My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
09/20/82
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Ad Hoc Committee
>
Minutes
>
1982
>
09/20/82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/22/2025 8:48:01 AM
Creation date
5/11/2004 10:10:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Document Title
Ad Hoc Committee Regarding Public Improvements
Document Date
09/20/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
method of assessing for storm drainage, that he feels it should be assessed <br />by rate of run-off. <br /> <br />Mr. Reimann stated that assessing storm sewer by rate of run-off would be <br />an incentive for businesses to landscape with more greenery and less blacktop. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that assessing by rate of run-off would be very difficult <br />to enforce. <br /> <br />The Committee then discussed trunk charges; REC versus acre. Mr. Lichter and <br />Mr. Raatikka feel that assessing by REC would be more equitable and Mr. Schnelle <br />was in favor of assessing by acre. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that in essence, what Mr. Schnelle is suggesting, is that <br />trunk charges should be the same for commercial and residential. <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle stated that any inequities arising from assessing by acre will <br />be compensated at the time of lateral hook-up. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that there is more rural than commercial, and if you assess <br />trunk by the acre, rural community will end up paying for most of the trunk <br />line and the commercial area is going to be getting the most use out of it. <br />He also feels that if trunk is assessed by acre, the ordinance will be a <br />tough one to pass and finance. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg stated that the ordiance is going to have to have some strong <br />language defining REC's. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka and Mr. Berg feel that REC's should be assigned on basis of <br />potential use and the way the property is zoned. Mr. Lichter feels REC's <br />should be assigned on the basis of existing use, and if the property is <br />developed further, the City can reassess REC's. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg stated that State law requires a minimum of 35% area signature on <br />petitions for hook-up to sewer and water. He also stated that the City can <br />order a project in with a 4/5 vote and no petition at all. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that regarding corner lots and double frontage lots, the <br />City's policy regarding street improvements should be incorporated into <br />the public improvements ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle stated that he has been advised that it is much better to install <br />water and sewer at the same time, that if one or the other is left out, it <br />it a big nuisance and expense to go back later and do it. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that provisions for sealcoating the affected streets, <br />2 to 3 years after project completion, should be included as a part of the <br />project. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller excused himself from the meeting at 8:13 P.M. <br /> <br />The Committee was in agreement that MSA street residents should be assessed, <br />because they do benefit from street improvements. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg stated that there should be included in the ordinance a deadline <br />date for the City accepting petitions for public improvement projects. <br /> <br />Ad Hoc/Public Improvements <br /> Page 2 <br /> September 20, 1982 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.