My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Council_Minutes_1967_03_01
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1953-1969
>
Council Minutes 1967
>
Council_Minutes_1967_03_01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2011 1:53:48 PM
Creation date
2/7/2011 2:22:34 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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).
View images
View plain text
PROCEEDINGS OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL <br />VILLAGE OF HOUNDS VIEW <br />RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA <br />MARCH 1, 1967 <br />The Special Hearing on the proposed Supplementary Assessment was called to order <br />by Mayoo Rusted at 7 :35 P. M. on Wddsdy, March 1, 1967 at the Village Hall, <br />2401 Highway #10, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55112. <br />Attorney Meyers announced the purpose of the hearing and the Clerk stated that <br />Individual notices were mailed on February 10, 1967. <br />Attorney Meyers stated that requirements for this Hearing have been met. <br />Engineer Boehm explained that the Hearing resulted from lot splits, small errors <br />in calculations, and changes in numbers of sewer connections requiring that <br />changes in assessments be made. <br />The Attorney requested that all objections be recorded. <br />Resident question: What is minimum service and unit. <br />Answer: $120.00 for (1) Service and $100.00 for a unit charge. <br />Objection: #1 (Arnold Marquette) 7584 Groveland Questioned the increase from <br />$120100 to $240.00. <br />Answer: For extra sewer service. <br />Question: Extra sewer service was cancelled. <br />Answer: Engineer will check <br />OBJECTS TO EXTRA SERVICE <br />Objection: #2 (Chester Beck) 6926 Pleasant View Drive Questioned increase. <br />Answer: There was an error in computation. <br />OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT IN GENERAL AND HOW IT WAS FIGURED. <br />Objection: #3 (Thomas Nelson, Judge Carlson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Bonin, and Mr. <br />Cadwell) On Knollwood Drive Questioned benefit from swamp area at rear of <br />property being assessed. <br />Discussion: The rear portion of these properties is in the separate C -1 assess- <br />ment but were not included originally drainage and swamp area were also dis- <br />cussed. <br />OBJECTION (5 RESIDENTS) AS NO BENEFIT FROM SWAMP PROPERTY. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.