My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6368
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6300
>
res_6368
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:09:47 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:49:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6368
Resolution Title
Ordering the construction of Improvement No. ST-76-8 under and pursuant to Minnesota statutes, chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
5/10/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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 />COUNCILMAN GRAUEL: I rhink as Mr. Popovich stated, the <br />cost of materials and labor, therels a general inflation t.hat <br />everyone is aware of and we have to meet a certain amount of <br />any improvement that has to be picked up by assessments. If <br />you remember back when water was constructed throughout the <br />community we kept the water charges there I think at $6.05, <br />$6.25 and $6.40 to keep it uniform so the last to have their <br />properties improved would not have excessive assessments against <br />their property. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I would like to say thar when storm sewers <br />were put in the assessment was $200 a lot so that has gone up <br />once. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN GRAUEL: The first was $200 and then five or six <br />years ago it was increased to $250. <br /> <br />~~. SMITH: What might it be increased to? <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: This is something we have not taken up at all. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN GRAUEL: I would assume this would be in a fairly <br />close range of maybe a $50 increase or something like that. We <br />would want to try to keep it. as stable as possible without penal- <br />izing the people that got the improvement the last and there is <br />still around 30% of the community that is not storm sewered. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: ~ve're required to have at least 20% of the <br />project on the assessment rolls and we're pretty close to that <br />danger line right now. <br /> <br />MR. ROBERT THOMPSON: Based on this (inaudible) idea of new <br />lots that will be developed - if they are - will everyone of <br />those get a $250 assessment when they are developed. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: It will be by acre. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: They would be assessed right now on the <br />assumption they are contributing water. We're going by the <br />zoning when we say (inaudible) so we're assuming that land will <br />stay R-l and if they get assessed on an acreage basis it's <br />identical as if you have a series of small lots. <br /> <br />l5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.