10-21-80 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAIQ LLMO CITY COUNCJIL M KINC, OCTOBER 219 1980 _4_ ENGIN:EER'S REPORT: B. Ilubo.ette- _Culvert: Donald. Hubenette, 8160 Hill Tr.. N., contacted the Administrator about spring flooding of his property, caused % by the culvert between his property and Olson Lake. The culvert freezes, 1 restricts the run—o£.f. and backs the water 'up on Hubenette's property. The solution would be a culvert that provides access from the top in order to thaw it out. Estimated cost would be $800 to $10000. This problem exists for about one week in 'the spring. The culvert is presently under— water, and once opened the lake is free to flow back onto the property. Mottaz recommended plugging the culvert and fill the yard and driveway area. The Engineer felt the culvert should remain open in case the lake recedes, but agreed with the filling proposal. The Council agreed; and instructed. the Admin:S.strator to notify Mr, Hubenette of this recommendation. C. Boutel. Pond — The valve needs to be installed. Engineer Bohrer is waiting for final approval from the County and verification that all their downstream improvements are complete. This project should be completed by November.l. D. Eagle Point Channel — Harem's Driveway — Engineer Bohrer distributed the survey that showed where the driveway, culvert, and channel are in relation -to the City's property and adjacent property. The culvert is on City property. Ile recommended a complete title search be made. The City withdrew its offer to Haxdys, on relocating their driveway, on September 2,5, 1980, after no response was received to the offer. The Council will reevaluate this after the title opinion is complete and it is determined how long the driveway has existed. The Council will then decide on renegotiating the offer or beginning the necessary channel work, E, Maintenence Building — Legion Pond — The Council ordered the Legion Pond project, per the submitted petition, on October 7. The petitioners decided to do the wotk themselves and withdrew their petition October 111. They will still use the fill from the Naintenance Building site., The Council discussed the expenses incurred from the time the petition was received until the petition was withdrawn and who is responsible for the exgineering and expenses. Armstrong moved,seconded by Novak, to allow the petitioners to withdraw their petition provided that an agreement is reached whereby all the expenses the City has incurred will be paid by those petitioning. Discussions the Engineer estimated between $500 and ,$1,000 has been expended, ( The petition was dated October 3, the project was ordered October 79 and the request to withdraw was received October 14.) Motion carried 5-0. The Council further discussed what benefit the petitioners received for this expenditure, Morgau asked for a breakdown of the costs. The Engineer will compile the figures. Ile also stated work has begun on the residents property by a, private contractor, 4.he Building Inspector will continue — to inspect the sewer systems. (_ Armstrong moved, seconded by Novak, to rAind the previous motion and con— sider the petitioners request to withdraw and their liability when exact costs are available. Motion carried 5--0,