Minutes - Council - 09/08/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion by Councilmember Olson, seconded by Councilmember Strommen, to authorize signing the Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 92644M Between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation and The City of Ramsey for THI0 and Sunfish Lake Boulevard; and pass resolution #08-09-173 Authorizing Agreement 92644M between MnDot and City of Ramsey for Installation and Maintenance of Traffic Signal at THI0 and Sunfish Lake Boulevard. Motion carried. V oting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Olson, Strommen, Dehen, Jeffrey, and Look. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmember Elvig. Case #3: Approval of a Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County for the Construction of a Bituminous Trail along CSAH 5 Assistant City Engineer Himmer stated that the City has been trying to construct a trail from Alpine Drive to TH 47 and the first segment was constructed by City crews from 150th Lane to Sunwood. He stated that the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) came about because there is a property owner along the road that has an old highway easement from the 1970's. He stated that this property owner has questioned whether a trail could be built on a highway easement. The City has submitted a request to the County and while the County has been supportive, it would like the City to sign a Joint Powers Agreement. He stated that City Attorney Goodrich had drafted an agreement that is included in the packet, however the County also drafted an agreement. He stated that the only difference is in segment X. Indemnification. He stated that their agreement states that the County shall be held harmless against any claims arising from or relating to the placement of the path. He stated that County has all but approved the City's plans for the path and is just awaiting the JP A. Councilmember Dehen asked what the significance is of the added indemnification language. City Attorney Goodrich noted that this is language suggested by the County. He stated that in his discussions with the County, it appears that they are not unanimous in their legal thinking on whether or not the County has the right to grant a trail easement within a highway easement. He stated that he feels it is common sense that the easement is for right of way for transportation, whether that be a road or a trail. He stated that the individual involved is questioning whether a trail can be put into a highway easement happens to work at the County Attorney's office as a legal assistant. He stated that he feels the worst thing that could happen to the City is that the City may need to be brought into inverse condemnation and would have to pay for using the easement. Councilmember Jeffrey asked if City Attorney Goodrich had just stated that the legal position of the County was not unanimous. City Attorney Goodrich stated that there is some difference in opinion at the County Attorney's office. Councilmember Jeffrey stated that his concern is that a trail is put through this individual's yard, who happens to work at the County Attorney's office and if the City signs this agreement there is City Council / September 8, 2008 Page 5 of 10