My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-24-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
11-24-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 10:37:11 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 10:35:08 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
229
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
WINSTON LAW OFFICE <br />4420 IDS CENTER <br />eO SOUTH 8TH STREET <br />MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 53402 <br />TEL: (612)341-0900 <br />FAX: (612) 338-6351 <br />November 11,1997 <br />B <br />VTNSTON <br />' 341-9813 <br />/ <br />VTA MKSSFNOER <br />Mayor Gabriel Jabbour <br />985 Tonkawa Roa<d <br />Orono, MN 55323 <br />RE: Wliitehcad Subdivision/ Park Fee <br />Dear Mayor Jabbour; <br />I apologize for the presentation I made to tlie Orono City Coimcil yesterday <br />evening. Quite obviously, my letter of October 28 and last evening's verbal <br />presentation failed to adequately e.xplain my clients' position. <br />Basically, their position is that the imposition of a flat S% charge against the <br />value ot their land witliout tlie City's consideration of the impact of these^wo lots on <br />the Orono park system is urueasonable ai\d not in accordance with applicable law. <br />Further, to say that new applicants for subdivision approval, these applicants <br />included, are to pay for new parks and park improvements, as opposed to the <br />populace at large, is also unreasonable, and imposes an unfair burden on these or <br />other applicants. <br />I raised tliese same concerns when the flat 8% fee sought from Jim <br />Fullerton, and expressed my thanks for your efforts to mediate and ultimately <br />compromise and settle that dispute on a basis acceptable to both the City and Mr. <br />Fullerton. 1 had hoped before last evening, and still hope today, that wc can resolve <br />the current dispute on a sinular basis. I am a great believer In compromise, and do <br />not believe the adversarial nature of litigation - or the adversarial status of the <br />current dispute — is ultimately that p.oductive for the paities involved. The wear and <br />tear of such proceedings, the dedication of time anJ resource.i and the sheer expense <br />of more formal legal proceedings are all factors bearing on iny disposition to seek out <br />compromise. The City and the WTriteheads will both be the Avinners if we can resolve <br />this matter amicably.# <br />Thus, my entreaty last evening to try effea a compromise, be it on the <br />amount of the park fee or on a proceclure where the plat would not be "held hostage", <br />to use your words from the hearing on the Fullerton application, was an eftbrt to save <br />the City and the Wliiteheads the cost of legal action, not. as was alleged last evening. <br />1^0/10'a 19898883 19 'ON XVJ 30IJJO MVl NOISNIM 98:01 301 16-11-AOH
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.