CC PACKET 10271987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . Public 'Works to Repair Retention'- Spillway 2' Mr. Hamer showed pictures of the damage done to the spillway. in.- the 3 retention holding-pond structure at. Highcrest. Road and approximately. 4 39th Avenue N-. E. following the July, 1987 , storm., .He said he 5 recognized that the Council would never consider paying $36 ,000 for a 6 total ' - reconstruction project or $14 , 000 to temporarily repair. the 7 unit.- The Public Works Director indicated he was certain a riprap 8 would hold the ground until a fund for making permanent repairs is 9 established. -The feasibility study on the project was already in 10 and the only costs would be for materials since the Public :.Works 11 Department would do the work to stabilize the washout with costs to 12 be taken from the General Maintenance Fund. 13 Councilmember Marks said from what he had observed, he agreed that a 14 temporary repair would be enough to keep the- - wall from collapsing 15 and would buy enough time for the Council to put together a complete 16 package for making all necessary improvements to the City' s storm and 17 sanitary sewer systems . Councilmember Enrooth indicated he could 18 see where having the removal of drain tiles from the sanitary system 19 considered from a cost effective viewpoint might diffuse some of the 20 controversy surrounding that issue . 21 Council Action � 22 Motion by Marks , seconded by Enrooth to have Rieke Carroll Muller 23 Associates , Inc. do both feasibility cost studies to improve the 24 storm water drainage and sanitary sewer hydrology study . at costs not 25 to exceed $1.1 , 200 and $6 , 700 respectively; to have the engineers to . 26 make an assessment of foundation drain removal from the sanitary 27 sewer system at a cost not to exceed $2 , 000 , as recommended by the 28 City Manager ; and, finally; to direct the Public . Works Director to 29 proceed with the temporary repairs he had proposed to the storm 30 damaged areas in the retention pond. 31 Motion carried unanimously. 32 Mannings Restaurant Lease Approved for Stonehouse 33 Mr . Soth reported Mannings owner had agreed to all but. three of the 34 changes the City Attorney had suggested for the above lease. The 35 Attorney said he hoped Mannings ' quote of 5% rather than 6% on page 36 10 was just a mistake . He also thought Mr. Manning had 37 misinterpreted the condemnation clause on page 10 which dealt with 38 the City not the tenant , receiving all the real estate awards if the .39 state should condemn the property for highway construction, etc. , 40 mistakenly thinking the clause referred to. relocation costs . 41 Mr. Soth indicated research has shown there would be no payments due 42 - the County in lieu of the real estate taxes: so that section of the i43 lease could either be deleted or the language clarified to indicate 44 the restaurant owner would only be responsible for the taxes on his 13