My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6677
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6600
>
res_6677
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:10:21 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:56:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6677
Resolution Title
Ordering the construction of Improvement No. SS-W-ST-P-78-16 under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
7/10/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />$335,000. That also would include some participation by St. <br />Anthony, and the total Roseville participation runs in the <br />neighborhood of $100,000 or 5% of the improvement, and from <br />that hundred thousand there is storm sewer, curb and gutter, <br />signals, watermain extensions, sanitary sewer and water service <br />connections and various things mentioned by r,tr. Honchell, and, <br />again, I have a complete set of plans which have been on file <br />which I will be happy to review as long as anyone is interested. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL~ Perhaps we could explain that some of the <br />costs that were mentioned, I think are not the same costs that <br />we had as part of our feasibility costs in the feasibility <br />study. (Inaudible) these are higher to take into consideration <br />inflation and I'm not sure you had the watermains in there, so <br />we have a much higher total. <br /> <br />rilAYOR DEHOS: But it does not exceed the amount that went <br />to the m-mers. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH~ ~~en the public notices were prepared, the <br />costs we revised so the actual total cost then was $1,800,793. <br />That portion attributable to Rosevil1e is $175,034, rather than <br />the figure that you just heard a moment ago. <br /> <br />That $l75,000 is broken down to a number of items. For <br />example, the paving portion of the $1,800,000 is $1,448,595. <br />We will pay nothing toward the paving. The cost of the curb <br />and gutter is $62,445. The city must pay 75% and the county <br />~ays 15% so that we will there pick up $46,834 of the paving <br />which is really the curb and gutter portion. That $46,000 it <br />is proposed to assess against benefitted property owners at <br />$S.l8 a front foot. That $5.l8 will raise our commitment of <br />$46,000 out of $175,000 total. <br /> <br />On the storm sewer the total cost is $188,967 for that, <br />but our share is $48,650. He have some 66 acres of property <br />that will be benefitted, and that works to $737 per acre. If <br />the property O\fl1ers have been assessed before, and there have <br />been some instances in previous storm se'1er hearings "There some <br />may have been assessed at $600 and some at $100, depending on <br />\1hat projectv they ,.rill get credit for the previous assessment. <br /> <br />On the water portion our cost is $lO,580. We have 660 <br />feet involved for an assessment rate of $8.50 a front foot. <br />That's assuming that the main is a 6 inch main. If they go to <br />a 12 inch main our costs are $23vOOO rather than the $lO,OOO, <br />but it's the proposal of the Public Works Department that the <br />assessment rate remain the same at $8.50 and the increased <br />cost be picked up by the city through general taxes. <br /> <br />There's a portion for water services, and that would be <br />$l38 divided by two parcels of property that would get the <br />services, so that would be $69 each. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.