My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-11-92 Special CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1992
>
06-11-92 Special CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 3:36:32 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:22:32 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
LAKE ELMO SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1992 2 <br />Incur legal fees for the session at which the <br />appraisal testimony is presented. (once or twice) <br />Incur engineering expenses for the session at which <br />the city presents its appraisal data. Attempt to do <br />that in one session. <br />$5,500 plus land acquisition costs, plus cost of <br />our appraiser. <br />Looking at the project, 5 acres for drainfield, and 3 acres <br />for pending, Filla stated the city would show the judge that <br />we are acquiring the property (8 acres) for a public <br />purpose. We should have resolutions ordering these <br />improvements, authorizing condemnation and determining that <br />this property is necessary for a public purpose and that we <br />can't negotiate the acquisition. <br />If this project costs $100,000 and only increases <br />property values by $50, $50 is what you can recover. You <br />have to get as close as you can estimating the numbers. You <br />won't know what the acquisition price on the land until you <br />have completed condemnation proceedings. There is only so <br />much you can assess no matter what the project costs. You <br />can assess cost of the improvement to the extent of benefit. <br />In 1991, Mr. Schiltgen's attorney indicated that one of <br />the reasons they were not interested in doing business with <br />the City at that time, they did not want to be left with a <br />triangular piece of land separated from the rest of the <br />farmland by a drainage ditch. If they can't farm it, we are <br />going to buy it because we are basically taking the land. <br />Councilman Mottaz requested that the City Engineer, in <br />writing, explain that he has considered other possible <br />drainfield sites and for specific reasons addressed the <br />suitability of these sites for a community drainfield. Also, <br />requested results of the boring and perc tests for the next <br />council meeting. <br />Tom Prew: we were not planning on assessing for drainage at <br />all. We were looking at a taxing district or storm water <br />utility funds. The drainfield would be a connection charge <br />and would not be an assessment. <br />Mayor Johnson: Before we get involved with condemnation, <br />should we not sit down with Mr.Schiltgen and get his <br />absolute assurance he is not going to buy into this. He <br />would like confirmation from Mr. Schiltgen or his attorney <br />for the next meeting. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.