11/12/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

continue to negotiate; £) I)elcte the }iSA road from tLe project and instsll ~ewer and water via an alternatt route, Councilmember Pearson ~tated that the project should not be forced and an alternate alignment for sewer and water £hou]d be used. Councilmember DeLuca stated that he js in favor of offering the city's appraised value for the ea~ernent~ az the project is worthwhile in that the frontage road is necessary for tlc community's benefit and the cost will be be more expensive 5-10 years from now; decisions ~hould net alway~ 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. C0uncilmember Cox stated that he i~ not willing to usc MSA funds to pay for right-of-way to provide sewer and water ~ervice with funds derived from another development area that paid in full for all of it's improvements and provided easements. Councilmember £orteberg stated he is in favor of offering the appraised value for the ea~.cnents. Mayor Reimann stated that the frontage road project should ce['r.c and the MSA funds be used for other needed street construction where easements would be donated. ~ndy Elofson stated that he would be agreeable to accepting the city's appraised value for the easements. Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Pearson to delay the legal calendar for condemnation proceedings until after the ne~t regular Council meeting and during the interim the City Engineer should review alternative sewer and water trunk alignments and proceed to make pre!imi~ary application with Mn/DoT to u~lize the ~wy. ~!0 easements in order that that process will be unde~-way in the event a decision i~ made ~o move in that direction. Further Discussiom: Counci!member Sorteberg noted that if condemnation proceeds, the mini=urn the city will have to pay for easements is the c_!m_m~_. DeLuca have stated appraised value,~=e~5,000/acre and he and Coun ~ .~ that price~ is a viable c~ticn.. Counciimember DeLuca st-ted= that the frontage road ~re-]ect i= important to ~=x-; :he ~'~ 000/acre ~h~,,~d be offered to ~-opertv owners; if that i= not acce~tab!e to nh~, condemnation sbou!d proceed. Councilm~ber Cox honed that the f.o~=ee road .;~ just a ~portar. t to '~ ~_e ~roperty o~'ner[ a~ i: i~ to ~he city; the trunk iine~ bezng ai~[ned ':~' ' _ ~, the frontage road will save property owners iaterz~ cost~ in the future; if the property owners do not accept tree ~.S~. road '~= time, it will be ~evelc~e~ i~- the future with gevelo~er= easement~ and ccnstructicm cf it. Mr. M.o!asek noted [hat if ~rcperty ownera are not ready to develop im the future when the city ha~ ar~ absc!ute r~eed for the road, the city could still end up prorating the :-cad at higher land and construction costs. City ' 1 / ' ~ ' - Councz_~Oc~oper 13, ~9~7 Page 16 of 8