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 />new b. Coming on through that intersection with Long Lake Road <br />it would narrow down to the 52 foot road (inaudible) and tie <br />into the ramp (inaudible) 35W here and would narrow down to <br />the existing bridge over 35Wand on the other side of 35W coming <br />off the bridge, widen off for a left turn provision for the <br />north turn ramp and the 52 foot section over to Cleveland to <br />complet.e the ~roject. I have some detailed slides concerning <br />the relationship of these proposed curbs ~o the existing prop- <br />erty out there - existing development - but I think for the time <br />being I will let it go at this and see if there are any ques- <br />tions before I confuse anyone. Thank you. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Would the bond consultan~ present a summary. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: While t.he published cost of this improvement <br />was $563,636.00, as we said, the county will be paying the major <br />portion of building of the road, and 75% of the curb and gutter <br />portion which the city is asked to contribute is $14,286.00 of <br />this over half a million dollar project. It is proposed that <br />the $14,286.00 will be 100% assessed against the benefited <br />property. As Mr. Leonard said, it would be $3.00 a front foot <br />on residential which will raise $2,797.50. On the industrial, <br />commercial and multiple dwelling that would be nearly double <br />at $5.94 a foot for a total of $11,468.50. Add t.hose together <br />and it would be $14,2[6.00. The same principle applies as to <br />prepayments of assessments. If no prepayments, then the as- <br />sessments would be spread with the real estate taxes in the <br />year following the assessment hearing, and an 8% carrying charge <br />is recommended. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Any written statements? <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: No writt.en statements. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Any ques t.ions ? <br /> <br />MR. ROBERT THOMPSON, 3037 N. Cleveland: I have a question - <br />I'm not too concerned about the west part. of this, but I am the <br />east part because this ties into possible other improvements, <br />which are 76-8 and 76-9 where i~ meets Cleveland Avenue - this <br />particular thing, if it.'s approved, the grade there will have <br />to be lowered. If this is lowered at that point corning from <br />the west and the other is not. okayed or assessed, we will have <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.