Laserfiche WebLink
at $25,000/acre; don't think the>, will be at all receptive to $10,000/acre. <br /> <br />Discussed ensued regarding developing less than an MSA road in the area. <br />Mr. Hartley noted that the commercial area may be able to get by with <br />lesser road width but the MSA tonnage factor will be needed. Councilmember <br />DeLuca stated that it will be in the city's best interest in a long run to <br />have that frontage road in place. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember DeLuca and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to <br />authorize the City Attorney to offer no more than $25,000 per acre for <br />permanent right-of-way and $250 per acre for temporary easements which <br />shall be reduced to a width of 60 feet. Further, that the property owners <br />will receive no waiver of MSA road assessments and will follow the city's <br />standard Policy for sewer and water connection charges. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Councilmember Sorteberg stated that he would like a <br />confirmation on whether er not recent sales in the area were at $10,000- <br />$11,000; if so, the appraisal at $25,000/acre is in error. Councilmember <br />Cox stated that Ramsey must expend MSA funds in an efficient harmer and has <br />limited local government aids; MSA funds would be better used to <br />accommodate other needed projects ~'here easements would be donated; Council <br />should not make a determination to purchase the easements until there is <br />confirmation of comparable sales in the area and the appraisor is <br />confronted. Councilmember DeLuca noted that there is a time factor and if <br />the city goes through the eminent domain process, the easements will cost <br />at least $25,000/acre and maybe more; if the project is dropped, the city <br />will be paying legal fees to defend itself in court against the contractor; <br />with sewer, water and frontage road improvements this will be a high level <br />development area and the resulting tax base should make the protect <br />self-sustaining; do not agree with paying a high !~rice for easements but <br />the property owners did not want to develop at this time; the city will get <br />back half of road easement costs in the form of assessments. Councilmember <br />Pearson agreed that $25,000/acre is too much and stated that the property <br />owners might be receptive to a lower price to avoid being deleted from the <br />project area. Counci!member DeLuca noted that with this motion the city <br />would be obtaining ~_he easements at a cost comparable to recent sales <br />because of the return to the city in the form of road as~essr~ents. <br />Councilmember Cox noted that if the property owners were developing the <br />area, they would have to provide the easements and pay for street <br />construction; it is no: appropriate for the ci:y, based on past policy, =o <br />provide sewer and water and not require dona:ion of right-~.f-way. <br /> <br />Mayor Keimann called for a roll call vote: <br /> <br />Counci!member Pearson <br /> <br />Motion failed. <br /> <br /> · ~;~ ~ > t ~cn hearing <br />Council directed the ~5 .~crne,- o continue the ccndemna~: ~ <br /> <br />until eater the next regu~=. City Council meeting and have ~he =ppraz~c~r <br /> ~" il/Oct .... <br /> ..~v Count obi: ~ , i987 <br /> <br />!age iC cf 17 <br /> <br /> <br />