My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 12/21/1999 - Special
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
1999
>
Minutes - Council - 12/21/1999 - Special
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 4:15:50 PM
Creation date
5/30/2003 9:24:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Title
Special
Document Date
12/21/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen questioned in Section VI-5 the sentence "An access and.. ..be <br />implemented 1999 and 2010" if it was the intention to widen #47 to four lanes. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that the project proposed for the next few years has sufficient <br />pavement for four lanes, but is being striped as a single lane with a turn lane. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if the time frame was still accurate. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied yes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen questioned in Section VI-5 the sentence "CR #116 will extend <br />westward....." if it should include a statement that they anticipate CR #116 will connect with the <br />ri ver bridge crossing. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that it had something to do with receiving financing for the project. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman explained that the direction a year ago from Council was that if the <br />lines were connected to the river bridge crossing it would jeopardize federal funding because it <br />would then be considered a county road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated in Section VI-7 item #2 in the second to the last sentence "in <br />the scenario...." It should state that the City is not supporting the plan either. In the next <br />paragraph "public opinion...." he questioned if it should state that there is a consensus for the <br />westerly location as depicted in the City's plan. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Council was to add that the City is not supporting the plan and that a consensus <br />was reached on a location. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that in the third paragraph there needs to be a clear and <br />accurate statement in regards to the status with Dayton. <br /> <br />City Administrator Nonnan replied that he will refer to the fact that Dayton has included the plan <br />in their Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that in Section VI-13 in the first paragraph "The City of <br />Ramsey. . ." the word "necessarily" should be removed and add the wording "does not agree" and <br />at the end of the sentence add the wording "or the bridge location depicted in the Anoka County <br />2015 transportation plan". <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich reviewed the options for submitting the Comprehensive Plan to the Met <br />COllnci l. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen questioned the voting requirement SInce they were mISSIng a <br />Councilmember. <br /> <br />City Council/December 21, 1999 <br />Page 11 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.