My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-28-2013 CCW
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
2010's
>
2013
>
05-28-2013 CCW
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/17/2025 8:24:50 PM
Creation date
7/31/2017 3:56:30 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
A discussion of the neighboring forces resources. <br />Durapatch was going to come in lower- it is actually going to be $28,000. State contract for the bldg <br />inspector vehicle would be lower- $20,000 <br />Discussion about the park funds and what was a proper expense for those funds. Maintenance is a <br />proper expense. Nelson has issue with maintenance equipment. From developer perspective. <br />Discussion of the missing Keats figures. Keats is already underway. Now the City just needs to <br />determine the bonding portion. The property tax increase will be $75 per $100,00. <br />2015 will be big year for LE. It was noted that Washington County is planning on moving up Lake Elmo <br />Ave to 2015. Discussion about 5th street costs, needs, and what level is desired. Developer portion was <br />also discussed. Nelson believes the parkway has additional benefits to the developer. The added <br />benefits may justify a higher developer portion. Area-wide assessment and the street utility districts <br />were discussed. <br />Discussion about who should bear the larger portion of the new development roads, e.g. over-sizing, <br />theming, etc. It was generally agreed that most of the realized benefit is experienced by the local <br />residents. It was agreed that the theming cost should be much lower. It was proposed by Zuleger that it <br />be a 70/30 split with developers. Council wants to see the figures and breakdowns before deciding. <br />Nelson asked about the hwy 5 corridor mgmt & safety improvements. Zuleger said it should actually be <br />about $15 for the beacon, but it is being kept there in case WashCo cannot obtain grants. MnDOT is <br />doing the striping and resurfacing. WashCo is doing the median and turn lanes. LE could split the <br />beacon cost with the schools. <br />Discussion of the fact that 2015 LE will not be bank qualified (at the mercy of the markets) due to over <br />$10 Mil. City will try to get that down below $10 Mil. <br />Discussion of storm water factoring in. Village storm water was discussed. It was proposed that <br />developers pay up-charge if they have zero lot lines. Retention and metering out will be key aspects. It <br />was noted that <br />Park funds were further discussed. Sanctuary park is planned. Will leave about $750,000 in fund. <br />Discussion of what happened to Sanctuary developer. …. <br />Water improvements were discussed. The poor state of the water system was discussed. The burden <br />will be paid mainly by those who use the system. Discussion of how to reach cash flow. If the $6,000,000 <br />in other revenue is not met, it will have to be found elsewhere and additional bonding may needed. If it <br />is obtained, it will be tight, but cash flow will be sooner. Water rates are already high and cannot be <br />increased. <br />Sewer is much better. This utility cash flows. Water fund does not because of the debt.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.