My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 05/20/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Public Works Committee
>
2000 - 2009
>
2003
>
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 05/20/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 3:27:59 PM
Creation date
10/19/2004 12:36:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
05/20/2003
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
being held liable, and the City not having any liability to cover the feasibility study by drafting a <br />contract with the City Attorney, and contacting the MPCA regarding lead contamination <br />standards. On February 1 I, 2003, the City Council received a resolution from the Attorney that <br />the Council did not ratify the recommendation of the Public Works Committee to proceed with <br />the authorization of the feasibility study at the Developer's request. On February 18, 2003, <br />Oakwood Land Development and John Rowe resubmitted their request for the extension of urban <br />services a nd have agreed in writing as part of their petition to finance the preparation of the <br />feasibility study. On February 25, 2003, the Public Works Committee made a motion to table <br />action for three months to allow the new members of City Council to get more familiar with this <br />issue and the procedures of City government. Since the City of Ramsey is not financially liable <br />for the costs to prepare this feasibility study, Staff recommends allowing the study to be prepared <br />to analyze if it is not financially feasible to extend urban services to these properties. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman stated that his concern is that the request goes beyond the MUSA <br />area and until they have some consensus as to why they should go beyond the MUSA when they <br />are trying to develop other areas of the City they are getting into a gray area. <br /> <br />Councilmen~ber Pearson stated that he did understand why they would not authorize the study <br />since the developer would be paying for the entire study. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman stated that the issue of lead contamination could be a liability issue <br />for the City. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook replied that the reason to check for lead was to determine if it was feasible <br />to develop the gun club but he did not think it was an issue for extending services. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated that lead contamination is an issue if there is going to be <br />digging on the property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that it was her understanding that the original proposal for the lead <br />contamination issue was minimal. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson explained that the lead contamination study would be a phase I <br />study. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig noted that shooting at the gun club does not occur as far over as where the <br />proposed line would be. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook stated that Mr. Bauer was included, as part of the original application, but <br />removing his name from the application would not prohibit him from developing his property if <br />the pipe is extended past their property or any other piece of property. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that that was correct, which is the same with any parcel <br />adjacent to City services. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/May 20, 2003 <br /> Page 10 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.