My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 03/25/1986
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
1986
>
Minutes - Council - 03/25/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 8:37:30 AM
Creation date
11/5/2003 12:59:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
03/25/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
cracks. Blacktop construction was rushed and the contractor should be held <br />responsible. <br /> <br />Citizen - Agreed that very little preparatory work was done in Countryside <br />Estates prior to blacktop construction. <br /> <br />Bob Bruce - Contacted City Engineer from Minneapolis and he says sealcoating is <br />definitely a maintenance item. If allowing for funds to cover sealcoating <br />costs was an oversight on Council's part, the citizens should not be expected <br />to pay for the error. <br /> <br />City Engineer Raatikka replied that the process has been that bonds were sold <br />to cover just the cost of blacktopconstruction and not sealcoating. <br /> <br />Don Brown - ~here was an agreement that the City would take care of <br />maintenance and this is what I told my neighbors when I petitioned for <br />blacktopping. Was not allowing enough funds to do so an oversight on the <br />City's part.? <br /> <br />Councilmember COx stated that Mrs. Kenneth Beckman contacted him and wanted it <br />expressed at the hearing that she has the same concerns being expressed by her <br />neighbors in Riverwood Hills. <br /> <br />Councilmember Reimann stated that not bonding enough funds to cover the cost of <br />sealcoating was not an oversight on Ramsey's part. Bids are let for actual <br />street construction only. In order to increase the streets budget enough to <br />cover the cost of sealcoating, the City would have to increase property taxes <br />and rather than do that the City chose to assess the benefitting property <br />owners. If the residents do not want the assessment, the roads will not be <br />sealcoated and continued deterioration will eventually require re-blacktopping; <br />the City is trying to protect the inves~ent of the citizens. <br /> <br />Bob Bruce - Council has the citizens over a barrel; the roads are deteriorating <br />and it was agreed that the City would take care of maintenance through taxes. <br /> <br />Councilme~ber Reimann stated that property taxes will have to be increased if <br />the citizens want sealcoating to be included in the City budget; it has been <br />Ramsey's past policy to assess for sealcoating. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox stated that when the City refers to maintenance, it is <br />referring to snowplowing and repairing potholes and cracks. <br /> <br />Bob Bruce - Stated that last year it took him 6 months to finally get the City <br />crew to even look at the roads in his area. Council never indicated that <br />seal(Dating is not an aspect of maintenance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox explained that initially all developments in Ramseywere with <br />dirt roads until the City required all new developments to have blacktopped <br />streets. Many existing developments then wanted blacktopped streets and <br />petitioned for same. Because those people wanted blacktop and because Ramsey <br />does not receive it's fair share of local government aids, a decision was made <br />to assess benefitting property owners for the benefit. Councilmember Cox noted <br />that if a citizen's taxes are $700 in Ramsey, the City only gets about $112.00 <br /> March 25, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.