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
Counciimember Kurak suggested charging the property owners if and when they use the pipe. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson inquired if the pipe was needed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak replied that staff feels that it is. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook noted that the reason it is a special taxing district is because the City could <br />not show benefit. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that any storm sewer project is difficult to show benefit, <br />which is why they allow for the special taxing district. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook stated that it is very difficult to prove benefit when over half of the pipe is <br />used to drain Business Park 95, which the City built. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen inquired as to how the costs of who would pay for what were <br />determined. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson explained that if the City were to have constructed a minimal pipe <br />along the alignment to solely drain Business Park 95 the estimated cost would have been <br />$110,000. The thought behind the project was that increasing the size of the pipe would provide <br />an avenue for storm water to get from the Highway #10 properties to the Business Park 95 pond <br />to utilize the water treatment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen inquired if they should be reconsidering the project since the situation <br />has changed since the project was first initiated. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that he did not know that the plans had necessarily <br />changed other than if the City is saying the area may never develop so the pipe sizes would be <br />decreased. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Public Works Committee was to discuss the issue further at a Council work <br />session. <br /> <br />Case #2: <br /> <br />Request for Feasibility Study for Extension of Sanitary Sewer and Water <br />Through County Ditch 66 <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman stated that on December 18, 2002, the City of Ramsey received a <br />letter requesting that the City of Ramsey prepare a feasibility study for extending urban services. <br />On January 21, 2003, the Public Works Committee met and discussed the request and offered the <br />following motion: Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to <br />recommend that the City Council authorize staff to hire Bolten and Menk at a cost not to exceed <br />$8,500 for completing a feasibility study for extending urban services to the property identified <br />contingent upon an escrow being set up to cover all expenses including staff time, the City not <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/May 20, 2003 <br /> Page 9 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.