My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 02/27/2018
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2018
>
Agenda - Council - 02/27/2018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 2:44:53 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 2:00:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
02/27/2018
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.
/
352
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 be sized to address all impervious surfaces within the developable area including the public <br />improvements and all individual site development within the study area. <br />• Park Fill is the estimated cost to grade the proposed City park parcel, fill the site to an elevation <br />equal to the adjacent streets, place 4 inches of topsoil and seed and mulch the entire site. The <br />estimated project cost to fill the site, topsoil, seed, and hydromulch is approximately $231,000. <br />Alternatives Analysis <br />An alternate cost analysis was performed to determine the difference in cost if a bioretention basin was <br />constructed along the median in Ramsey Parkway. The bio-retention basin is not required to meet water <br />quality volume requirements, but instead to create a native plantings and landscaping feature. <br />There is little difference in costs associated with creating a bioretention basin along the median. The <br />primary difference relates to whether the median area is raised or depressed. Costs associated with <br />plantings, curb cuts, etc. are not considered significant. <br />VIII. COST ALLOCATION ALTERNATIVES <br />The costs, or a portion of the costs, of the improvements are typically allocated back to adjacent <br />properties through the use of assessments, fees and other methods. The costs are typically allocated in a <br />way that is equitable to the properties benefitting from the improvements. Public improvements that will <br />become City owned and maintained are typically constructed through a public process, while secondary <br />improvements are constructed by the property owner. For our analysis, we assumed the following items <br />would be constructed through the public process: <br />• Roadways, including storm water conveyance systems, <br />• Water System Facilities, <br />• Sanitary Sewer Facilities, <br />• Trails, <br />• Street Lighting, and <br />• City Parks <br />While the street lights will most likely be installed by a private utility and the trails could potentially be <br />constructed by the property owner, we have included these items as public improvements. <br />Other improvements were considered secondary and are typically the property owner's responsibility: <br />• Sanitary Sewer Service Extensions, <br />• Water Service Extensions, <br />• Natural Gas Lines to Buildings, <br />• Telephone Service to Buildings, <br />• Electric Service to Buildings, <br />• Site Grading, <br />• Site Landscaping, <br />• Site Storm Water Conveyance, and Easement Dedication. <br />These types of improvements are typically inspected by the City for conformity with applicable codes and <br />standards, but are constructed by the property owner. <br />Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. COST ALLOCATION ALTERNATIVES <br />Center Street Area Analysis I R16.114929 Page 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.