Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />• .;2T|MG <br />NOV 2 4 1997 <br />Date: NovemSX96,9R0NO <br />Title: Senior Planning Coordinator <br />Item Description: Spring Hill Tunnel Agreement - City Non-Participation Option <br />Lbt of Exhibits <br />A - Letter from Tom Crosby 1 1-12-97 <br />Per the attached letter. Spring Hill has initiated contact with Hennepin County regarding the <br />possibir*v of a direct agreement between Spring Hill and the County for the County Road 6 tunnel. <br />As orivmdlly approved in the CUP resolution, the City agreed to enter into a cooperative agreement <br />^ i’ounty to 'identify legal and technical responsibilities for the tunnel', and the applicants <br />to A*:ept all reassigned responsibilities via a similar agreement between Orono and Spring <br />Hill. <br />The City's involvement in such an agreement was required by the County when this issue was <br />discussed during the CUP approval process last spring. At the applicant's request, the County is now <br />reviewing the possibility of a direct agreement with Spring Hill that does not require City <br />involvement. The County Attorney has reviewed the proposed direct agreement with Spring Hill, <br />and has indicated that the tunnel culvert needs to be in public ownership rather than private <br />ownership. This appears to require the City's involvement in an agreement regarding the tunnel. <br />However, the County would like to know whether the City would prefer to be included in or <br />excluded from the tunnel agreement. <br />If the City is excluded from the tunnel agreement, the City would not have to assume responsibility <br />or liability for any tunnel maintenance, repair, etc. should Spring Hill fail to comply with any County <br />requirements. <br />Council Action Requested <br />Motion to indicate whether the Council would be supportive of a direct tunnel agreement between <br />Spring Hill and Hennepin County, eliminating City involvement.