My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7621
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7600
>
res_7621
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:18:27 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:18:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7621
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. SS-84-4 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
7/9/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />JOE CASEY, 1965 N. victoria: I would like to point out that I <br />don't remember being offered this sewer because they hadn't <br />figured out how to make it go uphill yet. <br /> <br />DEMOS: You probably weren't offered at that point, because a <br />lift pump would have been needed. <br /> <br />CASEY: I do have a question, if this is voted down, or put <br />on deferment, is the Council prepared to give the Olson's per- <br />mission to build a new septic? And if I should want to build a <br />house where it says 264 in blue, can I get a septic system? <br /> <br />DEMOS: NO. <br /> <br />CASEY: Then all the people who are complaining are the ones <br />who don't have to pay unless they sell half their lot? <br /> <br />DEMOS: I guess this is something that disturbs me, and I say <br />this from the inside of me, having had four children and having to <br />have the septic tank emptied every ten days for months and months. <br />A septic system is disease ridden and filthy. <br /> <br />AUDIENCE: I would like to say that my system is 50 years old <br />and still working fine. But in regard to the assessments, the two <br />people who didn't get sewer were still assessed for a lateral and <br />a main, and we paid for them to, so we've been paying for sewer we <br />could not have. <br /> <br />HONCHELL: I'm sorry I didn't follow your last statement, you <br />have been assessed for sanitary sewer? <br /> <br />DEMOS: Not assessed, but in the taxes. We all pay for that <br />whether we are connected or not. Any other statements, pro or <br />con? <br /> <br />TAMSEN: WE just received our first packet of information on <br />this project on the 16th of June, stating that they were running a <br />big sewer line through 5 acres in Roseville. I think we need more <br />time to look at this than three weeks. We've checked with a <br />couple land developers in the short amount of time that we had to <br />work on this, and they tell us that its not the most advantageous <br />place to put that sewer or road if a road were to be considered, <br />which were not considering at this time. I really feel that we <br />should have a little more time to research this and study it. <br />This is really a big project to be thinking about, and to try to <br />go through all those fine details in such a short time is dif- <br />ficult. <br /> <br />DEMOS: Anyone else wish to be heard? <br />hearing. <br /> <br />I will then close the <br /> <br />FRANKE: Charlie, have you talked to any other developers. I <br />am concerned about whether it mayor may not be the best place to <br />put this sewer system? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.