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 />it detracts from their property and decreased the v2lue. <br />I don't feel the property owners with houses along Victoria and <br />West Owasso should be assessed anything. The other thing that <br />I'm concerned about is the ponding area. I know they have made <br />t.heir studies and I know that in Shoreview and Lake Emily they <br />did their studies and every time it rains they end up pumping <br />it over the hill at an extremely high cost to the Village of <br />Shoreview, so I do have that concern too. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I would merely say as far as any assessments, <br />you would not receive any assessments other than storm sewer <br />and the only reason would be because your water would be <br />draining into - <br /> <br />MR. SMITH: On the other hand, these people had the oppor- <br />tunity to sell these lots to the county and in that case, none <br />of us would be paying anything. We wouldn't be paying the <br />money that's left over to the city either, and I can't believe <br />they're going to get that much more out of these lots than if <br />they sold it. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: People had the opportunity, but the county <br />rejected the price. <br /> <br />MR. SMITH~ They chose not to go to Court, right? <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: If you wish to be heard, just cowe up to <br />the microphone. <br /> <br />MR. JAMES KONOLD, 2998 North Victoria: I live next to <br />Mr. Smith. I have basically the same feeling. I can see <br />no advantc>ge to me whatsoever, and from talking with others <br />in other parts of the county, and listening, and I know there <br />are 2 few lawsuits involved, for instance out in Maplewood, <br />the thing they came up \'l/ith \lJas there was no benefit to the <br />home owner. The only possible benefit I can see would be the <br />storm sewer and, of course, we live on top of a hill and the <br />water drains down both ways and also off the back, and the <br />property that concerns us the most is the front of our lot - <br />and the front of our lot where our house is drains on to <br />Victoria and down the sides down the regular drainc>ge, so <br />really what would drain down the back in either Smith's case <br />or mine, would be negligible. It's just an open space there, <br />but it seems pretty far-fetched, and to be assessed that ~ind <br />of money for something so nebulous as that - there's really <br /> <br />-9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.