My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6214
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6200
>
res_6214
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:08:58 AM
Creation date
4/23/2005 5:18:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6214
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />MR. POPOVICH: We'd have to go back and look at the legal <br />description. If there's that much of a variance from (inaudible) <br />then it would take four votes, but I couldn't answer that off <br />the top of our hat right now. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN DEMOS: I sat through the Planning Commission <br />hearings on this and there's no doubt about it as to good land <br />use, accessibility - that it almost has to be platted. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN HESS: I also would lean toward Plan A as the <br />engineer stated and as long as it was petitioned for I would <br />vote for Plan A. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN BRENNAN: Some of the questions that Mr. <br />Reinhardt brought up on Plan A - one of his objections was <br />for filling in the road corning out on Victoria and I feel as though <br />if Lot No. l2 and l3 are going to actually absorb just as <br />much (inaudible) going to have to fill in too so they'll have <br />a lot of extra cost there too. <br /> <br />MR. KENNETH REINHARDT: What I was saying, if you decide <br />on Alternate A, then I believe that everyone should be treated <br />fairly by the entire cost of the project being distributed <br />among all of the lots--fill, road, concrete curb and gutter, <br />and also taking into consideration the existing utility where <br />in Alternate A you're taking out the existing utilities all <br />the way through on all those lots - you're removing that and <br />then-sharing the cost. except for the sanitary sewer which <br />the other existing lots will have to pick up all the way through. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN BRENNAN: I was talking about the (inaudible) <br />along the road there. <br /> <br />MR. REINHARDT: I wasn't complaining about that. I just <br />wanted equal cost to all the lots for the entire project where <br />the way it's stated now, Alternate A is not an equal cost per <br />lot owner. 8, 9, lO, ll, l2, l3, l4, l5, and 16 will have a <br />lower assessment due to the fact that they are being given the <br />lower rate of the already existing sewer trunk line. That's <br />the point I was trying to get across. <br /> <br />MAYOR LINEBARGER: Our attorney says we have to spread the <br />cost of the fill over the entire project. <br /> <br />MR. ROBERT BELL: Unless you want to make two improvements. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN BRENNAN: After that point is cleared up I <br />would say I would go for Plan A. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.