My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7388
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7300
>
res_7388
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:16:38 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:13:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7388
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. P-82-17 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications Therefor
Resolution Date Passed
8/9/1982
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 />and, as you know, there is an empowering district with two dis- <br />tricts within it. There is a nUQber of items in each district. <br />You have to have a public hearing and get input - there's a <br />procedure you go through - and you may very well not put every- <br />thing in. In other words, this is one of say ten items - <br />there's a bridge, this road - so that when you talk about the <br />tax increment, you have a plan before you but we haven't had <br />that full hearing on it yet. So there may be items that you <br />would leave out of that. This could be one. The thing I was <br />kind of interested in - and the people haven't answered - let's <br />suppose this was included in tax increment and they wouldn't be <br />charged a dime - do they still want this? No one has answered <br />that question. You've gotten the idea that at least the resi- <br />dents don't want it if they're going to be assessed and this <br />gentlemen here had indicated some opposition. But it if was <br />all picked up by tax increment and the bonds for the improvement <br />were paid for out of the captured new assessed value of the <br />area - do they still want it? Maybe that's a question we'll <br />cover later at that public hearing. But since they're here <br />tonight . <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: You mean do the petitioners want it <br />in that case? <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN FRANKE: No, I'd like to ask these people - if <br />you didn't have to pay for it, would you still be opposed? <br /> <br />MR. JEFF ZAPPA, 2369 Fulham Street: We feel we don't need <br /> <br />it. <br /> <br />WOMAN IN AUDIENCE (Did not Identify Herself): One thing, <br />we're all poor people down there - we don't have any money to <br />pay all these taxes. Even if we did, nobody would desire 3,000 <br />cars going by their house each day. The dust and the dirt is <br />so bad from the construction over there that I've used my <br />water hose to water down the r~ad out there. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN FRANKE: <br />that property rezoned. <br /> <br />(Inaudible) in 1979 if they wanted <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Long before that, because I was on the <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />MAN IN AUDIENCE: Not that property - the property on the <br />service road - was under contract. Not on Fulham Street. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Not on contract. But like I said, I came on <br />the Council in 1974 - before that - all the owners wanted to <br />be considered. <br /> <br />MAN IN AUDIENCE: Not on Fulham. <br /> <br />WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: I have lived there for 21 years and <br />I haven't heard anything about it. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.