My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7308
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7300
>
res_7308
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:15:23 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:10:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7308
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. SS-81-19 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
2/8/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 />engineer is recommending that half of that be assessed. Alter- <br />nate No. II that he talked about is $7,350.15, the assessable <br />footage is 300 feet and the estimated cost per foot would be <br />$24.50, half being assessed. Alternate III is $54,913.70 and <br />Alternate No. IV is $64,286.87. Obviously, depending on what <br />route you go, based on the hearings, if the project does go <br />ahead I would recommend that the assessments not be spread <br />longer than 15 years. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Are there any letters? <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: There are none. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I will open this hearing to the public and <br />again ask that you come to the microphone and give your name <br />and address of the property to which you're referring. <br /> <br />CEDRIC ADAMS, 556 West County Road C: I'm representing <br />my mother. This particular house has been there since 1952 <br />and this part of County Road C was rebuilt in 1966, after <br />they put in the main sewer assessments. This property was <br />charged with the general sewer tax and when my father - he is <br />now deceased - when he inquired at the time they said they <br />couldn't hook it up now, it would be delayed, and it would be <br />sometime in the future. I think some of the other alternatives <br />where they're providing a main going up County Road C - it's <br />kind of unfair for us to subsidize putting in a main sewer <br />along County Road C. It's kind of strange, since County Road C <br />is a main thoroughfare of Roseville - extended from Victoria <br />west - that there should be some portion of County Road C that <br />doesn't have a main sewer line in the road itself. In that <br />red proposal - would that be an eight inch line? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: All of these proposals are for an eight <br />inch sanitary sewer. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Actually, 'you wouldn't be charged for the <br />building of the lateral here. <br /> <br />CEDRIC ADAMS: The building along County Road C, on the <br />other side - the green? <br /> <br />!~YOR DEMOS: <br />about Alternate I. <br /> <br />I think it's safe to say we're talking <br />At least I feel that way. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: <br /> <br />That's our recommendation. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN FRANKE: Why didn't it go in front of that <br />house before? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: The question, for those of you that may <br />not be able to hear, is why wasn't this done in 1966? I <br />can't tell you. I don't know. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN FRANKE: The house was there. <br /> <br />~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.