My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6487
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6400
>
res_6487
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:10:00 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:52:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6487
Resolution Title
Ordering the construction of Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-76-23 under and pursuant to Minnesota statutes, chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
5/9/1977
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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. REILING~ The reason is Rice Creek Watershed and <br />DNR. Those ~re the two reasons. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: Are you against this project? <br /> <br />MR. REILING: No, I proposed for it. How could I be <br />against it? The only thing I'm against are the two things I <br />st.ated. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: To partly answer your question, Mr. Reiling# <br />obviously the assessments would be t.he same either way - <br />$295 a lot, so as far as direct assessments - I'm not saying <br />direct cost of the project, but assessments, would be the same <br />because that's a set policy assuming the costs do reach that <br />total. The second is we did review going directly to the lake <br />by taking it north to the lake ?nd pumping it over, much in <br />the same line you discussed. We found there were some grade <br />problems plus the problem of hoping to keep as much water away <br />from Lake Owasso as we could. This is one of 'he instances <br />where we're not in the Rice Creek Wctershed, but (inaudible) <br />DNR. <br /> <br />MR. REILING: DNR is after you, I can tell you that. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: We did review and look Clt the alternatives. <br />We had some back yard grade problems where we would have had to <br />go much deeper than the existing manner and it wouldn't work <br />well with the roads (inaudible). <br /> <br />MR. REILING: If we didn't have a pond, we would be <br />assessed $295 anyway, you said, because the pond (inaudible). <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: The assessment is a flat ~295 per lot. <br /> <br />MR. REILING: If they're assessed (inaudible), are you <br />going to stick it in your pocket? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: The ussessments won't come that high <br />with or without the pond. <br /> <br />MR. REILING: Some go on general taxes. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS~ Do you know what we'd have to do if we did <br />what you want - we'd probably get some of your land on the <br />other side for holding ponds. <br /> <br />-15- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.