My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6622
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6600
>
res_6622
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:10:14 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:55:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6622
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. SS-W-ST-P-77-27, Including Alternate 3A, 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.
/
19
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 />MR. SAM CAVE: Can I speak twice? <br />HAYOR DEMOS: Give me a minute. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: Quit while you're ahead. <br /> <br />HR. CAVE: Nobody asked for a petition for Transit to be <br />improved, and nobody is here to support it. I watched what <br />you did with Oxford and Ryan, and if somebody wanted it fixed <br />in front of their house you fixed it, and if they didn't, you <br />didn't fix it. <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: There's no question that the Council initiated <br />that part of the improvement, but I think you're miSleading <br />yourself to believe that that street would be there after you <br />finished your improvement. <br /> <br />r1AYOR DEMOS: There is just no street there. Another <br />thing, Sam. ~lliat you said is true, but there have been people <br />from Transit Avenue who came up here - as he said, he had a <br />meeting with some of the neighbors who sat down and looked at <br />the facts and figures, and in ,dew of what they sal\1, they <br />are not here to oppose it. <br /> <br />MR. CAVE: I was at the meeting and nobOdy carne to ask <br />for this. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEr1OS: I know one person that would love to have <br /> <br />it. <br /> <br />MR. CAVE: They will be assessed (inaudible) of what the <br />actual cost is. <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: The people who were there would be assessed <br />the full frontage at the full 22%. <br /> <br />MR. CAVE: The whole $70,000 or $86,000 will go against <br />the properties. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: That's not correct. You would only be <br />assessed the amounts if you (inaudible) your half. In other <br />words, to try and answer the question you raised, is any cost <br />of the project that doesn't get picked up by assessments to <br />the abutting owners, namely people paying 10% because of the <br />side or 22% - the remainder are piCked up by the city - not <br />assessed to the other property owners. It's not a case where <br />all the money comes to the property owners. (Inaudible) <br /> <br />MR. CAVE: These are the people that are not in my project. <br />They're not here to oppose it. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: Whatever the difference of putting the <br />roadway in and what they pay is not being assessed against <br /> <br />l4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.