HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: sewer extension . �
0 CT 3 0 1995
, 1100 Incerna�ional Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3397
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. ;��X'��4,;'°;';,
Attorneys At Law Direct Dia1 No.
(612) 347-7052
October 26, 1995
Mr. Ron Moorse
rity Manager
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
Re: Proposed extension of the MUSA line and accompanying sewer service project
serving the residents of the North Long Lake area of the City of Orono
Dear Mr. Moorse:
My office represents Troy and Catherine Anderson, the owners of the property at 1490 Long
Lake Boulevard. In 1993, the City directed the Andersons to replace their existing on-site
septic system with a new system. The Andersons made inquiry of the City regarding the
possibility that municipal sewer service would become available to this part of the City.
They were assured that there was little, if any, likelihood that municipal sewer service would
become available within the next ten to fifteen year period. In reliance upon that
representation, the Andersons constructed an expensive on-site septic system that conformed
to a11 applicable laws and codes.
The system in question functions efficiently and well and is expected to do so during its
usefi�l life. The.refore, if municipal sewer service is made available to my clients, my clients
will derive no benefit from that service. Informal inquiry has been made of appraisers. We
have been assured that with a conforming and functioning on-site sewer system, any increase
in value to the property derived from municipal sewer service being made available to my
clients' property would be nominal. Under Minnesota law, my client may not be assessed
for such a project beyond the benefit derived by my clients' property.
We have received a Petition being circulated by the residents of the North Long Lake area of
the City of Orono. Paragraph 4 of that Petition states: "Residents who have replaced their
septic systems within five years before the time that the city sewer is installed will receive
more favorable payment terms, such as deferral of the assessment for a period of time."
• . .
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
Mr. Ron Moorse
October 26, 1995
Page 2
The purpose of this letter is to make it clear that such treatment would not be acceptable to
my clients and is, in fact, contrary to applicable law. Under no circumstances will my
clients willingly agree to pay any special assessments against their property in excess of the
benefit to the property from the proposed improvement.
I would like to have the opportunity to discuss this matter with you or wiih t1��e City's
attorney. My clients have authorized my firm to take appropriate action in the event that the
City attempts to assess their property beyond the benefit received by the property from the
project in question.
I would appreciate it if you would call me or have the City's attorney call me after you have
had an opportunity to review and consider this letter. Thank you for your cooperation.
Very t y rs,
i
rg
I.JB/Icp/467840
cc: Troy and Catherine Anderson