res_6782 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

16 MR. HARLEN TORGERSON, 646 Terrace Drive: I am not in favor of the project. MR. REUBEN THOMPSON 601 Iona Lane: I am in favor of the project as far as the sewer and street widening goes - but no sidewalk. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: Charlie, if we put the road in and don't put the storm sewer in, we undermine the project and throw $199,000 down the drain. MR. HONCHELL: I wouldn't recommend it. COUNCILMAN FRANKE: As I listen to the testimony I can't help feeling there's some misunderstanding, and this happens whenever anybody's pocketbook is touched, and we have a (inaudible) to look at it from our own point of view, and even the people who don't want it do feel that the people on Iona need a new street, so in all good conscience if we spend that money and get the Minnesota state aid at no cost to the people on the street - who 77% petitioned - that's just the people that wanted the paving. That has nothing to do with the storm sewer project. That's a result of that large dotted line because that street is going to be paved. But the paving of the street is~ing to be one issue because it's an MSA road. Because we're going to do that and because we want to protect the work we're doing, we need to put the storm sewer in which will affect those people in the dotted line. Maybe not exactly as Mr. Honchell pointed out, but according to the preliminary plans this is the way it looks to him and those people are here and saying they are not in favor, but you cannot feel that for those people to have a good street which they need and to help us protect the dollars we put in to pave that street you would not be willing to pay $l.25 a month so they can have it. I can't (inaudible) that isn't the way all of you feel and I certainly - if we're going to pave the street, and I feel we must do it for these people, then I think we all have to take it on the chin, and it's regrettable, but 12 years was a long time ago and some of that wasn't developed then. MR. GERALD J. MANGLE, 637 Iona Lane: The very simple reason we're objecting is because you're holding an assessment hearing for benefit received and we're not receiving a benefit. Further than that, most of us have already paid for what we have once. We don't want to have to pay for it twice. I'm talking basically about the people on the west side of Dale Street. It seems to me that the city has another alternative. If this is for the good generally of Roseville you can pay for this improvement out of the General Fund and not charge us that have already paid for it once. MAYOR DEMOS: First of all, I'd like to say something. We cannot pay for a storm sewer out of the General Fund. 25% must be assessed against the property owners. We're forbidden by law.