My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 09/22/1981
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1981
>
Agenda - Council - 09/22/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 1:40:02 PM
Creation date
5/24/2004 9:33:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
09/22/1981
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.
/
201
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).
View images
View plain text
I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />~"~ CASE #5: <br /> <br />FINDINGS OF FACT'REGARDING-'.NUMBER'OF UNITS THAT'WILL BE ASSESSED <br /> <br />OUT REGARDING STREET IMPROVEMENT'PROJECT #80'15; CASE OF MR. SCOTT <br /> <br />GOLDEN, 17645 BAUGH STREET: <br /> <br />Council, at their September 8, 1981 regular Council meeting, <br />directed that a Findings of Fact be prepared on this case, as <br />the Goldens claimed that they should only be assessed for one <br />(1) unit instead of the two (2) ~its that they were assessed <br />for in the projects. Accordingly, the City Building Official <br />and City Engineer went out to the Golden residence, reviewed the <br />case, and prepared the proposed Findings of Fact which is submitted <br />in enclosure (D2-e) for your review and action. Also contained is a <br />letter' from Mr. Golden in regards to his feelings about the assessment. <br />It should be noted that the City Administrator and City Engineer <br />will make another review of this case on Monday, September 21, 1981, <br />and if necessary, will prepare an amendment to the above enclosure. <br />It should be further noted that the Goldens are quite upset about <br />this assessment period. <br /> <br />a) <br /> <br />b) <br /> <br />They claim they never got a notice of the public hearing <br />that was held on it last year (1980). In checking our <br />records, we know that a notice was mailed to their address. <br /> <br />Secondly, they state a City employee stated to them that <br />they would not be assessed for this improvement. In check- <br />ing with Ou~ City employee', she states'that this definitely <br />was not the'case. <br /> <br />On ..this particular case, coUncilmemberS may want to make a drive-by <br />visual inspection, <br /> <br />Council ACtion: Your action'on this will be as follows:- <br /> <br />a) <br /> <br />Proposed Findings of'Fact ~ You'will have to approve/ dis- <br />a~rove/amend the'Findings of'~ct as s~mitted'in the abo~ <br />enclos~e by ~tion4 he' fol~w~g prop0sed'motion"is s~- <br />mitted'fo~ YO~ conside~ati~,~,~;.~ <br /> Motion,~bY Counp/~me~er'/.~/~~and~ seconded by <br /> Couneilmember"~-~ .... .-to <br /> app~ve / dis approve/amend <br /> (If you disa~ve-- '~or amend, you w~l'need'to state <br /> reas~(s) the' F~dings of'Fact which is contained as <br /> enclos~e (D2-e)' of' the' Co~cil agenda dated' Septe~er <br /> 22, 1981,'case Of ~. Scott ~lden, 17645 Baugh Street~ <br /> regarding number of'units'to be asses~d for' Street <br /> ~oject' #80-15. ./~ [/// <br /> Motion c~ried. ~oting yes ~' .......... . <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.