My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1986/07/07
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
Agenda Packets - 1986/07/07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 1:55:19 PM
Creation date
4/1/2025 1:55:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/7/1986
Description
Work / Executive Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r' <br />-3- <br />stay hiqh in the area which means hand/shovel digginq <br />the trpnrh is virtually impnasihle. The City's ground <br />water dewaterinq equipment is adequate for repairinq <br />pipes but not for installing 160 feet of pipe. <br />Ubvioumly, the other way to install the pipe is to <br />utilize a back hoe. if a backhoe is used, several trees <br />and a fence must he removed. The estimated cost of <br />inatallinq pipe utilizinq a hackhoe is $5,000. Before <br />additional details are discussed, overall impacts should <br />he reviewed. <br />To my letter to Dan Naugen dated May 27, 1986 <br />(Attachment No. 3-2), 1 state that we would he qlad to <br />do the work but I do not state who would or should pay <br />for the work. What policy should the City have for <br />paying for storm sewer improvements? <br />The property owners signed a letter stating that they <br />understand the benefits as well as the risks involved in <br />installing the pipe (Attachment No.3-3). The risk. is <br />that storm water may come not the end of the plop <br />hecausn the City's existing storm sewer system in the <br />area may be undersized. The storm water exiting the <br />hr,'posed inlet pipe could cause localized flooding more <br />severe than they have at the present time. <br />Is the letter they provide adequate to protect the City <br />if the pipe is installed and if there is property <br />damage? Their letter does not state any specific risks. <br />Attorney Meyers states that releases r,f thin, type do not <br />relieve the City of liability for damages. <br />By installing this pipe, there may be additional <br />flooding or ponding down stream. Do the property owners <br />down stream understand the risks? By installing this <br />pipe are we just shift the problem to some place else in <br />the drainaqe basin? <br />Most cities construct all the needed storm sewer <br />improvements in a drainaqe basin at the same time. The <br />reasons for this are as follows: <br />1. All impacts are known prior to construction - All <br />the prohlems can he corrected at one time and no <br />area will be flooded because of the improvements. <br />2. Economies of Scale - A larger project solvinq many <br />problems at once is less expensive to construct than <br />snlvinq one problem at a time. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.