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 />matter after a hearing for this matter fOllowing the conclusion <br />of this meeting. That decision can not be established tonight <br />but it is the staff's position as a recommendation. We feel that <br />this would give considerable flexibility to the development of <br />the area and would be in keeping with the City's overall desire <br />as having more intensity in a developing community due to the <br />shrinking amount of available land. Thank you. <br /> <br />DEMOS: At this time I would like to ask Tom Deans, to pre- <br />sent the financial information. <br /> <br />DEANS: Mayor and members of the council. This petition for <br />improvement has a proposed total cost of $49,405.26. There are <br />2,156.8 assessable feet-that's including the assessable feet for <br />the assessments which will be done on the present property and <br />the ones that the staff is recommending to be deferred. The <br />estimated cost of construction is $22.91 per foot. That would be <br />100% assessed. As Mr. Honchell has pointed out there are a <br />number of lots where there is no road built yet where the <br />assessments could be deferred until a later time which would have <br />to be decided at the assessment hearing in 1985. These would <br />probably be assessed in 1985 with collections in 1986. <br /> <br />DEMOS: Does the Council have any questions? <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER: On those areas in the blue where they haven't <br />decided whether or not to hook up service, does the City then pay <br />the cost? <br /> <br />HONCHELL: Yes, it would be more in keeping with many of the <br />429 projects, in that it would be partially assessed at this <br />point. Initially the city would fund the remainder out of the <br />sanitary sewer fund and at the time that it is ultimately deve- <br />loped then that fund would be reimbursed. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER: What if it's never hooked into? <br /> <br />HONCHELL: Then the City would never get its full funding for <br />that sanitary sewer project. At a cost of approximately $23 per <br />foot it appeared to the staff that this was a more reasonable <br />funding level for these people to get sanitary sewer, in keeping <br />with what others have paid in the past. If we only assess those <br />in the green, this would be closer to $50 per foot rather than <br />$23 per foot. This would seem to be a rather high cost for sani- <br />tary sewer at least in proportion to what we have charged in the <br />past. <br /> <br />DEMOS: I would like to ask a question before we decide. <br />Supposing one of those in the blue split their lots in a few <br />years, could we not assess them at that point? <br /> <br />HONCHELL: Not unless that is specifically a condition that <br />you put into the deferment. <br /> <br />DEMOS: I would like to know that that was a condition, I <br />would like that put in the deferment. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.