My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6621
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6600
>
res_6621
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:10:14 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:55:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6621
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Alternate 2, Improvement No. UL-77-21 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
3/20/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 />street lights it's not quite as good. The reason is that they <br />have no facilities to hang their standard arm and light fix- <br />ture on. Since they have to provide a pole and run the wiring <br />up that pole where they don't normally do this, they charge <br />the City an extra fee for providing these street lights. As <br />an example, a typical street light that would cost the City <br />$6.77 a month routinely in this looation, will cost $8.45 a <br />month to pay NSP to provide for the power, (inaudible) the <br />lamps, putting them back in if they burn out. <br /> <br />Now, in this case, the City is proposing that we would <br />give credit to the owners in the area for any expenses we would <br />normally incur if this were a typical street light in some <br />other area, so from any expenses we have to pay NSP we would <br />be Subtracting the same costs we always have, so in reality <br />you're only looking at something approaching 20% to 25% of what <br />it's really costing the City to do these improvements. To that <br />we have had to make an educated guess as to how much utility <br />bills will increase from NSP over the next 20 years normally. <br />That's the reason that we usually end up having a much higher <br />figure, but by having such a small improvement this time and <br />having the money paid early - mainly over two years, which is <br />our recommendation - we are hopeful that if we can invest <br />that money we will be able to keep track or keep a (inaudible) <br />with the inflation rates of NSP's increasing rates by putting <br />that money in the bank and coming out year by year even. <br /> <br />Atlernative 1 calls for two lights, and Alternative 2 <br />requires the construction of an additional 80 feet of under- <br />ground electrical wire, and that cost is $245, so that's the <br />only difference between them. One moves the light a little to <br />the east, and we have to put in 80 feet of underground wire. <br /> <br />In each case there are four parcels proposed to be <br />assessed. These are 291 Grandview which is directly opposite <br />the light, 293 which is again on the periphery of it, and then <br />the five homes on the sou~h side of Grandview, and the three <br />homes on the north side. The actual number that would <br />ultimately be assessed, if the project is approved, would not <br />be determined at this meeting, but would be determined at a <br />later meeting on assessments. That's the extent of the expla- <br />nation. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: As Charlie has indicated, there are two <br />alternates. On Alternate 1 the total cost is $1,068.50. <br />Alternate 2, because of the $245 additional, comes up to the <br />$1,313.50 that was published. We have assumed that, depending <br />on the assessment hearing of course, that if we get up to <br />where ten lots are actually assessed, under Alternative 1 it <br />would be $106.85 per lot, and Alternate 2 would be $13l.35. <br /> <br />Because these are fairly small assessments, the recommen- <br />dation is to do it over a two year period with an 8' carrying <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.