My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_1981_0810
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
198x
>
1981
>
CC_Minutes_1981_0810
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 8:59:23 AM
Creation date
2/2/2005 5:27:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/10/1981
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 />practice on street lights is to assess the difference between <br />what the City would have to pay if that was a standard wooden <br />pole, line above the ground type of street light and, in this <br />case, the underground-fed electrical system for that light. It <br />costs about $2.20 or so a month difference for that light and <br />the power. The practice has been for the City to pick up really <br />the bulk of the cost, which is what a standard light would be <br />because it does meet our system of being on an intersection, and <br />to assess the difference between that cost for the regular <br />light and this underground-fed light, for a 20 year period, <br />including anticipated increases for the NSP power. That's what <br />is proposed in this case. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: <br />cost is $4,192.25. <br />the rate of $20.45 <br />8% carrying charge <br /> <br />Mayor and members of the Council, the total <br />It's 100% assessed. It will be assessed at <br />per unit, times the number of units, with an <br />over the assessment period. <br /> <br />There were no written communications. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS announced that the meeting was open for the <br />consideration of objections, if any, to said proposed assessment. <br />All persons present were given the opportunity to :'pre!:;ent oral <br />objections. <br /> <br />MRS. KAREN BAHNEMANN, 2656 North Lexington: Mrs. Bahnemann <br />indicated that they had not requested the light, but that the <br />condominium apartments did. She did not feel they should be <br />assessed because they receive no benefit from the light. <br /> <br />Mayor Demos declared the hearing closed, and Councilman <br />Johnson moved that the adoption of the proposed assessment be con- <br />tinued to August 24, 1981, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The motion was <br />seconded by Councilman Kehr and the following voted in favor <br />thereof: All; and the following voted against the same: None. <br />The motion carried. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.