My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_1981_0812
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
198x
>
1981
>
CC_Minutes_1981_0812
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 8:59:24 AM
Creation date
2/2/2005 5:27:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/12/1981
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 />"Included in the assessment is an amount of $6,506 for <br />storm sewer benefit. That amount was computed by multiplying <br />the 4.94 acres of right-of-way by $1,317 per acre, the industrial <br />rate used on this improvement. The make-up of the railroad <br />right-of-way being sand, ballast and rock, results in consider- <br />ably less storm water run-off than other industrial properties. <br />With that in mind, I am requesting that our storm sewer benefit <br />be set at $660 per acre, or $3,260 for this parcel." <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 present oral <br />objections. <br /> <br />MR. LAWRENCE STOUFFER, speaking for Rihm Motors: They <br />do not object to the sbreet assessment, but do object to the <br />storm sewer assessment., and also object to the future storm <br />sewer assessment they will receive as a result of the agreement <br />between Roseville and St. Anthony. He indicated that Rihm's <br />assessment was almost 10% of the total on this project. Of the <br />31 parcels included in the improvement, 14 are being assessed <br />for storm sewer. Eight of those parcels are larger than Rihm's <br />but receiving a smaller assessment. Only one parcel has a <br />larger assessment than Rihm. Mr. Stouffer did not think this <br />was an equitable division of the assessments. <br /> <br />Mr. Honchell explained to Mr. Stouffer what each assess- <br />ment was for. Mr. Stouffer replied that they were not complaininq <br />about the water, paving or sanitary sewer - basically just the .. <br />storm sewer. Mr. Honchell told him that of the areas being <br />assessed for storm sewer, they have one of the largest parcels <br />by area. He told him that they only assess for the portion <br />that runs to the facilities that are being constructed and <br />that the City is being charged for by Ramsey County and that if <br />the water has a different way of getting off the property to <br />other facilities, then they are not being charged. <br /> <br />Mr. Stouffer asked Mr. Honchell if most of the water going <br />into the storm sewer was coming off of Rihm's property. Mr. <br />Honchell told him that that area's exit for water was County <br />Road C. Mr. Stouffer again stated that he thought Rihm was <br />being assessed too much, compared to the other parcels involved. <br />Mr. Honchell explained that some of them had credits from past <br />payments, and any credits they had from the past were applied <br />to these costs. Mr. Strong told Mr. Stouffer that they had a <br />credit of $1,801 for the previously assessed storm sewer, which <br />was subtracted from their assessment on this one. Mr. Stouffer <br />asked the Council to look at the matter and asked if they would <br />take some action. Mayor Demos replied that they would look <br />into it, but that they would not take any action until August <br />24. <br /> <br />MR. JOHN HARREN, Speaking for Burlington Northern: Asked <br />the Council to take a second look at their assessment also. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.