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 />charge, with the right of prepayment, of course, at any time, <br />and then it would be spread along with regular real estate <br />taxes as is the case with other improvements. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEltOs: Any statements? <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: No letters or communications. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I will open the hearing to the public. I <br />ask that each speaker come to the microphone and identify him <br />or herself and the street address to which you're referring. <br />This is the street lights for Grandview Avenue. Anyone have <br />any questions or statements pro or con to the proposal? Any <br />statements? <br /> <br />Back to the Council, and I would like to make one statement <br />to you, that since this was by petition, it takes three votes <br />of the Council. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: Why do we have those two alternates? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: There was a meeting held with the residents <br />in the home of one of the people in the area, and there was an <br />expressed interest, by some of the people at least, to have the <br />pole moved one lot easterly. The home at 260 did not desire <br />to have the pole located at the corner of their structure, and <br />requested that it be moved, and we said we would come up with <br />an alternative to find out what it would cost. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: And they didn't sign the petition? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: 260 didn't. As far as the staff is con- <br />cerned, we're impartial as to where the light is located. We <br />will put it wherever it's desired by the people in the area. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: The cost is $245 to run that line 80 <br />fee t . <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: I-iy personal feeling would be that <br />we should go with Alternate 2 in order to get it away from that <br />person that did not sign the petition even though we will have <br />to pay a little more on the assessment. I think it would make <br />for a happier solution there. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: That's all right with me. They will <br />not get any more light for a few more dollars, but it will be <br />one happy neighbor. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I think it's better to the east because of <br />the area it's going to light. You know, the swampy area next <br />to the apartments. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.