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 />MAYOR DEMOS: - meeting af-cer meeting, hearing after <br />hearing, and they changed the priorities fr~m time to <br />time. There were multiple hearings. <br /> <br />MR. NOSBISH: I understand Roseville said we're going to <br />get a big revenue coming in. Some day we'll be all concrete and <br />asphalt, and then what will we do. I feel, just let the water <br />run like it is now out here. We save everybody a lot of money <br />by not putting in ~hese assessments, except for one certain <br />person, and I'm definitely against this, and we're just going to <br />over-populate. I just think it's wrong, and that's my own <br />opinion, and if there's some way I can fight it, I certainly <br />am going to. You may not like it - I can see by your faces. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN GRAUEL: Let me ask you a question, if I may. <br />You ccn believe me when I say I'm not any champion of George <br />Reiling, but I respect him as being a property owner in this <br />community. The very property that you're ~tanding on - or where <br />this building is build on - was acquired from him, and it went <br />through condemnation, and I just sespect him as a businessman <br />because he feels that he knows the value of the land that he <br />owns. If you put yourself in his position, or anyone of you <br />that are opposing this, and say that you have, say, 25 or 30 lots <br />that you don't have a street that you can gain access to and <br />egress eo and from, and you're paying these taxes on individual <br />lots. I don't think this is c fair position to be in either. <br />This is not a re-zoning from any R-l er R-2 or any o~her of our <br />seven zoning classifications. This is for single family resi- <br />dential property development here the same 2IS any property that <br />you people have in the area, and I don't think that he's coming <br />in and asking for something that's unreasonable. I'm sure if he's <br />going to pay $20,000 - or expect $20,000 or $25,000 for these <br />lots, you will have to put up some pretty nice single family <br />residential homes and it's not going to degrade the property <br />around it, and by and large. What I'm hearing tonight is every- <br />body, because they're in rhe drainage area, is opposed to the <br />$295 assessment which everyone of us (inaudible). <br /> <br />MR. NOSBISH: I'm opposed r.o ~7,000. <br /> <br />31- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.