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 />have appealed the award of ~he commissioners in this (inaudible) <br />because we have taken it to the District Court where the matter <br />is pending to recoup some portion of the expenditures that will <br />be required in order to cure the problem. The City of Roseville <br />now proposes to make assessment and, frankly, add insult to <br />injury. <br /> <br />I~YOR DE~DS: The city didn't propose that. We went <br />through this t't^JO years ago. He t1ere tole. all the costs would <br />be ~icked u~. These costs have been transferred to us. <br /> <br />rm. BRUNELL: I apologize. The point is, with all due <br />respect, the improvements do not benefit us. <br /> <br />~1y point in appearing tonight is to again state that the <br />benefit to us is not existent and we wanted to state that fact <br />on the record and (inaudible). <br /> <br />HR. HONCHELL~ Just to perhaps clarify something. This <br />is not an assessment hearing. This is not a time when any <br />cost will be levied against your pronerty. I just wanted to be <br />sure we understood that. <br /> <br />~mYOR DEtl0S~ Anyone else wishes to be heard? Anyone else <br />who wishes to be heard on this suhject? Is there anyone else <br />toTho "Tishes to be heard on the improvement to County Road C? <br />If not, I will close the hearing. <br /> <br />COUNCILHA..T\f CURLEY~ Our motion tonigl-}.t is to approve the <br />project, is that correct? <br /> <br />UR. HONCHELL: You will be approving the project and sub- <br />sequently there would be another motion coming at the next <br />meeting to you to actually approve the final plans and the <br />agreements with the costs, if this were approved. <br /> <br />Councilman Curley then introduced the followinq resolution <br />and moved its adoption: <br /> <br />Resolution No. 6677 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION <br />OF UtPROVErmNT NO. SS-TJ1-ST-P-78-16 <br />UNDER AND PURSUA~~T <br />TO rUNl~ESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 429 <br /> <br />BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville, <br />l'1innesota, that in accordance with the provisions of rUnnesota <br />Statutes 1961, Chapter 429, as amended, the Council held a <br />public hearing on the proposed construction of Improvement No. <br />SS-N-ST-P-78-l6 in conjunction with the County of Rarnsev by <br />the installation of sani tary set~er, ",atermain, storm se"'er, <br />concrete curb and gutter, traffic signal, bituminous surfacing, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.