My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8.0. SR 12-10-2001
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2001
>
12/10/2001
>
8.0. SR 12-10-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:33:31 AM
Creation date
4/29/2004 6:51:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
12/10/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />December 6, 2001 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />improvements are 95% complete and have been initially reviewed by MnDOT. The two issues <br />that remain to be resolved on this project are land acquisition and utility issues. <br /> <br />First, on land acquisition, I have met with the majority of property owners along the project and <br />discussed the need for land acquisition. In each individual meeting, I am providing the <br />property owner a written offer based on tax value of their property along with easement <br />documentation. This is required by Federal law associated with the TEA-21 grant. Thus far, <br />the only easement that has been fully executed is for the Klein property. One property owner <br />talked to me just this week and indicated they would like to take the City's offer of money and, <br />in fact, have asked for slightly more than the amount offered. The property owner was offered <br />approximately $1,350 for the easement. They have come back and asked for $2,000. Based <br />on this, I am looking for direction from the City Council as to how to proceed with land <br />acquisition. Would the City Council like me to continue to push to have the easements signed <br />at no cost in anticipation of a road improvement with no assessments to abutting property <br />owners, or would the City Council want to pursue a strategy of paying for and/or condemning <br />property along 175th Avenue, assuming that the street improvement would be assessed to the <br />abutting property owners? <br /> <br />The second issue is whether or not to include sanitary sewer and watermain with the project. <br />The proposed Park Pointe project will be coming forward to the City Council on December <br />17th. At that time, we believe there will be a petition from the Developers of that project <br />requesting sanitary sewer and watermain be included in 175th Avenue. A decision on whether <br />or not to include sanitary sewer and water in the project can certainly wait until the petition is <br />received or later. <br /> <br />D. ZANE AVENUEIMPROVEMENTS <br /> <br />This is the Cooperative Agreement project that would realign Zane Avenue near the NAPA <br />Auto Parts Store and Saxon Motors. along with connecting the road to the new road in the <br />Mississippi Ridge development, allowing the access onto TH 10 to be permanently closed. <br />We have recently heard back from MnDOT that they do have funding available to participate in <br />this project. They have earmarked approximately $160,000 for their contribution to the road <br />improvement. As we discussed previously, at this point the City Council should consider <br />whether or not to order a feasibility study for the extension of sanitary sewer and water laterals <br />to serve NAPA Auto Parts, Saxon Motors, and the Americlnn. Attached for your consideration <br />is a resolution which would authorize such a feasibility study. <br /> <br />E. WACO STREET/TH 10 SIGNALIZATION <br /> <br />MnDOT has approved the Signal Justification Report for the signalization of this intersection. <br />We have prepared preliminary plans and have had them reviewed by MnDOT. At this point, <br />we are waiting for direction from the City Council on how and when to proceed with this <br />project. One issue is should any of the adjacent property be assessed for the signal and if so, <br />how much. The second issue is one of timing, when to proceed with the construction of the <br />signal. The City could initiate the construction of the signal or wait until a request comes <br />forward for the signal from the adjacent properties. <br /> <br />Ltr 12-05-01 Council.doc <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.