Agenda - Council - 05/23/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I CASE # UTILITY EASEMENTS By: Ryan R. $chroeder, City Administrator Background: Anoka Municip~ Utility (AMU) and Anoka Electric Cooperative (AEC) are both impacted by this issue. Bt}th companies will have received copies of this case prior to the meeting. No other propert~ owners adjacent to any of the alignments have been specifically notified by the City. HoWever, Staff believes AMU has notified most, if not all, of the property owners impactedr by this issue. For the past several months, the Anoka Municipal Electric Utility (AMU) has been working with the City of Ramsey and Ramsey property owners on an alignment of a 65KV transmission lin4 There have been various concerns expressed by various impacted parties through this prol:ess. The result is that the alignment has had a couple different options proposed to Coug~ cji. Most recently ,Anoka Electric Cooperative (AEC) has expressed a concern that the alignment negatively impacts their proposed industrial park (see attached) if the line runs down the easten~ border of their property. This location would also be on the rear property line of Altron, Am Cor Concrete, Bury and Carlson, and Commercial Asphalt parcels. AEC has altern~ively suggested utilization of the existing C.R. #116 right-of-way from Akron to Sunfis~ Lake Boulevard, then south to the Burlington Northern right-of-way and again east to Antika. We met with I'ALMU and AEC on May 15, 1995. During this meeting, both parties expressed an int{..nt to use the C.R. #116 alignment, should Council not have any concerns. Using this aligm nent, AMU has proposed using all 55-foot steel poles rather than wood. AEC has propos!',d removing the existing wood distribution poles from this alignment and burying the lines! instead. Both parties expressed that this would clean up the appearance of the C.R. #116/C;R. #57 intersection. The poles would be located in 450- foot intervals ut tfl the rail right-of-way is reached. At this point, the poles would have 250-foot spacingi and the AEC lines would be underbuilt on the AMU poles. If Council prefe~ this alignment over the back lot alignment previously approved, AMU requests consideration of utilizing wood poles on the rail alignment and metal for the 116/57 secfions~ This proposal is much more expensive than the previously approved alignment (abou $135,000 more) I am not sure as yet as to the savings should Council allow the wood l~oles m the rml alignment. I am also not sure as to any pamcular concerns of property ownbrs other than that of Akron. Mr. Phillips has expressed a preference for the back lot loc~tion. I would suspect, however, that this choice would not result in AEC burying the exis.[ing distribution lines. As for the other properties, it is intended that the existing distribution alignment be supplanted with the transmission alignment. It should also be noted that the City of Ramsey owns property impacted by the transmission lin.~. AMU has requested a right-of-entry on Ramsey property to construct the line with theiintent to continue to discuss the value of the easement. Providing for the fight-of-entry d~s not limit our rights in any way to receive appropriate value for the property. It appears we will be providing about seven acres of easement from either park land or industrial areas. 7