Laserfiche WebLink
' SP�CIAL MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 8 , 1980 Page 28 <br /> Assessment Appeals: <br /> John H. Eastman and Anne Eastman <br /> C. Steven Wilson & Susan Wilson <br /> Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Carol G. Callahan <br /> Bruce Malkerson: The City; if it should continue to <br /> have problems acquiring easements in this area, <br /> should consider avoiding these easements and construct <br /> sewers in the street. This will mean a much higher <br /> cost to connect to the sewer pipe . <br /> Discussion centered on options : quick take, right <br /> of entry, condemnation. <br /> Mayor Van Nest : The City does have options. <br /> Mr . Wilson, 2485 North Shore Drive : This easement <br /> will have a severe impact on my property. <br /> Mrs. Jester , 2515 North Shore Drive : I am opposed <br /> to the project. <br /> Mr . Phil Chenowith, Financial Consultant, reviewed <br /> the current bond market commenting that the market <br /> today is 820. <br /> Mayor Van Nest: The City is faced with inflationary <br /> construction costs in attempting to sewer small <br /> dense areas and the City might have to apply some <br /> of the cost to the ad valorum taxes. <br /> Mayor Van Nest moved, Butler seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION #1219 <br /> Resolution #1219 ordering in the sewer improvement North Shore Drive & <br /> and proceed with the sewer construction for North Scotch Pine Lane Sewers <br /> Shore Drive and Scotch Pine Lane , awarding the <br /> � construction project to Nodland Associates, Inc. - <br /> as the low and responsible bidder as per the City <br /> Engineer and bid tabluation, authorizing the Mayor <br /> and City Administrator to sign contracts. Motion, <br /> Ayes (5) - Nays (0) . <br /> Area #4 - Minnetonka Bluffs <br /> Mr . Glenn Cook, City Engineer, reviewed Area #4 , <br /> Minnetonka Bluffs area, noting that the original <br /> assessment was $14 , 515 per unit. <br /> Bruce Malkerson stated that in reviewing the appeals, <br /> it appears that there are some that are not valid <br /> because an objection to the assessment was not <br /> filed by September 8 , 1980 which was the assessment <br /> hearing date and is required by law. ' <br />