My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:30:47 AM
Creation date
6/4/2003 10:28:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
05/01/2003
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.
/
395
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 /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br />,I <br /> <br />I <br />! <br /> <br />property. This portion of the district had existing drainage problems, and needed a storm sewer <br />to facilitate the development of the Zitzloff property. The western portion of the district was to <br />have the storm sewer installed at a later phase. Bids for both Phase I and II were received in <br />September 2000. Phase I was constructed under a contract utilizing these bids during 2001 <br />construction season. At this time, it is desired to proceed with Phase II of the construction. <br />Because of the length of time, which has elapsed since bids were originally obtained' in <br />September 2000, staff is recommending that bids for Phase II of' this project be solicited at this <br />time to avoid any question of compliance with legal bidding requirements. He noted that staff <br />would not release the advertisement for bids until after the land acquisition is completed. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Mayor Gamec, to adopt Resolution #03-03-079 <br />soliciting bids for Phase II of Improvement Project #9%67 upon the completion of the <br />condemnation action. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Pearson inquired as to where the fi_rods were coming from to <br />pay for the project.. Principal City Engineer Olson explained that the impacted residents are <br />paying about $43,700 a year in a special taxing district in order to complete the project as well as <br />contribution from the City for the outlet of Business Park 95. Councilmember Zimmerman <br />inquired if there was going to be a problem with the original contract. Principal City Engineer <br />Olson explained that the project was bid in two phases with the second phase occun'ing when <br />condemnation action was completed. Last year the contractor asked for a 20 percent increase to <br />complete phase II of the project. Staff felt that they were at a point where they should re-bid the <br />project. The second phase of the project was not awarded, but would have been done so upon <br />completion of the condemnation action. Councilmember Kurak stated that the City is currently <br />considering placing a moratorium along Highway #10 to determine if the property should be <br />officially mapped so how do they justify charging property owners for a project that would allow <br />fol' future development and then take those rights away. Principal City Engineer Olson replied <br />that last year the City received a proposal to develop the property, which would have required the <br />project to be completed. The Council at this time has not made an official decision to officially <br />map the property or place a moratorium on the property. Councilmember Kurak stated that if the <br />City is going to look at eliminating the area, then why would they want to invest in infrastructure <br />and charge it to the people they are looking to eliminate. Councilmember Elvig inquired if there <br />was a way to do an evaluation of the property before and after the pipe is installed. City Attorney <br />Goodrich explained that last fall the Council authorized him to restart the condemnation action <br />and, as part of that process, they have had the property appraised, which includes a before and <br />after evaluation. The condemnation action is for a 20-foot easement fi'om JR's Saloon to Sunfish <br />Lake Boulevard. He noted that failure to go forward with the bid request is inconsistent with <br />proceeding with the condemnation action. Mr. Goodrich noted that the Council could stop the <br />condemnation action, but noted that they have been working on it for three years. <br />Councilmember Elivg stated that Councilmember Kurak made a good point that property owners <br />are paying $43,000 a year for the project and there has to be some value in that. Councilmember <br />Cook stated that the concern is the funding of the project. He explained that Councilmember <br />Kurak does not feel that the property owners should have to pay for infrastructure if it no longer <br />gives them a more buildable piece of property. He stated that if they are telling someone it will <br />increase the value of the land by adding the pipe and then the land is mapped for a future <br /> <br />City Council/March 25, 2003 <br /> Page 15 of 16 <br /> <br />P53 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.