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 />(inaudible) and they have conceptually approved this project. <br />They are also strongly desirous of not having water run north <br />so as more land develops the run off becomes greater - the water <br />will have to run somewhere. If it can't run out it will have <br />to be in ponding areas or sitting in somebody's property or in <br />the road. What we're trying to do is beat the problem to some <br />degree because as more and more area does develop we're going <br />to have this added water and it will have nowhere to go and that <br />includes down here. You recall last year when water was across <br />the road down there because I saw that because barricades were <br />put across part of the road. <br /> <br />MR. DORSO: That was right close to County Road C. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: Between the off ramp and C-2. But one of <br />the reasons is because this is part of an old county drain which <br />used to meander and run up here and go north but the facilities <br />just aren't adequate to carry it and as the pieces get flooded <br />they just don't flow. <br /> <br />MR. DORSO: <br />going to get some <br />I happen to be in <br />the total village <br /> <br />I'm against it unless all the property that's <br />benefit - I just don't feel that I, because <br />1:ha t red tr ia nq1e - should be a pa rt of it. <br />wants to be involved, I'm in favor of it. <br /> <br />If <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: We didn't go through our old explanation of <br />the top of the hill and the bottom and how the procedure is to <br />assess them all. This is just in general the way the city <br />always has done it and the way this was developed. The city has <br />taken the apprnach that everyone has rainfall that falls on <br />their property and it runs somewhere. They may be on the top <br />of a hill and it runs off their property down to the fellow be- <br />side them and to the next and next and gets to the bottom of <br />the hill. If there's a big enough outlet no one has a problem. <br />If there is, someone has a lake in their yard. The city has <br />taken the approach that everyone's water contributed down the <br />hill to that problem. Therefore, everyone is a cont.ributor to <br />the problem and as such, anyone that has water that is picked up <br />by a drainage facility or improvement is assessed by the city <br />as receiving some benefit - be it indirect in many cases. I <br />hope that to some degree explains why your property, toget:her <br />with all other property inside that line, is inside the lihe. <br />Not everyone has a flooding problem but they have water that <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.