Laserfiche WebLink
· Staff explained the content of a Feasibility Study that could be written as part of the process <br /> for a successful improvement project. <br />· Staff explained that the City was not forcing this project on anyone and that there was an <br /> opportunity to counter petition the project and stop it by more than 50% of the residents. <br />· There was concern regarding the development potential of the adjacent land to these <br /> developments and general consensus that they did not want to be com~ected to that <br /> development. <br /> <br />The concerns from the residents of 151st Avenue NW, 152nd Avenue NW, and Fluorine Street <br />NW were as follows: <br /> <br />· Since there is not any pavement on these streets, staff proposed that the costs associated with <br /> the pavement and concrete curb and gutter be special assessed against the benefiting property <br /> owner. <br />· There was concern as it relates to the assessment policy and general consensus that if this <br /> project got that far that it be assessed on a front foot basis. <br />· Concern was expressed about drainage coming from the Brandseth Addition to the south. <br />· Concern was expressed about the condition of the streets and that some of them felt that the <br /> City should also pay for a portion of the street, curb and gutter costs. <br /> <br />The concerns from the residents of Pondvale Estates were as follows: <br /> <br />· Since there is already pavement on these streets and the residents of this development have <br /> already paid for the initial construction cost with the purchase of their houses, Staff proposed <br /> that 50% of the costs associated with the pavement and concrete curb and gutter be special <br /> assessed against the benefiting property owner with the remaining 50% to be financed by the <br /> City of Ramsey. <br />· There was concern as it relates to the assessment policy and general consensus that if this <br /> project got that far that it be assessed per lot with each homeowner being billed for only one <br /> lot. <br /> <br />Both support and opposition has been expressed since the informational meeting both via <br />telephone conversations and during citizen input at the last City Council meeting. The purpose of <br />the case before the Committee was to talk about the project and to receive direction from the <br />Committee as it relates to the preparation of a Feasibility Study for each neighborhood to address <br />the concerns that have been addressed in these neighborhoods. The City Council has the <br />authority to initiate a project of this nature and the residents have the ability during a 60-day <br />period following the respective public hearings to terminate the consideration of such an <br />improvement as part of City Code. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired as to how much time it would take for staff to prepare the <br />feasibility study. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied two weeks. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/November 20, 2001 <br /> Page 3 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />