My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2002_0603
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2002
>
CC_Minutes_2002_0603
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:39:51 AM
Creation date
8/14/2006 12:59:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/3/2002
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 />City Council Minutes - 06/03/02 <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />phosphorus fertilizers, some have already switched, <br />some stock it, some have not. <br />Maschka: wait for the State's restriction <br />Schroeder: let State take initiative on switch no action <br />by the city. <br /> <br />Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, to not change <br />anything, let the State make the ban on the sale of <br />fertilizer with phosphorus. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Kough, Klausing, Schroeder, <br />Maschka and Kysylyczyn. Nays: none. <br /> <br />VI. Organizational Business <br />A. Assessment Policy Assessment Policy <br />(Previous RCA, May 20, 2002, requested: Direct staff as <br />to desired changes to special assessments policy and to <br />work with the City Attorney and return to the Council <br />with language changes that reflect the Council's intent) <br />Beets/Schwartz: <br />Looking for direction for Co. Rd. C Streetscape Project. <br />What would the assessment look like? Whom does the <br />streetscape benefit? Who should be assessed and at what <br />level? What levels of enhancements are wanted? <br />Schwartz made presentation on the Streetscape Project, <br />which included funding and cost sharing policies. <br />Kough: city is initiating, shouldn't impact hardship on <br />the property owners. City should pay 100%. If there <br />were no curb and gutter, perhaps they should be assessed <br />some percentage. <br />Schroeder: benefit to whole city above and beyond, city <br />should pay for it. If homeowner requests something <br />special they then should pay for it. <br />Kough: Sidewalks should be assessed. <br />Maschka: landowner should share a reasonable portion <br />of cost. Streetscape makes it a pleasant place to be. <br />Small assessment would be appropriate. <br />Schroeder: additional enhancements should be 100% <br />city because of the benefit to the city. <br />Maschka: would like to see what the different levels of <br />enhancements would look like. <br />Klausing: yes would like to explore all the different <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.