Laserfiche WebLink
<br />} <br />~~. <br /> <br />/0 L/~ <br />/ I <br /> <br />Extract of Minutes of Meeting <br />of City Council <br />City of Roseville <br />Ramsey County, Minnesota <br /> <br />October 13, 1980 <br /> <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting <br /> <br />of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, was <br /> <br />held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, October 13, 1980, <br />at 7:30 o'clock p. m. <br /> <br />The following members were present: Mayor Demos and <br /> <br />Councilmen Curley, Kehr, Franke and Anderson; and the following <br />were absent: None. <br /> <br />Also present were James F. Andre, City Manager; Robert Bell, <br /> <br />City Attorney; Ch~rles Honchell, City Public Works Director; and <br /> <br />Peter S. Popovich, City Bond Consultant. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: The next hearing is UL-80-l3 , Mount Ridge <br />Road north of Brenner, underground street light. <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: I have the Certificate of Mailing and affidavit <br />of publication on file. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: This project is quite similar to the previous one <br />in that it's an underground utility area and it's on Mount Ridge <br />Road just north of Brenner up to County Road D. In this case we do <br />have one of the lights that's able to be served by the normal <br />overhead feeder so it's included to be installed, but it's not <br />included in any of the costs, the reason being that the City has a <br />policy of providing overhead street lights at the intersection <br />so that would be installed as part of the project if it's passed, <br />and a mid-block light, and one at the intersection of Brenner and <br />Mount Ridge Road. <br /> <br />Again, this is a result of a petition with 19 of the 23 <br />assessable lots signing the petition and it's proposed to be put <br />in, if pvssible, this year, and assessed following the completion <br />of the work next year. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: The total estimated cost of this improvement <br />is $2946.24 and, divided by 23 lots, would amount to $128.10 per <br />lot. The same thing would apply here as I said in the other <br />improvement - normally a one-year assessment with 8% carrying <br />charge, and the big question is, since the length of the assessment <br />hasn't been determined, you may wish to hear whether you do it <br />in one year or two, as the case may be. It isn't included in a <br />