My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 02/11/2020 - Joint
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2020
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 02/11/2020 - Joint
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 11:16:30 AM
Creation date
2/26/2020 11:13:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Title
Joint
Document Date
02/11/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Planning Commission Chair Bauer stated that Puma Street might be utilized by more than just <br /> the residents, with the industrial park in that area. He stated that the employees and possibly <br /> trucks accessing the industrial park will increase traffic on Puma Street and therefore believed <br /> the City should contribute to the project. <br /> Councilmember Kuzma asked if this is an MSA street. <br /> Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that this roadway is included in the MSA system, and <br /> would be eligible for MSA funds, but the City would need to decide if this is the correct project <br /> to use MSA funds on, as there is a large demand on the limited MSA funding. He noted that the <br /> Public Works Committee will continue that discussion. <br /> Councilmember Specht agreed that the City should financially contribute towards the project. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked for background information on the temporary construction of <br /> Puma Street. <br /> Deputy City Administrator Gladhill provided background information on the creation of Puma <br /> Street. <br /> Councilmember Heinrich asked if there have been similar projects in years past. <br /> Deputy City Administrator Gladhill replied that there have been a variety of similar projects. He <br /> stated that some projects in The COR have been funded by the City at a rate of 60 percent that <br /> could be reimbursed through TIF. <br /> Councilmember Specht asked if the cost-share is lesser in this case because these are residential <br /> developments rather than commercial. <br /> Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that looking holistically at the City's transportation <br /> needs; this is not the same setup as the Bunker Lake industrial park scenario. He noted that the <br /> Bunker Lake industrial park scenario was more linked through economically development and <br /> the City funded its portion through the County HRA funds. <br /> Councilmember Specht asked for details on the position of Paxmar in its email. <br /> Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that Paxmar stated that he is unsure of the exact <br /> amount Paxmar feels would be fair but believes that one third is too much for their development <br /> to be assessed. He noted that the Paxmar parcel is still awaiting rezoning to support its proposed <br /> development. <br /> Mayor LeTourneau asked if the City is still the owner of the parcel east of Puma Street. <br /> Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that the City largely owns the four-acre parcel where <br /> the road alignment would occur. <br /> City Council Work Session/February 11,2020 <br /> Page 3 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.