Laserfiche WebLink
P54 <br /> <br />highway, the property owners did not get much for the $43,000 a year. Councilmember Kurak <br />pointed out that if Highway #10 is moved, the only benefiting property is Business Park 95. <br />Councilmember Cook recommended that they proceed with the installation of the pipe and the <br />condemnation action, but bring back the funding portion of the project. He stated that it seemed <br />inequitable for the landowners to pay 2/3rds of the cost of the pipe if their property cannot be <br />developed. Councilmember Strommen inquired if there was a down side to waiting on the <br />project until they receive more information on Highway #10. Principal City Engineer Olson <br />replied no, other than the fact that they are getting dose to the construction season. <br />Councilmember Strommen stated that the issues go hand in hand and as long as they are in the <br />process of reviewing what to do with the property along Highway #10, it might make sense to <br />wait and move the issues together. Principal City Engineer ©lson noted that every year the <br />project is put off the property owners continue to pay for a project that has not been completed. <br />Councilmember Cook replied that the funding of the project is a different issue than advertising <br />for bids and specifications. Councilmember Elvig stated that having an accurate bid for the <br />project would be beneficial when discussing the funding options. Councilmember Kurak stated <br />that she understands that the project has to go forward because Business Park 95 needs an outlet, <br />but there are many other issues that need to be addressed as well. Councilmember Zimmerman <br />felt that they needed to go through with the process and clear up the other problems as they <br />proceed. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Cook, Elvig, Kurak, Pearson, <br />Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />MAYOR AND COUNCIL INPUT <br /> <br />1) Closed Session Regarding C.R. #116 Condemnation <br /> <br />A closed session was scheduled for April 1, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br />2) City of Dayton Request <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec noted he had received a letter from the City of Dayton stating that they are <br />wanting the bridge crossing to be removed. He stated that local cities are going to be putting <br />together a resolution in the near future opposing the change. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman stated that he agreed with going forward with the joint resolution, <br />but because the City of Ramsey has a joint comprehensive plan with the City of Dayton <br />pertaining to the river bridge crossing, he felt that the City of Ramsey should forward their own <br />resolution as well identifying the fact that the location of the bridge was a compromise made by <br />both cities. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec agreed. <br /> <br />City Council/March 25, 2003 <br /> Page 16 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />