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 />unbuildable loti double that for con~ercial or industrial or <br />multiple property, that would raise assessments of $90,890. <br />Obviously there should be something received from Arden Hills <br />and the county itself, and assuming that would be received we <br />would get $150,436 from assessments. The balance of the <br />improvement would have to go on general taxes, which would be <br />$182,22l which, spread over the 20 year period of time would <br />be a little under $10,000 a year. If the city doesn't replace <br />the street, and the county does the street work under the next <br />improvement, then the total cost is less and the amount on gen- <br />eral taxes would be correspondingly reduced. The assessments <br />would remain the same. I do hasten to point out that as you <br />know, the formula for storm sewers was adopted five or six years <br />ago, if not longer, and it's been our feeling, and we have dis- <br />cussed this with the city administration and the Finance Depart- <br />ment, that perhaps the Council should take a look at what's <br />happened in the last intervening years to determine whether that <br />formula ought to be upped in view of increased costs because <br />you're not getting today for $250 what you were getting five or <br />six years ago, and if we stay with that formula there's a <br />greater amount that has to be put on general taxes, so we're <br />not saying we recommend the $250 or we think it ought to be a <br />higher figure because of what has happened but the Council ought <br />to consider it. Obviously at a feasibility hearing it's not <br />necessary for us to make the financial determination. That will <br />come at the assessment hearing, but I mention it very clearly <br />for the record so in the event the formula is changed, anyone <br />here would know that it was being changed for the particular <br />reasons and things that we're voicing here tonight. <br /> <br />The assessment hearing would be had. The assessments would <br />be collected beginning in the following year with taxes spread <br />over 20 years with an 8% interest charge on the unpaid amount <br />with the right of prepayment during any year in that 20 year <br />period of time. Whatever wouldn't be raised by assessments or <br />Arden Hills or Ramsey County would have to go on general taxes <br />which would affect all of the city and that's a matter the Coun- <br />cil will want to look at very carefully. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Any communica tions ? <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: We have a letter from Carl Fisher, 3lll Prior <br />Circle. "I question the boundary of the area to be assessed, <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.