My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 02/25/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Public Works Committee
>
2003
>
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 02/25/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 3:28:50 PM
Creation date
5/2/2019 11:37:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
02/25/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Councilmember Kurak stated that she understands why this issue was brought up last year based <br />on the proposed Bright Keys development, but she would caution the Council with changing the <br />policy at this time. She stated that she was uncomfortable with changing the policy because of <br />one incident based on a possible development. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if there was a street improvement project completed in a rural area with <br />the majority of the lots being ten acres and one lot being 20 acres, would the 20-acre lot be <br />charged two assessments. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied yes. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if there was a way for the City collect an assessment on a larger lot that is <br />subdivided after the improvement project is completed. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that the City could not force the property owner to pay <br />additional assessments. If the Council chooses to go with alternative A than the property owner <br />would have already paid for those additional lots. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson inquired as to how many complaints staff had received on the current <br />assessing policy. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that staff has not received many complaints regarding larger lot <br />assessments. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson inquired if they were to change the policy would the City be at risk with <br />having property owners coming before them complaining about the way they were assessed. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that in the past people with longer frontages have probably seen <br />the benefit. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec felt that at this time it made sense to keep the policy as it is currently written. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson stated that the problem with the Bright Keys property is that the <br />improvement project was already done and the assessments had already been determined. If the <br />Council were to add alternative A it would reduce the overall assessment per property in certain <br />developments because it would add more lots. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that he did not think that it would be beneficial to change the policy at this <br />time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak pointed out that residents that would move into the Bright Keys <br />development would not be assessed for 149th Avenue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig inquired as to what occurred that brought the issue before the Council. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/February 25, 2003 <br /> Page 4 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.