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 />MR. ADAMS: Shouldn't IV be assessed partially to Reiling, <br />as well as to us? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: Alternative IV would also be assessed to <br />Reiling's property. If you wanted to look at the dollars <br />involved - let's assume it's $9,000 plus on Alternative I - <br />you're looking at a minimum of three times that amount, <br />probably four. It just happens in the way that frontage is <br />processed. Typically there's 150 feet near a corner. If you <br />started from Dale, the first 150 feet is only assessed 25 feet <br />of assessment. That's been the City policy for years. I can't <br />tell you that's what will happen because the assessment hearing <br />hasn't happened yet, but that's what always has been done in <br />the past. The first 150 feet, which is about half of one of <br />your parcels, almost nothing would be assessed. A dispropor- <br />tionate amount of that then falls on the land that is left - <br />yours. Mr. Reiling would be assessed, but where he might have <br />200 feet of assessment of a $54,000 project or a $64,000 <br />project and you would have at least that much, we divide those <br />50/50 - one is $27,000 and one is $32,000 - that puts a very <br />large assessment on your ownership. It may be even worse than <br />50/50. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: The $64,000 cost is the total cost, <br />to be shared between Reiling and this property. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: Right. <br />COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: But it would probably be 50/50. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: That's probably the best he could hope for. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: So you're talking about $32,000 worth <br />if it goes to Alternative IV. <br /> <br />MR. ADAMS: I think we have to go with No. I. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I do too. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: One reason to delay this for a time <br />would be if you thought you could work something out with Mr. <br />Reiling. If you've already tried that, I don't see that we <br />could gain anything by postponement. <br /> <br />MRS. CLAUDIE ADAMS, 556 West County Road C: I did talk <br />to a lawyer and I'm supposed' to go back and see what he thinks <br />about it. I would like to postpone this. (Inaudible) maybe <br />he won't.be able to build because you want it for a park. <br />I don't see why we should pay for the park. (Inaudible). <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN FRANKE: The assessments won't be for another <br />year. <br /> <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.