5.9. SR 01-23-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEe 3 n 199~ eONSUJTI~G t;NGlNEERS 1326 Energy pork Drive St. Paul, MN 55108 612-644-4389 1-800-888- 2923 Fax: 612-644-9446 CIVIL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL MUNICIPAL e PLANNING SOLID WASTE STRUCTURAL SURVEYING TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL! MECHANICAL ENGINEERING HVAC POWER DISTRIBUTION SCADA SYSTEM CONTROlS OFFICES IN e MINNEAPOLIS PRIOR LAKE ST. PAUL W ASECA December 21, 1994 File: 230-212-53 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 RE: CONCORD STREET IMPROVEMENTS Dear Council Members: On Thursday evening, December 15, 1994, Council Member John Dietz and I attended an informational meeting held at the Nelson residence on Concord Street. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a forum for the neighbors to discuss the proposed' street improvement. For your reference, I have attached an exhibit, previously presented, which shows Concord Street and the owners of each individual property. Those in attendance at Thursday's meeting included Madden, Ward, Ostien, Johnson, Zehowski, Schaefer, Nelson, Smith, and Haaland. Those not attending Thursday's meeting included Palmer, Carlson, and Sohns. At the beginning of the meeting, Council Member Dietz and I gave an update on the status of the project. We indicated that the City had made an attempt to acquire easements. As indicated by the attached drawing, there are still seven easements outstanding. We indicated that three of them were not necessary to go forward with the project. Those include McCarty, Johnson, and Zehowski. We did indicate that the other four Ward, Palmer, Carlson, and Sohns were necessary in order for the City to proceed. We told those in attendance that it would be highly unlikely that the City would consider condemnation proceedings against those four properties, since, that is a costly process. The cost of which, would need to be assessed back against the owners of the property on Concord Street. We gave a brief description of the improvement project process, with emphasis on the assessment hearing, and the fact that if there were major appeals to the assessment process, once again, the City could choose to not move forward with the project, rather than take their chances fighting an appeal in the courts. We also briefly discussed the gravel road alternative, which was presented in the feasibility study. We indicated that a gravel road alternative could likely be constructed with a 25-35% reduction in the assessment to each property. We did indicate that this had not been considered by the entire Council, and if the neighbors were to choose to move forward with a gravel road alternative, it would have to be presented to the City Council for their approval.