My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 10/08/1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
1996
>
Minutes - Council - 10/08/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 3:55:10 PM
Creation date
7/2/2003 2:37:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/08/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Why do we have to keep forking out money for things we didn't ask for. Being assessed this <br />amount of money is a hardship. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski explained that sealcoating is relatively simple. They spray down bituminous and <br />cover it with aggregate. As to why you are assessed - it's been the long-standing policy to fund <br />street maintenance in this manner. It used to be we assessed 100%. Now the City and the <br />homeowners share the cost evenly. <br /> <br />Ms. Svare asked why they are paying for lighting they do not have and added that she has already <br />paid for a cul-de-sac she did not need. She reiterated that the sealcoating was poorly done and that <br />it wasn't needed in the first place and again commented on the recent tax hike. "All these things <br />should be covered by our taxes." <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that with regard to street lights - the City placed street lights at priority <br />intersections and the beneficiaries of these lights are the residential community. The commercial <br />community is paying for it differently. City Council chose not to levy a tax to pay for the lighting. <br />It's for the principal intersections and all subdivisions will not see these lights put on their <br />intersections. <br /> <br />Ms. Svare inquired why these could not be covered in taxes and could not recollect getting charged <br />for all of this when she lived in Coon Rapids. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder responded that Coon Rapids has a 4% utility bill surcharge to pay for street lights <br />and they have all their lights in - we have just started. <br /> <br />Ms. Svare inquired why they were charged $500 for a cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Mayor Hardin offered that staff could research that issue and get back to her. <br /> <br />Ms. Svare inquired why sealcoating is not covered with taxes. It's not that easy to come up with <br />the money to take care of this. Most people assume these things are covered by taxes. It seems we <br />are always paying out extra money. It's frustrating. <br /> <br />Mayor Hardin responded that we are trying to do sealcoating every seven years. There was a time <br />when all properties were 100% assessed. <br /> <br />Ms. Svare inquired if the streets are checked before they are coated. <br /> <br />Mayor Hardin replied yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated that this process was started back in February when the City sent out <br />notification that these projects would be done. Ramsey charges for many things, probably because <br />we are not as homogenous as other cities are. Different costs are associated with different lots. <br /> <br />Ms. Svare felt all these charges were inappropriate. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to close the public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Beahen, Peterson, Beyer and <br />Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />The public hearing closed at 7:29 p.m. <br /> <br />City Council/October 8, 1996 <br /> Page 9 of 26 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.