My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6548
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6500
>
res_6548
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:10:06 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:53:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6548
Resolution Title
Ordering the construction of Improvement No. UL-77-10 under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
9/12/1977
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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: Then we have no choice but to set this for <br />October 17 and include the other homes on the south side of <br />Transit, so at this point we have to have a motion to deny. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN HESS: I move to deny, and order another hearing <br />for October l7 and notify the other (inaudible). <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: Starting on the first of November <br />you're subject to a frost charge of $2 a foot for the underground <br />if there happens to be frost in the ground when they're out <br />doing the work. Some years there isn't frost until nearly <br />Christmas, but it seems this year everything has been about a <br />month early, so I wouldn't trust it. There's another way we <br />could do this. Could you turn that last slide on. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN GRAUEL: Why couldn It we approve the one on <br />the Circle, and take this as a separate matter. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: If we approve those, we'd have to <br />drop a couple of lots out on the bottom and let them go with <br />the light on the corner, so you'd have about six or seven lots <br />to assess down here for the street light on Transit, and the <br />rest of the lots be assessed for the street. lights on the cul- <br />de-sac. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: <br />people (inaudible) <br />to tell you what's <br />people (inaudible) <br /> <br />Then you increase the costs <br />if you end up with half the <br />go ing to happen. You don't <br />against it. <br /> <br />to the first <br />lots. Want me <br />include those <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: Then they don't need it. <br /> <br />MR. STRONG: you'd have an 8/7 split. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: We could eliminate those bottom lots <br />and eliminate the light below and assess the cost for the others <br />up here. That, I believe we could do. You can have less, but <br />not more. So that way you could get one light, but I can't <br />tell you when you (inaUdible) a light on Transit. <br /> <br />MR. MARLON PEARSON, 2508 Galtier Circler I'm opposed to the <br />light where it is now. I happen to be an Ml'C driver and I work <br />weird hours and sleep weird hours, and even during the daylight <br />hours the Circle has become a playground for field hockey, kick <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.