My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 05/27/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2003
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 05/27/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 4:05:25 PM
Creation date
7/9/2003 8:59:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
05/27/2003
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
Councilmember Elvig stated that it seems as if the City of Ramsey ends up spending a lot of <br />money to save the State money. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehle replied that the City would be reimbursed for the right of way. She also noted that if <br />land becomes available for a project it helps in moving the project forward. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson inquired if the property owners along Highway #10 misunderstood what <br />the City was considering or did they feel that they weren't getting the information or were <br />receiving the incorrect information. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehle replied that all of those were issues for the property owners. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson inquired as to how they could improve the communication with the <br />property owners along Highway #10. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehle replied that it was a definite benefit for The Tinklenberg Group to be working with <br />the property owners to provide them with the information and answer their questions. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that he felt that all of the Highway #10 property owners should be <br />given a copy of the study. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that there are more than 8 or 9 property owners along Highway #10 <br />and just because they weren't before the Council previously does not mean that they should not <br />be talked to. She inquired if there was something in the plan that would include some fotxn of <br />communication with all of the property owners so that it is not subjective. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehle explained that as part of the phase II process, the plan is to contact all property <br />owners; however, they have not yet determined how they will do that. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak felt that they should be getting the word out as to what is occurring and <br />then provide them with a contact if they have any questions. She stated that she would like a <br />letter to go out sooner than later. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehle explained that some of the options and tools identified in the study include an <br />Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), which the City is proceeding with. The AUAR <br />will examine the impacts to particular areas based on development and it will also identify which <br />properties will be impacted in any of the scenarios. Another tool available to the City is official <br />mapping of the property along Highway #10, which is a tool used to preserve right of way. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he did not believe that there was any legal document that <br />indicates the State has to reimburse the City for right of way acquisition. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if Highway #10 was in the Met Council plan. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/May 27, 2003 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.