Agenda - Council - 01/09/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE # REPORT OF EASEMENT ACQUISITION FOR SECTION g22 DRAINAGE By: Steve Jankowski, City Engineer Background: In conjunction with Improvement Project go5-12, which included drainage improvements in Section g22, the City prepared "City of Ramsey Easement Plat No. 1" which created 14 parcels which cover the drainage way from 156th Avenue to Wetland #656 and then northward to County Ditch No. 3. The City has initiated condemnation action on the Stanley Welsh parcel so that City possession of the easement will commence on March 6, 1996, which will allow for the removal of fill placed last fall which blocks the natural drainage before the spring melt. The City Council directed that staff pursue obtaining easements for the remaining parcels. As of the time of this writing, the results of the easement acquisition are as summarized below: Easements obtained: Parcel #2: Parcel #3: Parcel #4: Parcel #5: Parcel #13: Robert and Sonja Spilde Kenneth and Laura Dacon Lawrence and Hazel Shaw Howard and Julie Petterson Walter and Bonnie Rychly Verbal commitment to sign easements made: Parcel #7: Parcel gO: Richard and Nancy Swanson Leonard and Joan Lewis Non-committal Parcels: Parcel # 1: Parcel #2: Parcel #8: Parcel #12: Bob and Mary Arnold Earle and Diana Jerde William and Viola Tripp Dorothy Schleper No response received - follow-up letter sent: Parcel gl0: William and Linda Cashman Only one parcel owner (Parcel #14 - John and Elaine Boros) has objected to the amount of compensation proposed. In lieu of the $1,000 per acre, which would equate to $230 in this instance, Mr. Boros indicated he would like the City to split his four-acre parcel into two parcels of 2.7 and 1.3 acres. The non-wetland area of these two parcels would be 1.7 acres and 0.8 acres. It would appear both lots would meet City criteria for having sufficient class I soil to meet septic system requirements. The City could create a metes and bounds legal description at relatively lillle cost, however, the City would forfeit collection of a $600 park dedication fee and would incur approximately $100 in recording fees. None of the remaining properties have requested anything different in terms of compensation beyond what has been proposed by the City. There has been only a lack of commitment to granting the easement. To this point, I have not emphasized eminent 7