My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-11-1991 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
09-11-1991 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2013 1:02:32 PM
Creation date
7/23/2013 1:01:28 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
ceest.fr 1 2V/4 cea//neala <br />515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600 <br />(612) 484 -2177 / FAX: (612) 484 -4538 <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Mayor Hanson and Members of the City Council <br />FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator <br />DATE: September 6, 1991 <br />RE: Thunder Bay Drainage - Ditch "D" <br />MAYOR <br />Raymond G. Hanson <br />COUNCIL <br />Beverly Scalze <br />Bill Blesener <br />Rick Collova <br />Jim LaValle <br />ADMINISTRATOR <br />Joel R. Hanson <br />Based on my memo dated August 23, 1991 to the five property <br />owners on Ontario Road affected by proposed Ditch "D" <br />improvements, I have now received four notices from <br />property owners in favor of the planned improvements as <br />specified in that memo. One property owner still does not <br />feel that this is a fair cost for the improvements he is <br />receiving. He has stated that he would pay half of the <br />$1,160 proposed assessment. I have informed him that the <br />major problem I have in that regard is one of consistency <br />and fairness to other property owners. <br />Therefore, we have four different options to consider. <br />1. The first option is to do nothing. This option is <br />not acceptable in that it does not address the <br />problem. <br />2. The second option would be to condemn the <br />necessary ten foot easement to build the system as <br />designed. This option is also not acceptable in <br />that the time and costs associated with condemning <br />a ten foot easement do not warrant consideration. <br />3. The third option is to relocate the proposed storm <br />sewer line to avoid the need for a ten foot <br />easement on the property where we are not able to <br />obtain said easement. This option allows the <br />project to proceed, but would subject the property <br />owner to a higher assessment ($2,110 versus <br />$1,160) and also jeopardize some improvements he <br />has in his backyard that were being protected by <br />the proposed location of the storm sewer system. <br />Page 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.