My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7071
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7000
>
res_7071
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:13:33 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:05:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7071
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. P-80-17 Alternate B Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
11/17/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />5 <br /> <br />department I was given the amount of $194,450 if Judith was <br />included. I was also given the $167,500 when we would only have <br />Griggs Street. There's a $206,650 figure and, as I understand Mr. <br />Popovich, that's if this little "el" to the east (inaudible). <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: That would include Judith east and west of <br />Griggs. <br /> <br />MS. EDSTROM: I'm opposed to paying for Judith. <br /> <br />MR. GERALD SULLIVAN 2820 North Griggs: I'm the petitioner. <br />I don't know if I want to identify myself like that tonight. I <br />can't really improve upon the little speech you gave earlier. I <br />endorse all of those reasons. I think it would be good for our <br />neighborhood. The one thing I have trouble with is the addition <br />of Judith. We did not discuss that, and it does increase the cost <br />and I'm concerned some of them may not want to go with that. If <br />we could get the opinion of the people that will be affected by <br />Judith (inaudible) <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: Are you talking about both parts? <br /> <br />MR. SULLIVAN: I believe the short part of Judith is that they <br />do not want it improved (inaudible) from the other part of Judith, <br />the one who lives on Fernwood, I'd be more comfortable with their <br />improvement, but I would endorse Plan A. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I might say why some of these cross streets were <br />put into a proposed project is that if we build streets and we assess <br />on front footage and then on side streets, we only assess lO% of <br />each lot or, in this case, thirteen and a half feet which would mean <br />from Griggs to Fernwood you have probably 270 feet and you would be <br />only assessing for 27 feet. Who pays the cost? Supposing we build <br />all our front foot streets and we have all these bits and pieces of <br />lots in between. Our concern is, who is going to do them because <br />we're required by law to have one-fourth of the cost in assessments <br />so this has been our concern and the City felt that possibly we <br />should be considering doing these - some of these short sections - <br />with the street because there isn't any frontage and in that case <br />the four houses do face - two on Griggs and two on Fernwood, and <br />that is our concern because we don't feel the people should pay for <br />corner lots as some people did on Woodhill Drive. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: To use the example of the particular roadway we're <br />looking at now. If Judith - let's say we passed Griggs all by itself <br />and tomorrow there was a petition to do Judith between Griggs and <br />Fernwood. The cost isn't any different tomorrow than today. There's <br />something like $27,000 to do that block between Griggs and Fernwood. <br />If there's thirteen and a half assessable feet for those four lots <br />that makes 54 assessable feet. 54 assessable feet into $27,000 is <br />$500 a foot assessment costs. Even when you divide that by four <br />that's $125 a foot each of those four property owners on Judith would <br />have to pay for assessments because we still have to assess a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.