05-25-83 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i•1I'\U'L'i~ g Ci.Cy Counc~il May 7i, 1.9`?3 ~teaCher Da?cs "-ir. Forsberg ,tated tllat hc ~aas worr.i.ed that i.n the t:uture tl~e R Drai.na;e res~idents of i~ieacher Chitcs woi.itcl come ~in and ask for a re~li.ict,Lon (Cont:.) ~in thci.r CaYes because the Ci_l:y doc.s not provi.de :n~:CnCennnce Cor t:he~i_r road. ilrs. Nardi.ni commented thaC. tlu_s ~v:ill be st.ipulated :i.n the ~ssoci.at.i.on. P4r. I'orsberg ~;CaLed that I,Ze c~~as noC sat~isf:i.ed ~o:ith the cost oreal:down f.or the drainage project: and di.ct not fe~~t th~t puhl.ic moni.es ,hou,ld be doinp, into Lhis projecC. i'orsber~ pointed ouC that ti~~e Ci.ty, County and itaCe are bei_ng, asked Co contri.l~utc. tocoards tPie pro.ject. T!Ir. liorsl>erg felt t,haC i_t ~oas a privaCe probl.em. '~~orsbe.rn stated Chat wi_thouC the apartment bui.lding> there woul.d not: be a dra_i.nea,~;e probl.em. T'orsbFrg al.so }~oi.nted out that tk~e Ci.ty wi.11 have to mai_nta:in thc ].ift stati_on. }~orsberg felt t:hat the project and mai.nten~nce costs shoul.d be pa~i_d for by the pr.operty ocvners causint; [he. ~~,rob7.em. Porsbera al.so staited tt~iat the 5leepy 1~Lo7.l.0~o apart.:ments oiere Y~uil.t: i.n a hol.e, Ydr. r^ahey poi_nte,c~l out Ch~C the Ci.Cy apyroved t:he S1e~py Hu1~l.ow projecC anct Che City had a lousy inspection system aC that t:imc. t{~wever, Chi.s i.s sorneth:i.ng that. thc Ci.ty must now :I.i.ve *.ai.tl~t. "Ir. l~ahey also statcd that th~ Cihy reta~ins an Engi_necr and thi.s ~i.s Che renort the Ci.ty rec~i.vecJ. ~tr. Forsbe:rg poi.nted ouC thaC the Oi.ty i.s bc~in~; aslced to contr~.ibute $28,Op0 and the C~Lty should not ~;:i.ve 7CS money aco~y. The Ei1g.i.neer renor.~Ced to Che Council the reasotis for hi_s dr2:i_na,v,e esC~imates and presented a man outl.i.ning t:l~e ~reas that certai.n parC~i.e, were responsi.b~l.e F~r the drainage of. I'le `?n„i.neer r~~i~~rted Yh2t he ha5 su}>mi.t:ted h~.~> ~,Ei.gures To the. StaY.e ~~ncl?~.?r. C].asrud i; al,o revi.erai.ns~ his cost figures. The t'sn;ineer stated thaC he has a1.so presented t,he attorney for Y:h~ Sleepy IIoJ.loco es[:atc Gri.th tkie fi.gures f.or thair share of thF soluC:ion. Mr. Carley re,ported thaC Clnabury Co~idom~i.riiums wi11 be bri.ng~i.ng in i nct:ition for rchuiltlinf, theis ,tree~ wi.th curb and g~itCe.r.. 'Chere£or.e, ~iF ~5:~s i.s aP7n-oved it urould reduce everyorie else's cost. in C:he projECt sl.ightl.y, Pirs. Scalze <ll.d riot a~;ree wi-th ~'~e ~ng~ineE.rr's c~lculations ,for tl~e ~ssessments. Scal.ze Eelt that a nrassy area shoutd i~e rated at 1 and anythLns~ wi_th a roo[ or b~l.actctop should be raT.~d aiC 3. P~(rs, >ca'1~e aslced t:he isngi.ne,ee~ iS l~~i-s methods for deCec~~ni.n:i.ng t:he assessmeni.:s coul.d be baclced up. 'fhe 1?,ngi.neor repli~d th~at they could. t~(rs. ~calze sC:ated thlt t:h~ t.o~.onhou>es' port~i_on stiioald. ~~iot be p:i.clced ~~p by the City. 'fhe [;np,i.neer repl.~i_ed thait the Ci.ty had a hear~i.n{~ on that; matter a Fua yemrs ago and the~ p~~op1F ~[rom the t.ownhouses ~ve>.re very irate aaout parCici.nattng :in th,i.s projecC. 'LL~ereLore, the Coui~c~il voted i.t down. The Engincer also poinled out t.hat the C:i.ty Fias never assessed anyone f:or a storrn sewer p~roject. pa~;e -IS-