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 />The code further says that on residentially used and zoned <br />properties that are in existence, that those parcels, where <br />possible, will only be assessed 22% of the actual cost of the <br />improvement. Namely, if the cost - and I use the figure $100 <br />for an example - if it really cost $100 to build half of that <br />street, then the assessment rate would be $22 a foot. That's <br />an exaggeration, and only for example. The rates are far lower <br />than that. The commercial properties - and it's zoned commer- <br />cial from here on, and replatted areas are proposed to be <br />assessed at 100% of the actual cost. The code says that auto- <br />matically anything higher than R-l or R-2 zoning is to be <br />assessed at 100%. As I stated earlier, the lesser existing <br />zoning of single family lots are only to be assessed at 22% of <br />their cost. <br /> <br />We had an informal meeting for some of the owners, but <br />several of you couldn't make it. To help you understand where <br />you are - this lot is being considered side lot. The next <br />three are Obviously frontage because they are not on the <br />corner. This is frontage, and those are commercial so they <br />are being charged their lOO% rate. This is the side lot for <br />that lot. This is only 70 feet, which is less than the length, <br />so this is considered a front lot, and again, when we get to <br />the platted (inaudible) considered at 100% of the cost of <br />whatever their half of the roadway is. <br /> <br />As I say, it's a recommendation of the staff, for the <br />reasons given earlier, that this roadway be improved at this <br />time so it will not have to be dug up again in the near future, <br />and we don't feel after putting a temporary road back in, after <br />constructing the utilities, will be a workable solution. It <br />will cost money to put the road back, and I think in five years <br />the road will be shot just from the construction activities. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: I'll probably make this more confusing. <br />The published notice was in the amount of $207,214, and that <br />was a combination of the most expensive alternatives, because <br />we have to publish what the greater cost is. That included <br />an Alternate 1 which is not before you, so corning to Alternate <br />2, and breaking it down by sub-matter, and this would include <br />the sanitary sewer, watermain, cul-de-sac and streets for the <br />Sam Cave plat, plus sanitary sewer and watermain on Transit <br />Avenue. <br /> <br />On the sewer main on the plat there's a total cost of <br />$24,421 which will come out at $10.65 a foot. For the parcels <br />on the south side of Transit, there is a cost of $6,990, and <br />at the assessable feet available, that would be $13.50 a foot. <br /> <br />The sanitary services, depending whether four inch or 6 <br />inch would be $7,676 for 23 at four inch, and $4500 for 10 ser- <br />vices at 6 inch. That comes out to $333 or $450 as the case <br />may be. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.