My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-22-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
10-22-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2025 11:17:13 AM
Creation date
2/10/2025 11:15:22 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.
/
448
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
2 laso <br />September 25, 1990 <br />Mayor and Council Members <br />City of Orono <br />Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, MN 55323 <br />Dear sirs and madams: <br />Last evening I, and a group of neighbors, arrived at the council <br />chambers for a public hearing on the Navarre storm sewer project <br />at 7:30 as indicated on the attached notice from the city. by <br />this time the council was acting on the issue, the attached agenda <br />shows it was heard at 7:00 not The outcome was ordering <br />an assessment survey (costing an estimated $2,500) and waiting <br />to see how many would appeal their assessment. <br />I am NOT in favor of this project and do not feel we should be <br />assessed for it. In addition I am very angry about attending a <br />public hearing and not being able to be heard. I feel that before <br />$2,500 is spent on this project the affected neighbors should be <br />able to express their opinions. <br />When the Cuffs purchased the vacant lot next to their heme there <br />was a puddle in front, they lived there and knew the problem existed <br />yet they went chead and purchased it. Some time after that they <br />cleared the lot of the brush and dead trees and did some landscaping <br />with earth-moving equipment. While it improved the appearance of <br />the lot, it exaggerated the water problem. Much of the water which <br />now sits in the street used to drain to the back of that lot. I <br />understand th wanting to have a dry lot ... I DO NOT understand <br />them moving water out of their lot and into the street and then <br />claiming it's all of our problems and we should all pay for it! <br />I further resent being told by their attorney after the meeting <br />that there is really no reason to appeal the assessment because <br />even if a judge would reduce the assessment amount you have to pay <br />an attorney to fight it sc you're spending the same amount of money. <br />It appears that appealing an assessment is not a viable alternative; <br />we should not have to pay an attorney to make our opinions known! <br />He then expressed his opin:.on that $700 "really isn't that much" <br />Ours is a double lot (as are many others) so we are looking at $1,400 <br />and maintain that it IS a lot to us. I would challenge him to <br />explain to the widow who lives next door that $700 "isn't much money" <br />I uooke with her and her son this morning and they feel it is!
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.