Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> SEMT 'BY: PETERSON FRAM BERGMAN: 7-17-82 ;lO:44AM ;PETERSON FRAM BERGMA~ ;# 2/ 3 <br /> WARREN E. l~r;:Tlm~nN PETERSON, FRAM & BERGMAN tRl!Ai. I'HOPF.RTV LA:W SI'.I!;CIALIS'j' <br /> Jli:R01\n: P. r.rU.A PROFFSSI0N,~L ASSOClAIlON "'ALSu AUMnTt21J IN j,'I,ORJDA, <br /> . nANJEL WJTr (<'RAM ~WO MlVW.t:t.''1' (rf!D.l!:It.'l.L nClLotr\'C:; ILLlNOI~, W>\SHJNCr'T(}N O.C.. <br /> GLENN 1\. ln~k(;MAN wrSCONSIN <br /> .JOHN r.-UCfJ,J,El, IvUlrLER 5(1 EAST FlITll S'fRRRT - <br /> n..I.RY W. nRCKF,R+ ST, PAUl., MINNl:.';(HA 5~lDl.1I97 OF (:OUN,s.t:L <br /> M1!:lVlN J. ."i[l.VER <br /> TrM01'HY.T, RASSE1Tr - <br /> :MJCflAIU. T. onRRJ.F. (611) 291.895~ <br /> FAX NO. (6i2) 21f:l.1'75j <br /> July 17, 1992 <br /> Catherine raga <br /> City of Arden Hills <br /> 1450 West Highway 96] <br /> Arden Hills, MN 55112 <br /> RE: Keithson Pond Assessments <br /> Our File No.: 10450/900008 <br /> Cathy; <br /> I have reviewed correspondence as submitted by the Keithson <br /> homeowners dated JUly 13, 1992 and by Mr. Fostor dated July 15, <br /> 1992. In regard to the prooedural issues raised in those <br /> documents, r offer the following comments: <br /> . l. It was my understanding that the Counc~l had opened and <br /> closed the public hearing on this project and tabled <br /> action on the adoption of the assessment roll until July <br /> 13, 1992. However, the notices which were sent to the <br /> property owners did indicate that they would be given an <br /> additional opportunity to comment on the assessments <br /> priOr to the adopt~on of the assessment roll. Although <br /> accepting additional corrunents is not legally required, it <br /> might be apPI'opriate in this particular case. <br /> 2. As I sat at the Counoil Meeting, I was assuming that all <br /> Council Members had oopies of the memo prepared by <br /> Counc:il Member Malone relating to objections raised by <br /> various property Owners. It would have been better if <br /> the aotion taken by the Council on July 13, 1992, had <br /> included a discussion of Council Member Malone's <br /> determinat~ons, or in the alternative, if the memo had at <br /> least been incorporated in the action of the City <br /> Council. <br /> . <br /> ---.- <br />