My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2009_0727
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
CC_Minutes_2009_0727
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/13/2009 12:07:07 PM
Creation date
8/13/2009 12:07:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/27/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 27, 2009 <br />Page 2 <br />Committee to see how this fits in with the overall city pathway scheme; and no- <br />tice to potentially affected neighbors of that meeting. <br />Councilmember Ihlan offered her support to the neighborhood in accomplishing <br />this request; and opined that, as long as the City was looking at policy issues, they <br />consider other potential neighborhoods with similar situations, and use this <br />neighborhood as a model for those residents who are interested in sidewalks at <br />this time. <br />City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429, related <br />to the process to create improvements and assess a portion of the costs; requiring <br />a certain threshold of petitions, as well as an appeal process for those not in <br />agreement. City Manager Malinen advised that staff would prepare a report, in- <br />cluding those provisions, for the City Council's review and discussion; and noted <br />that staff's initial estimates were of a preliminary nature, and that should assess- <br />ments be considered, more technical information would be required in accordance <br />with State Statute. <br />City Attorney Anderson concurred with City Manager Malinen's comments; not- <br />ing that the petition percentage threshold varied depending on the specific public <br />improvement being considered and the particular improvement under which they <br />were addressed. City Attorney Anderson advised that, property owners were able <br />to petition their government for a project, with property owners assessed; how- <br />ever, he noted that then all property owners benefiting from the improvement <br />would be assessed equally within the provisions of the City's Assessment Policy, <br />whether they supported the project or not, thus the appeal process and ability to <br />challenge as to whether the project should move forward or not. <br />Mayor Klausing asked that the Hadlichs follow up with City Manager Malinen for <br />additional information. <br />Councilmember Roe noted a similar situation occurred in the recent past related to <br />decorative street lighting in a specific neighborhood. <br />Ms. Hadlich provided the City Manager with information on their request to-date. <br />4. Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelop- <br />ment Authority (HRA) Report <br />Councilmember Pust noted that the HRA had met earlier that evening, and would be pro- <br />viding their update at tonight's joint meeting with the City Council. <br />Mayor Klausing reminded citizens of the remaining series of community meetings as part <br />of the continuation of Imagine Roseville 2025, to discuss various city issues and as a part <br />of the process in developing future budgets and prioritizing City programs and services. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.