My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 11-29-1971
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1971
>
CC 11-29-1971
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:22:59 PM
Creation date
11/15/2006 3:00:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. STEPHEN KRANNAK, 1761 Fernwood, Roseville: Asked if <br />his property included in the improvement is considered commer- <br />Cial property. <br /> <br />MR. WILLIAM A. FEYEREISEN, 4261 N. HaInline: Asked for the <br />percentage the assessments will raise of the total cost of the <br />improvement and how that percentage compares with previous water <br />assessments in the village. Be thought the 84% assessments were <br />high in comparison to other water improvements. was informed <br />that some village owned property had been included in the <br />assessments. <br /> <br />MR. GEORGE REILING, 3411 Vivian, Shoreview: Pointed out <br />that he was being assessed 100% for water Dnprovement No. 70-1 <br />and Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. 16 and asked why he should <br />have to pay for a portion of Water Improvement 71-1 through <br />general taxes. <br /> <br />MR. ROBERT W. ANDERSON, JR., 1357 Floral Drive: Has been <br />assessed for 130 feet of frontage but only has 121.83 feet. <br />He has also been charged 15 feet on HaInline Avenue as a corner <br />lot. H:>wever, the original corner lot was purchased by the <br />highway department for right of way. Since the water main on <br />Hamline is SO or 60 feet away from his property and he doesn't <br />have access to it, he felt the additional 15 foot assessment <br />should be eliminated. <br /> <br />MR. WILLIAM A. FEYEREISEN, 4261 N. HaInline (Spoke before): <br />Asked if the levy limitation provision in the new 1971 Tax Bill <br />would apply to the general taxes proposed to be levied for this <br />improvement. <br /> <br />MR. EDWARD THILL, 1474 Floral Drive: Said that he's being <br />assessed for 110 feet of frontage and at the feasibility <br />hearing he had been told he would be assessed for 85 feet. It <br />was explained that he had been told he would be assessed the <br />average assessment of the platted properties adjacent to him <br />for running a service line to his property. <br /> <br />MR. ROBERT ANDERSON, JR., 1357 Floral Drive (Spoke before): <br />Asked how much public property there is in the improvement that <br />has not been assessed. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. WILLIAM A. FEYEREISEN, 4261 N. HaInline (Spoke before): <br />Be's being assessed for 195 feet on HaInline but does not think <br />he should be assessed for 60 feet of street easement. <br /> <br />MRS. PAUL HUSTINGS,4l36 Norma Circle: Asked how long the <br />assessments would run and if they could pay a portion of it <br />and have the balance spread on the tax rolls. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.