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 tL. at 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 is 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 ~ervice 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 cecile and the <br />MSA funds be used for other needed street construction where easements <br />would be donated. <br /> <br />P~andy 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 i~ <br />order that that process will be unde~--way in the event a decision is made to <br />move in that direction. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Counci!m~mber 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 Ccuncilmember DeLuca have stated <br />that price is a viable opnion. Counciimember DeLuca stared that the <br />frontage road oro~ect. ~ ~ imoortamt~ to F~sev;~ :he ~°5,000/~re=~ should be <br />c~ffered ~e property owners; if that is not acce~ta~!e <br />should p~oceed ~ "~--~ .... <br />~portaxt to the property owners a~ it is to the city; :he tru~k lines <br />~e~~ligned w~ ~e fr~-~age road will save ~rooertv ewmers lateral <br />cosn= in =he future; :~ :he property c ...... <br /> ~ ~ wTM dc not accept the MS,. road at <br />this =ime, it will be deve!cped in the future with deve!cper~ providimg <br />easements and construction ....... c.= it ~- Eo!asek noted th=t= _~;= Frcper~y <br />owners are not ready to deve~cp tn' the future when the ~;+~-~..g ha=~. an ab~c!ute <br />need for ~he road, the city could still end up providing the road at higher <br />land and construction costs. <br /> <br />City Counci!/Octobe~ <br /> <br /> <br />