Minutes - Council - 03/25/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

are paying $43,000 a year for the project and there has to be some value in that. Couneilmember Cook stated that the concern is the funding of the project. He explained that Councilmember Kurak does not feel that the property owners should have to pay for infrastructure if it no longer gives them a more buildable piece of property. He stated that if they ar? telling someone it will increase the value of the land by adding the pipe and then the land is mapped for a future highway, the property owners did not get much for the $43,000 a year. Councilmember Kurak pointed out that if Highway #10 is moved, the only benefiting property is Business Park 95. Councilmember Cook recommended that they proceed with the installation of the pipe and the condemnation action, but bring back the funding portion of the project. He stated that it seemed inequitable for the landowners to pay 2/3rds of the cost of the pipe if their property cannot be developed. Councilmember Strommen inquired if there was a down side to waiting on the project until they receive more information on Highway #10. Principal City Engineer Olson replied no, other than the fact that they are getting close to the construction seasOn. Councilmember Strommen stated that the issues go hand in hand and as long as they are in the process of reviewing what to do with the property along Highway #10, it might make sense to wait and move the issues together. Principal City Engineer Olson noted that every year the project is put off the property owners continue to pay for a project that has not been completed. Councilmember Cook replied that the funding of the project is a different issue than advertising for bids and specifications. Councilmember Elvig stated that having an accurate bid for the project would be beneficial when discussing the funding options. Councilmember Kurak stated that she understands that the project has to go forward because Business Park 95 needs an outlet, but there are many other issues that need to be addressed as well. Councilmember Zimmerman felt that they needed to go through with the process and clear up the other problems as they proceed. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Cook, Elvig, Kurak, Pearson, Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. MAYOR AND COUNCIL INPUT 1) Closed Session Regarding C.R. #116 Condemnation A closed session was scheduled for April 1, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. 2) City of Dayton Request Mayor Gamec noted he had received a letter from .the City of Dayton stating that they are wanting the bridge crossing to be removed. He stated that local cities are going to be putting together a resolution in the near future opposing the change. City Administrator Norman stated that he agreed with going forward with the joint resolution, but because the City of Ramsey has a joint comprehensive plan with the City of Dayton pertaining to the river bridge crossing, he felt that the City of Ramsey should forward their own City Council/March 25, 2003 Page 15 of 16