Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 8, 2012 <br />The City Administrator reported that he has discussed this situation with <br />the City Attorney and the City has no obligation to restore any of the <br />landscaping or structures that will be disturbed when the sewer work is <br />done. <br />The City Engineer described the area in question including the location of <br />the existing 48 -inch line and the two options that exist for upgrading the <br />line. These include: <br />1. Construct new manholes and pipe within the existing easements. This <br />would require the existing backyard building be removed along with <br />some boulder and concrete retaining walls. <br />2. Obtain a new easement to allow the rerouting of the sanitary sewer <br />through another portion of the backyard allowing the property owners <br />improvements to remain intact. If this option is chosen, the City <br />Engineer recommended that the old easement be vacated upon receipt <br />of the new easement and the project is completed. Due to the extend <br />of the landscaping in the backyard, some features would need to be <br />removed along the new pipe route, but this is much less. <br />The Engineer reported that the property owner has indicated a willingness <br />to work with the City on the easement trade, but has requested $15,000 in <br />compensation for the impacted landscape features inside the new easement <br />area. In return, he would remove them and the City would only be <br />responsible for restoration of the grass area. <br />The Engineer pointed out that the City has worked cooperatively with <br />property owners on projects adjacent to their homes. However, in this <br />case the property owner is asking to be compensated for landscaping <br />features that would only be disturbed because the City would be relocating <br />a sanitary sewer outside an existing easement to protect the property <br />owner's private features within the existing easement. The Engineer <br />stated that there would be some cost related for removal and relocation of <br />the landscape features, but that cost is difficult to determine. <br />The Engineer again noted that the City Attorney has indicated that the city <br />is not responsible for removal or replacement of the private improvements <br />within the existing easement. The Engineer noted that the property owner <br />has pointed out that the City issued a building permit for these <br />improvements. The City Attorney has indicated that it was the property <br />owner's responsibility for knowing the existence and location of the <br />easements on his property. It was further noted that this was a Met <br />Council easement and not a City easement. <br />6 <br />