My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:33:44 AM
Creation date
6/25/2004 2:05:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/01/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
202
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
will say just keep the line there and half will say not to. It will be up to this Council to decide if <br />they are going to be a developing City. They have already made that decision and now they need <br />to move forward. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated what she is suggesting would merely be an initial public <br />hearing to let people know what the stages of the process will be and what it will look like, and <br />then to simply get value statements. With the City Hall they polled the area and asked for input, <br />which gave them their value statements. After going to these residents and asking what things <br />are important to their community, they can then take that and go through the process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he is concerned if they open this up there we will be the issue of <br />whether people want to extend the MUSA.. The City should have a plan that says what they <br />anticipate doing. We have a Park Board that has been working on this. He is not against public <br />input, but they should hav~ tools in front of people so they can start to visualize. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak questioned what kind of tc;ols Councilmember Elvig is referring to. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig replied the City has a greenway plan that is laid out and a feasibility plan <br />of sewer and pipe. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated people are not going to react to a feasibility study. Finding out <br />what values are important to the community would be another tool to blend into the plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak questioned why title work is being discussed tonight. She stated the price <br />tag has now risen to over $300,000 after adding up all the Tinklenberg work and she cannot vote <br />for that tonight. This is way over the top and is causing a rift in the Council. She suggested this <br />be done more on a gradual basis so other things can be addressed as it goes along. She noted The <br />Tinklenberg Group is asking for $80,700 for appraisers and asked if they are qualified appraisers. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Olson replied The Tinklenberg Group would hire out residential <br />appraisers. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak suggested the discussion be reduced to what needs to be acted on tonight <br />to move this along. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director explained the estimate of Bolton and Menk was discussed in the <br />weekly, update at a cost of approximately $800,000 to one million dollars for design work, which <br />does not include the Tinklenberg Group. He indicated there are some things they could move on. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak questioned if these figures are included in the original feasibility study <br />amount. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson responded in the affi~Tnative. <br /> <br />P48 <br /> <br />City Council/May 11, 2004 <br />Page 30 of 36 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.