11/03/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

continue to negotiate; 4) Delete the MSA road from the project and sewer and water via an alternate route. Councilmember Pearson stated that the project should not be forced and an alternate alignment for sewer and water should be used. Councilmember DeLuca stated that he is in favor of offering the city's appraised value for the easements.aS the project is worthwhile in that the frontage road is necessary for the community's benefit and the cost will be be more expensive 5-i0 years from no~,; decisions should not always be based on what is more cost effective at the time. Councilmember Cox noted that the service road is a given; if it is not provided for now, developers of that area will have to provide it in the future. Councilmember Cox stated that he is not willing te use MSA funds to pay for right-of-way to provide sewer and water service with funds derived from another development area that paid in full for all of it's improvements and provided easements. Councilmember Sorteberg stated he is in favor of offering the apFraised value for the easements. Mayor Reimann stated that the frontage road project should cease and the MSA funds be used for other needed street construction where easements would be donated. P~andy Elofson stated that he would be agreeable to accepting the city's appraised value for the easements. Motion by Counci!mem~er Cox and ~=c~nded by Counci!member ?ear'son tc d~.~!ay the legal calendar for condemnation proceedings until after the next regular Council meeting and during the interim the City Engineer should review alternative sewer and water trunk alignments and proceed to make pre!imir, ary application ~'i~h Mn/DoT to utilize the Hwy. #!O ease.ments ir~ order that that process ~'il! be unde_--way in the event a decision is made to move in that direction. Further Discussion: Council-member Sorteberg no,ed that if cor.:de.mnaticn proceeds, t+,=~_ -~_n~um~" ~he c'~tv viii have t~ oav~ ~ f~-~_ easemer.~ is the city':. appraised value,.~25,000/azre =~--d he and C~-=~m=~b=-~__._~ _= _. DeLuca have _tithed-- that przca is = v~a~!e option. Coun~!membar~_ ~_~.~= =~ed that the frontage road ~ro~ect is imoornant to F~==v; ~he $~= 000/acre should be imoortant tc t~e prcperuy o~'ners as i~ is to the city; the ~runk i:~=s being a!~~'_=~._~ ~.~= ' = e property c~ner= !a~era! ~":~__. ~=e,__- .~+ ___~-'~ be deve!cped in the future ~i~h~ ~ developers providing easemenn= g~d cons~rucnion of i~ ~- Eoiasek noted :ha: ¢~ orooer~v owners -re not ready tc deve!~p :- ' ' ' = . _ ~,~ tae future when ~ne city has an absoiu~e need for the road. ~' city '~ ' ~i =-'~ u~. prov~czng t~ ' ' land and zonstruaticn costs. Council/October ~ ~' , 1967