Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember DeLuca stated that these property owners did not necessarily <br />want to develop at this time; in the interest of good planning the frontage <br />road will be there one way or another; the improvements provide benefits to <br />both the property owners and the City; under those circumstances he would <br />be in favor of offering up to $12,500/acre for the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Mr. Winslow Holasek stated that an MSA road might be a benefit to the <br />commercial side of the area but the other side is residential and most <br />people do not want to live on an MSA road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Sorteberg stated that the property owners were taken by <br />surprise and have not decided if they can or want to develop. Proceeding <br />with the project may require paying the $25,000/acre or forgiving the road <br />assessment in exchange for donated right-of-way. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox stated that whether it is liked or not, the frontage road <br />is a reality; the exact alignment of it is not finalized and the city <br />welcomes input to that. With regards to the marketability of residential <br />property near commercial property, many people prefer to live near shopping <br />and employment. Councilmember Cox stated that so many efforts are being <br />put into this sewer and water/road project to make sure it is workable for <br />all and having to pay for easements is objectionable when other areas have <br />donated easements so that construction can begin to improve transportation <br />routes. Councilmember Cox stated if the easements have to be bought, it <br />should be for less than $25,000/acre. <br /> <br />Mr. Winslow Holasek stated that anything less than $25,000/acre would be <br />unacceptable; the city will have to proceed with condemnation and it will <br />end up in District Court which will cost a great deal and result in hard <br />feelings. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley inquired if Council wants to proceed with the MSA road or <br />rerouting sanitary sewer if the City Attorney cannot reach an agreement <br />with the property owners for the purchase of easements based on the general <br />terms just outlined by Council. Mr. Hartley stated that Council also has <br />the option to condemn what the required amount of easement would be for <br />sanitary sewer which is about 1/3 the cost of easements for sewer and road <br />combined and is billable to the sewer and water project. <br /> <br />Ralph Elofson stated that he would prefer the sewer and water aligned with <br />the proposed Front Street but the property owners want to be fairly <br />compensated. <br /> <br />Randy Elofson stated that trading the right-of-way for the assessment would <br />be a favorable option. <br /> <br />Winslow Holasek stated that any offer of less than $25,000/acre will be <br />rejected; $25,000 is already a 50% compromise based on purchase agreements <br />for the property at $50,000/acre. <br /> <br />MAYOR AND COUNCIL INPUT <br /> <br />a. Request to move gambling operation; case of Ramsey Lions Club <br /> <br />City Council/September 15, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 7 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />