My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1992/02/10
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
Agenda Packets - 1992/02/10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:23 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 2:35:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/10/1992
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/10/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
. HANDED OUT AT MEETING 2/10/92 <br /> Agenda Section: 9. 8 <br /> 11110rCOES <br /> REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 92-179C <br /> STAFF REPORT Report Date: 2-10-92 <br /> GAG R Council Action: <br /> ❑ Special Order of Business <br /> CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE February 10, 1992 O Public Hearings <br /> ❑ Consent Agenda <br /> XX Council Business <br /> Item Description: Easement Acquisition for Ramsey County's <br /> Long Lake Road Reconstruction Project <br /> Administrator's Review/Recommendation: <br /> - No comments to supplement this report ;_ <br /> - Comments attached. <br /> Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) <br /> SUMMARY; <br /> I have reviewed the Right-Of-Way plans for the reconstruction of <br /> Long Lake Road. There are 121 temporary easements required for <br /> matching driveways, matching slopes, and other minor intrusions <br /> onto adjacent property. There are 22 permanent easements re- <br /> quired. These are primarily adjacent to drainage structures, such <br /> as curb inlets and pipe outlets. <br /> Additionally, the question of the storm water treatment cell <br /> requires resolution. The issue is whether the owner will ask for <br /> payment for the permanent easement necessary to construct the <br /> proposed facility. The owner is Keith Harstad, and he has not <br /> been available recently for discussion. I was informed that he <br /> would be back in town February 23rd. If he requests payment, does <br /> the Council wish to proceed with the treatment cell at this time? <br /> The sheer number of contacts required and the need for appraisals <br /> for, the permanent easements is a major time commitment. I have <br /> discussed the option of retaining a firm to provide legal de- <br /> scriptions, appraisals, and negotiations with other Cities. <br /> Roseville indicated that they have contracted with Evergreen Land <br /> Services in the past to provide this service. They are very <br /> pleased with the services provided as well as the cost. Another <br /> f_i_rm I-am-aware-of_is-N-orthstar Land_Services. I recommend that <br /> the City use one of these firms to handle the necessary ease- <br /> ments. <br /> "Laa4:4-411----.--- <br /> Ric Minetor <br /> City Engineer/Director of Public Works <br /> RECOMMENDATION; I recommend that the Council authorize the <br /> Director of Public Works negotiate a contract for Council appro- <br /> val on February 24, 1992. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.