Agenda - Public Works Committee - 05/15/2012

Home

City of Ramsey February 26, 2012 Page 2 • City would not be responsible for lawn restoration • Pavement removed can be recycled for the pavement needs of future paths, reducing the cost for disposal and materials • City pays only 50% of fair market value for the pedestrian trail access rights Though this partnership, the benefits to the homeowner would be: • Path would be straight, preserving integrity of the backyard • Homeowner would have less security risks with the path directed away from the property and further from the home vs. in the middle of the backyard (i.e: vandalism, theft, break-ins, etc.) • Homeowner would have path moved to a more acceptable location Scenario Two: This scenario would entail the city waiting for the need to arise for the pedestrian trail development, leaving the path as is until an unknown future date. At that time, the city would be required to approach the property owner to make an offer for the purchase of property for this new use. Due to the delay in resolution for the homeowner, it is uncertain if the property would be made available for the pedestrian access. If the homeowner were to agree to selling the access to the city for a pedestrian trail, the homeowner would require the original design specifications, locating the path along the property line as stated in scenario one, and would require the city to be responsible for removing and disposing of the current pavement, the lawn restoration, and the payment for 100% of the lands full market value. Just some of the downfalls of this scenario are: • A higher cost to the City and taxpayers (the City would be responsible for the removal and disposal of pavement as described in scenario one in addition to the cost of lawn restoration) • Additional cost for the purchase of the property (the City would also be required to pay 100% of fair market value vs. 50% as offered in scenario one) • The path would be a nuisance for homeowner for extended period of time Scenario Three: This scenario would entail the city forcefully obtaining land though eminent domain. This law is used for government utilities, roadways, etc. which provide for the greater need of the community. (Not specifically designed for trails) This scenario would be a long, drawn out process as the city would first have to receive judgment proving that easement is in greater interest of the community adding court costs and time. Homeowner would then have the right to contest which would bring suit back to court adding to the overall cost and time. Upon settlement, assuming the city obtains the rights to the easement, the city would then make offer to