05-11-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIMUTES City Council May 11 , 1988 Eng Fahey asked if the development of the Nammond pr~oper•ty contr•ibuted to Dr•ainage the dr•ainage pr~oblem. (Cont.) The Engineer• r•eplied that when Hammond filled a por•tion of his pr•oper•ty he r•eplaced the stor•age that was lost. The City Engineer• suggested that he follow thr•ough with the County to see that they do the impr~ovements they have indicated. However•, the City Engineer• could not guar~antee that the Eng pr•oper•ty would dr•y up as a r~esult of these impr•ovements. Mr~s. Eng r•epor•ted that a r•epr~esentative fr~om the City Engineer~'s office once indicated that the culver•t pipes coming fr~om the south should have been located one lot further to the east. Fahey as!~ed if the level of the ditch in fr•ont of the Eng home could be r•ai sed to di r•ect water• i nto the Hammond pond. The City Engineer• stated that he would look at it, however•, pointed out that the fall is only a matter• of inches. The Engineer• suggested that the cur•bing impr~ovements suggested by the Council will dir~ect water• into the Nammond pr•oper•ty r•ather• tYian the Eng pr•operty. Scalze suggested that the Engineer• look at the culver•ts coming fr•om the south and deter•mine if they should be moved fur•ther~ east. Scalze suggested that the Ci ty pr•essur~e the County to do some cor~r~ecti ve wor•k on this drainage problem. -~o-~"" te • aY n Correc~~o~ 20~ r 5 Blesener~ agr•eed that the only way to addr~ess the standing wa Res. move the cul ver•ts fur~ther• east. Fahey instructed the City Engineer to look at the problem and seek the cooperation of the County in resolving the matter. Thunder• Bay Bill Sander•s r•epor~ted that NSP has contar,ted him and indicated that Par~k they ar~e willing to dedicate their• pr•oper~ty wi.thin Thunder• Bay Par•k to the City. NSP would then r~etain an easement over• the pr•oper•ty for• Agenda purposes of the power~line. Addition Fahey asked if the City r•eceives any taxes fr•om this pr~oper~ty. The City Clerk reported that the City does receive personal property taxes fr~om the pr•oper•ty, although he was not sur•e of the amount. The City Cler•k r•aised the issue of insurance liability should the City accept the pr~oper•ty. The City Attor•ney suggested that he consider~ the matter• and make a r•ecommendation to the Council at its next meeting. However~, the Attor•ney did not think insur•ance liability incr~eased if the City owned the property and it was used for park purposes over the situation of NSP owning the proper~ty and the City used it for~ par~k pur•poses. The Attor•ney also suggested that the amount of taxes gener•ated fr~om the property be deter~mined. Page -15-