Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />Hodgson, but at the original county standards. Conversations since indicate the county <br />may not even be willing to do the compromise design, but would spend the money <br />elsewhere. Mr. Jensen asked who wouldn’t want this road. Mr. Grochala said north of <br />Birch it is mainly the speed limit issue, south of Birch some houses would become closer <br />to the ROW, and a business on J may have a building removed. If the full median goes in, <br />there are a lot of driveway access issues. Mr. Jensen stated this road had to be done. Ms. <br />Schwartz stated it was free money that was being passed up. Mr. Grochala stated this <br />project won’t come back until the city requests it from the county, and then the city will <br />have to share in the cost. <br /> <br />Ms. Carlson said in some areas the proposed road didn’t meet the city’s comprehensive <br />plan. Mr. Chase stated that political bodies and residents should not be designing roads, it <br />should be left to the experts. Mr. Vacha stated the county has policy for that reason. Mr. <br />Grochala noted that is the county engineer’s position, he has to sign off on the plan. Ms. <br />Carlson said the county’s plan would cost the city an access onto the Miller farm <br />property. Mr. Grochala said that will be an issue with or without the road project. What <br />clouds the issue with residents is that each county has different standards, speed limits, <br />and methods for paying for the improvements, and the residents wonder why one county <br />can have it one way, and another can’t. <br /> <br />Ms. Carlson said there are economic issues for people along the road, because their wells <br />and septics are near the ROW. Mr. Grochala stated if the wells or septic are in the ROW, <br />they get new ones at county expense. He added that we need to extend utilities in the <br />southwest corner, and this could be done at the county’s expense if this project was done. <br />This is an opportunity that shouldn’t be missed. Ms. Schwartz stated that if you live on a <br />major road, you run the risk of being acquired, and you will be compensated. The city has <br />an excellent commercial redevelopment opportunity at Hodgson and J. <br /> <br />Ms. Carlson said her position is if they don’t reach an agreement they will lose the <br />opportunity to get the compromise. The council hasn’t seen what the county has been <br />willing to accept. Mr. Grochala stated it would be going back to a council work session. <br /> <br />Ms. Schwartz moved to recommend the city give strong consideration to approving the <br />county’s compromise plan of 100 feet ROW. Ms. Hansmann seconded the motion. Mr. <br />Jensen asked how many buildings would be removed with the original county plan. Mr. <br />Grochala stated six; in the compromise plan one building is removed. Mr. Jensen said <br />that Hodgson and J needed redeveloping and it was an opportunity to remove those <br />buildings. Mr. Grochala stated there are property owners interested, and the county <br />obtaining ROW would facilitate redevelopment. Mr. Juni stated the message EDAC <br />wants to send is “don’t be shortsighted, don’t lose this “ <br /> <br />Motion passed with Mr. Jensen voting no. Mr. Jensen explained his vote by stating he is <br />in favor of the road being built to the original county standards, not to the compromised <br />standards. <br /> <br />