CCP 04-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1./~ 1 "(. \ . :io-: .. and potential liability like this would bankrupt us and jeopardize rail service to some 150 customers in the metro area. f . There is always the possibility of asking you to provide a "functional replacement" elsewhere on our property for this track and then selling you the land, covering the cost of relocation of the museum equipment, and, agreeing to cover the cost of the bridge removal (or getting a waiver of liability for us from MNDOT if we were to abandon this trackage from all bridge removal costs - which I doubt they would provide at this juncture because issues like this remain unresolved in the State as I understand it). Agreements providing for such bridges are silent as to who would pay the cost of such removal - that was the way they were written when the Interstate Highways were built thirough most Cities. . As you can see, these are difficult issues. I would also suggest, from seeing your proposed building locations for the next phase, that actually, the railroad track is really "Not in the way" of any of them and would not really materially jeopardize your development as you have it planned. .Given that, we might suggest a right of way "beutification" project where pine trees or shrubs may be planted along side the right of way to largely conceal it. We have also seen attractive fences built to do so, or, iimply a burm built on each side of the railroad right of way with f111 taken from excavation on the project sight (reducing construction costs) that effectively hides the rail trackage from eye level sight - sometimes complimented by shrubs or trees. I certainly would be glad to visit with you about all these matters - they are complicated and I hope I have given you some ideas on how to proceed. . Best regards to you, John W. Gohmann cc: Wayne Hall,Pat McCardle, Dave Sina, '.,.c,' .