Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Musgrove asked about current plans for getting sewer and water there versus any <br />potential options. <br /> <br />City Engineer/Interim Public Works Director Westby replied water can be pulled from the north <br />under the railroad tracks or from Ramsey Boulevard. He stated sewer would be best pulled from <br />the north under the tracks. He stated they have some spots to do that. To pull it from the Ramsey <br />Boulevard in the east would require putting in a lift station and forced main back to 134rd and <br />Ramsey. He confirmed there are options. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove referenced comments about future businesses in the area but thought <br />there could be potential businesses seeing those properties as prime land. She stated having all <br />green space has a cost also. She stated she liked that they may have potential to leave it open to <br />providing water and sewer and potential business. She stated it may not look like it would work <br />but thought it may and asked that be considered evenly with leaving as green space. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley asked if the plan had been to acquire this land. <br /> <br />Mr. Orcutt replied they did look at this because it was wanting to stop the cul-du-sac, there was an <br />extension, with the City’s length that is usually allowed. He stated Council was generous with that <br />and once they got further into negotiations they looked at that as being an acquisition. He stated <br />that was the last aggregate intersection between 35 W and the County line. He stated that was a <br />discussion that Federal Highways and Mn/DOT would like to see that driveway relocated. By <br />extending the road over. At that time it wasn’t seen as a feasible option but once they got into the <br />data they saw it more clearly. He stated in this time with inflation being so high production costs <br />have to be looked at and other items. He stated they balanced it as a fiscal decision and the wishes <br />of a potential property owner wanting to stay. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley asked if Mr. Orcutt was saying Mr. Runyon is saying he wants to stay. <br /> <br />Mr. Orcutt replied no, he wasn’t saying that but through the years there have been many discussion <br />between their agents. In this case providing this option he thought has to at least be explored. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley asked if it was really a negotiations issue because prices haven’t been set <br />but are being negotiated. <br /> <br />Mr. Orcutt replied it is being negotiated, an offer has been sent out. He stated with this option that <br />offer could be changed potentially and looking at getting the ability to stay. He stated in looking <br />at the cul-du-sac length and the other cul-du-sac length by the Implement Dealer on the east end <br />of the project, it was noticed that the distances, while not equal they are similar which is something <br />that warranted discussion. He stated then the RALF properties wouldn’t be acquired from the <br />project which could be good or bad. He stated they are looking at project bottom line and seeing <br />that there is an opportunity to save a substantial amount of money and provide access that is why <br />he is before the Council. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session /July 26, 2022 <br />Page 4 of 19 <br /> <br />