My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7079
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7000
>
res_7079
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:13:41 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:05:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7079
Resolution Title
Receiving Report and Providing for Public Hearing on Improvement No. ST-80-22
Resolution Date Passed
11/20/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 />13 <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: 1981, payable in 1982. <br /> <br />~rns. SANDRA IVERSON, l47l Lydia: Just a pant on the assessed <br />cost. I don't know about other mortgages, but on VA, assessments <br />have to be paid. Legally in order to buy. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: Legally it's not required. <br /> <br />FROM THE AUDIENCE: We just went through that. <br /> <br />MR. DAVID SAND, 3039 Asbury: Correct me if I'm wrong. <br />I've been involved in a similar situation as these people in <br />which my house has been sold - a VA purchase - and I attempted <br />to negotiate with the buyers their assumption of whatever assess- <br />ments might be pending against my lot (inaudible) the VA form <br />states in black and white, and I'll be glad to provide a copy to <br />Mr. Popovich, that the seller assumes responsibility for payment <br />of all assessments, whether levied or pending, on the day of <br />closing. If you vote on January 26 it's my understanding that <br />becomes a pending assessment. Therefore, if someone is selling <br />their house and have sold their house and haven't closed by <br />January 26, that seller is responsible for that assessment <br />albeit it's pending and not levied and that seller might not know <br />what his costs will be - we have talked about estimates all <br />night. The Council might work on A, B, C. Has an estimate been <br />made as to what the cost would be (inaudible) <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: There is an easement. Why would we spend time <br />working with them if we're not going to approve it. <br /> <br />MR. SAND: According to Mr. Andre you have authority to <br />approve one or a few of these. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: We have the authority,but much of this was brought <br />about because we have petitions for streets. Those streets cross <br />at least two areas in three places so consequently we're not <br />about to be doing one little area for no reason at all. <br /> <br />MR. SAND: That also brings another point to me and then <br />I'll be quiet. The areas below, 4, 5 and 6 - it sounds as if those <br />projects - the success of those going through depends on whether <br />this project goes through. You will not pave those streets unless <br />the sewer project goes in. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: We stated that at the beginning of the meeting. <br /> <br />MR. SAND: I assume you might want to vote on that on January 26. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: We can postpone the voting until January 26 <br />or we could deny it tonight or we can approve it tonight subject <br />to acceptance of this later on. We have three options open. <br /> <br />MR. SAND: You mention there were detailed plans and specifica- <br />tions that need to be developed. Will those be developed before <br />the January 26 meeting? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: No. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.