Laserfiche WebLink
continue to negotiate; 4) Delete the MSA road from the project and install <br />sewer and water via an alternate route. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson stated that the project should not be forced and an <br />alternate alignment for sewer and water should be used. <br /> <br />Councilmember DeLuca stated that he is in favor of offering the city's <br />appraised value for the easements as the project is worthwhile in that the <br />frontage road is necessary for the community's benefit and the cost will be <br />be more expensive 5-10 years from now; decisions should not always be based <br />on what i~ more cost effective at the time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox noted that the service road is a given; if it is not <br />provided for now, developers of that area will have to provide it in the <br />future. Councilmember Cox stated that he is not willing to use MSA funds <br />to pay for right-of-way to provide sewer and water service with funds <br />derived from another development area that paid in full for all of it's <br />improvements and provided easements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Sorteberg stated he is in favor of offering the appraised <br />value for the easements. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann stated that the frontage road project should cease and the <br />MSA funds be used for other needed street construction where easements <br />would be donated. <br /> <br />Randy Elofson stated that he would be agreeable to accepting the city's <br />appraised value for the easements. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Pearson to delay <br />the legal calendar for condemnation proceedings until after the next <br />regular Council meeting and during the interim the City Engineer should <br />review alternative sewer and water trunk alignments and proceed to make <br />preliminary application with Mn/DoT to utilize the Hwy. #10 easements in <br />order that that process will be underway in the event a decision is made to <br />move in that direction. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Councilmember Sorteberg noted that if condemnation <br />proceeds, the minimum the city will have to pay for easements is the city's <br />appraised value, $25,000/acre and he and Councilmember DeLuca have stated <br />that price is a viable option. Councilmember DeLuca stated that the <br />frontage road project is important to Ramsey; the $25,000/acre should be <br />offered to property owners; if that is not acceptable to them, condemnation <br />should proceed. Councilmember Cox noted that the frontage road is just as <br />important to the property owners as it is to the city; the trunk lines <br />being aligned with the frontage road will save property owners lateral <br />costs in the future; if the property owners do not accept the MSA road at <br />this time, it will be developed in the future with developers providing <br />easements and construction of it. Mr. Holasek noted that if property <br />owners are not ready to develop in the future when the city has an absolute <br />need for the road, the city could still end up providing the road at higher <br />land and construction costs. <br /> <br />City Council/October 13, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 16 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />