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 />the more expensive part coming up to Victoria Avenue. I just <br />think if the Council decides to go this way, to be fair, the <br />entire project should be assessed and people would have to pay <br />more for the development cost of roads, compacting, and fill, <br />should benefit a little from the existing sewer that's there <br />now as an overall picture. Did I clarify myself? <br /> <br />MAYOR LINEBARGER: You're talking about the assessments <br />on Alternate B. <br /> <br />MR. REINHARDT: Those abutting property owners on Alternate <br />B would be assessed at whatever the cost was six years ago <br />and then they're asking the pepple north of that to pay the fUll <br />freight of the sewer, water coming down Sherren Street. If you <br />put on Alternate A. again, maybe we could clarify that (inaudible) <br />bear the cost of all the new (inaudible) where the other property <br />owners would have the advantage of the lower rate of the <br />existing sewer lines but yet they're asking the people to the <br />north to pay their fair share of filling in--would you mark <br />the low.spot--and also where you hit Victoria it's low, and .you <br />got an estimated cost here of $3100 to $3500 for fill. You're <br />asking us to pay for that. If they want us to pay for the fill <br />they should give us a break on the cost of that existing sewer <br />line and divide it up equally. Do you follow what I'm saying? <br /> <br />MAYOR LINEBARGER: I do now. <br /> <br />_MR. REINHARDT: I have one more point. I think both projects <br />the way they are there, state 20 lots. I believe there <br />possibly could be an error in the drawing. Ma.y I walk up to <br />the map. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think this is approximately-- <br />this (inaudible) property line would develop between 14 and l5 <br />your existing sewer line running right along this property <br />line which would cause--which is an easement, but I believe <br />this is only about l4 feet in here frontage for this lot and <br />approximately the same here and I think you would lose Lot l5 <br />because my property comes down to this point here and you're <br />fudging up this way and also you would only have 24 feet. <br />If you deducted this 6, 7, 8 feet here you wouldn't have much <br />of a frontage for this lot so that would cut this project down <br />to 19 lots. What frontages have you figured for these lots in <br />here? , <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: Basically the same widths as on Milton <br />now and the surrounding area. <br /> <br />MR. REINHARDT: I think they figure out to <br />feet. So I think this is misrepresented here. <br />you can get that lot out of there and I haven't <br />time to look this over. Like I say, I got this <br /> <br />be about 78 <br />I don't think <br />had a lot of <br />about twenty <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.