Minutes - Public Works Committee - 04/16/2002

Home

liability on the part of the City. What the City is able to do is acquire from B & B the same three things they have negotiated from the Ramsey Professional Building. The total cost of all projects would be $98,907. Since the last council meeting they have learned that MnDOT intends on updating T.H. 10 to freeway status from Sunfish Lake Boulevard instead of an expressway. Councilmember Zimmerman noted that those plans are not set in concrete. City Administrator Norman replied that a lot depends on funding. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that his understanding is that Highway #10 will eventually be a freeway. Any improvement they do along Highway #10 they have to take under consideration because the highway will be changing. City Attorney Goodrich explained that the total project cost would be $98,907 and for that the City would receive a 42 foot wide frontage road permanent easement across B & B and Ramsey Professional Building, the right of access, and a 32 foot wide utility easement in the back of both properties. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that the City would not be taking the existing right of access, but would be receiving it in the future and the likelihood of MnDOT allowing for another driveway is not likely so in turn they are getting nothing. He inquired if there was any funding mechanism through TIF that could be used for the project. City Administrator Norman replied that they will be using the available T~ funds and the remaining would come from the Public Improvement Revolving Fund. Councilmember Hendriksen inquired as to how much would come from the general fund. City Administrator Norman replied that no funds would be coming from the general fund. Councilmember Kurak noted that the case stated that $52,794 would come from the general fund. City Administrator Norman replied that that was a mistake. Councilmember Hendriksen stated that when Ramsey Professional Building was before them they were making the statement that the driveway had been moved and at that time he tended to agree with them. At the previous meeting Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he had viewed the aerials and believed that that was not the case. Since the last meeting he had a chance to view the aerials and found that the driveway location had not been moved. City Attorney Goodrich replied that it was true that the actual location of the driveway has not changed. City Engineer Jankowski presented sketches of where the driveway was previously located, its current location, and the proposed location. He explained that what changed was the orientation Public Works Committee/April 16, 2002 Page 2 of 12