary <br />easement to the City subject to the agreement that St. Jude would <br />not be assessed for the construction of sewer, water, or street. <br />After an extensive review of City files and minutes, we <br />have been unable to find evidence to support our argument that <br />St. Jude, in fact, had agreed to be specially assessed for these <br />improvements. However, after extensive discussions with the <br />attorney for St. Jude, it appears that this matter may be resolved <br />on the following basis: <br />1. To the extent necessary, St. Jude will provide a <br />recordable road and utility easement for the <br />necessary property relating to this public improve- <br />ment; <br />03 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.