My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_1976_0510
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
197x
>
1976
>
CC_Minutes_1976_0510
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 8:56:32 AM
Creation date
2/1/2005 2:36:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/10/1976
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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 />assessment policy. Your typical policy would be to put that on <br />a general ad valorem tax because you already assessed the prop- <br />erty for the water. Once again, the rest of the city is not <br />ga1n1ng. The problem I have is in adding this to our contract, <br />which I assume would be substantially less money. The previous <br />water improvement is $8.21. This is estimated at $25. We're <br />talking about eight inoh main and 11m not sure if that was six. <br />At any rate, the number seems high. We could add this water to <br />the existing sewer and water and sanitary sewer that we're <br />putting in Hillsboro 4. However, we do not have the ability to <br />pass on that portion of the cost which is north of Woodbridge. <br />Hillsbora Office Building No. 2 does not belong to Ban Con so <br />it almost has to be in some sort of assessment. I guess what <br />I would like to do, although this isn't an assessment hearing <br />I understand, the whole decision is tied up in the assessment <br />because of the large cost involved - $25 a foot versus something <br />I could have done for less - I would like to put this off if <br />it's not too inconvenient and give me an opportunity to meet <br />with the engineering department and see if we could solve the <br />assessment problem and tack this on to the existing project <br />because maybe we can bring this in at $8 a foot and I'm not <br />sure how we can put this on our project and assess Hillsboro <br />Number 2. My request is to put this off and see if we can solve <br />this. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: How long a time do you want? <br /> <br />MR. ~GEN: If it can be solved, I'm sure we can do tt <br />within a week. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: I have no objection. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN HESS: I don't either. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: If we order the improvement - could <br />we order the improvement and then cancel it later. This is a <br />piece of watermain that we really have to have and if you can't <br />figure out a way to solve the problem then all we've done is <br />lose some time. <br /> <br />MR& HAGEN: I recognize that and I'm sympathetic with your <br />position to get it through. I think we could solve it within a <br />week. I guess when we assumed the water cost - I didn't think <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.