My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 04/11/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2000
>
Minutes - Council - 04/11/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 1:59:22 PM
Creation date
5/22/2003 12:51:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/11/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Citizen Input <br /> <br />Ed Hamilton, 6615 Highway 10 NW, Ramsey, stated there are several projects in Ramsey with <br />on-site ponding and no outlet. He reviewed the location of several such projects and asked why <br />storm sewer districts on the south side of the railroad tracks are considered. He noted they will <br />benefit the business district and he feels this discriminates toward the residents on the south side <br />of the railroad tracks. He suggested the Council consider everything. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated it has been indicated that 25% of the cost will be contributed <br />from outside the district, whether from TIF or Business Park 95. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen noted the cost of the project assessment is being reduced by 25% in <br />recognition of the benefit gained by Business Park 95. <br /> <br />Mr. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard NW, Andover, noted the project cost and asked <br />if the 25% would be deducted fi'om that amount. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated that is correct. <br /> <br />Mr. Holasek stated he sees no per parcel assessment breakdown. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski noted the summary of annual costs as contained in the feasibility report <br />which indicates what would be taxed the first year. He noted it will vary from year to year. <br /> <br />Mr. Holasek asked if the total project cost per parcel is known for prepayment. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained this is not an assessment, it is a tax; therefore, it cannot be <br />prepaid. <br /> <br />Mr. Holasek noted there is an annual cost of $55,700. He noted if this was a constant cost over <br />ten years, it would result in a cost of $557,000 so it appears there is a $166,000 carrying cost. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated the feasibility report identifies an interest charge. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained there is a 7% interest charge. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated if interest is being charged, it must not be a tax. He noted the <br />parcel numbers are identified in the feasibility report. <br /> <br />Mr. Holasek stated he would like to know the cost per parcel and if it is a tax, not an assessment, <br />why there is interest. He asked if there are five different proposed layouts for the sewer and <br />asked if the cost is the same for all five layouts. <br /> <br />City Council/April 11, 2000 <br /> Page 5 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.