Laserfiche WebLink
ft <br />jr..::,. <br />i*.>r “. <br />I - lit.. <br />ggSB^'^ <br />185 Bederwood Dr <br />Orono, Long Lake, <br />MN55356. <br />APR ^ 0 <br />laii 30th April 1992. <br />j> <br />D. M. Hallin, <br />City of Orono, <br />Post Office Box 66, <br />Crystal Bay, <br />MN 55323-0066. <br />Reference: Assessment for public mains sewage - Stubbs Bay. <br />The intent of this letter is to officially contest the proposed assessment against <br />the above property. Also to protest the method of assessment as being unfair <br />to the community at large because of the unreasonable costs involved. Your <br />method for calculating individual costs, make no allowance for properties <br />which have conforming systems, and an alternate replacement sight in case <br />of failure. <br />As an example, the eighteen (18) failing sights you quote in the document <br />"defining the needs" and the majority of the properties indicated, as not <br />"appearing to have an alternate replacement sight", are by and large, situated <br />within three (3) locations, these being: <br />Stubbs Bay N.E. <br />Stubbs Bay N.W. <br />Bayside East. <br />These locations, equate to eighty three (83) properties, or roughly sixty one <br />(61%) percent of the overall grand total (137) of homes impacteti. A unit cost <br />of $8,8^.00 per household is quoted as the individual contribution for these <br />three locations. However, the sum dollar total contribution is $733,720.00, <br />which only represents roughly half (» 50%) of the grand total required for the <br />complete proj^. Such an assessment policy is unjust, and unfair to property <br />owners such as myself, who have conforming systems, and also a <br />replacement sight, but are asked to pay $4000.00 more, or a sum roughly equal <br />to thirteen thousand dollars (- $13,000).