My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
01/22/02
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Finance Committee
>
Minutes
>
2000's
>
2002
>
01/22/02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2025 4:17:18 PM
Creation date
4/29/2003 3:57:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Document Title
Finance Committee
Document Date
01/22/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
hour not including materials. Staff recommended the following fees and charges to cover <br />administrative fees, inspection costs and contingencies to cover damage caused by contractors: <br /> <br />Permit fee for boring: <br /> <br />Permit fee for open trench: <br /> <br />Permit fee for overhead: <br /> <br />$75 plus <br />$15/driveway, $20/road crossing <br />$75 plus <br />$15/driveway, $20/road crossing plus <br />$2,000 bond with additional $250/driveway, $1,000 road crossing <br />$75 plus <br />$.05/linear foot <br /> <br />If possible, all work in existing ROW would require boring, with new construction trenching <br />would be allowed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that many times a pit is dug to bore under a driveway and <br />then they plow in the interdict. He inquired if that scenario would be considered a trench or <br />simply boring. How will they differentiate between the two. <br /> <br />Director of Public Works/Fire Chief Kapler replied that he would not consider that type of <br />activity as boring. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he has no objection to what was proposed, but would like <br />the policy to include how they will differentiate between a trench and boring. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman inquired if a contractor completes a boring and it collapses in the <br />future would the City be expected to fix it for $20. <br /> <br />Director of Public Works/Fire Chief Kapler replied that staff's thought was that if there was <br />going to be a problem it would probably not happen right away so the fees they would be <br />charging would cover the costs if they were to have to cut it out and repack it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that her concern was that there was a quite an issue at the state <br />level that cities were trying to make money with fees and that fees should really reflect the actual <br />costs o f the j ob. <br /> <br />Director of Public Works/Fire Chief Kapler replied that he had consulted with the Street <br />Supervisor to determine appropriate costs to accurately reflect the cost to do needed repair if <br />necessary. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman felt that more research needed to be done to make sure the fees <br />would cover costs incurred by the City if they had to make any repairs. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec recommended adopting the policy as written and then they could review the fees <br />further at a future meeting. <br /> <br />Finance Committee/January 22, 2002 <br /> Page 2 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.