Laserfiche WebLink
1 Public Works to Repair Retention Spillway <br /> 2 Mr. Hamer showed pictures of the damage done to the spillway in the <br /> 3 retention holding pond structure at Highcrest Road and approximately <br /> 4 39th Avenue N.E. following the July, 1987 , storm. He said he <br /> 5 recognized that the Council would never consider paying $36,000 for a <br /> 6 total reconstruction project or $14 ,000 to temporarily repair the <br /> 7 unit. The Public Works Director indicated he was certain a riprap <br /> 8 would hold the ground until a fund for making permanent repairs is <br /> 9 established. The feasibility study on the project was already in <br /> 10 and the only costs would be for materials since the Public Works <br /> 11 Department would do the work to stabilize the washout with costs to <br /> 12 be taken from the General Maintenance Fund. <br /> 13 Councilmember Marks said from what he had observed, he agreed that a <br /> 14 temporary repair would be enough to keep the wall from collapsing <br /> 15 and would buy enough time for the Council to put together a complete <br /> 16 package for making all necessary improvements to the City' s storm and <br /> 17 sanitary sewer systems. Councilmember Enrooth indicated he could <br /> 18 see where having the removal of drain tiles from the sanitary system <br /> 19 considered from a cost effective viewpoint might diffuse some of the <br /> 20 controversy surrounding that issue. <br /> 21 Council Action <br /> •22 Motion by Marks , seconded. by - Enrooth .to have Rieke Carroll Muller <br /> 23 Associates, Inc. do both feasibility cost studies to .improve the <br /> 24 storm water drainage .and sanitary sewer hydrology study at costs not <br /> 25 to exceed $11 , 200 and $6 , 700 respectively; to have the engineers to <br /> 26 make an assessment of foundation drain removal from the sanitary <br /> 27 sewer system at a cost not to exceed $2 ,000 , as recommended by the <br /> 28 City Manager; and, finally, to direct the Public Works Director to <br /> 29 proceed with the temporary repairs he had proposed to the storm <br /> 30 damaged areas in the retention pond. <br /> 31 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 3.2 Mannings Restaurant Lease Approved for Stonehouse <br /> 33 Mr. Soth reported Mannings owner had agreed to all but three of the <br /> 34 changes the City Attorney had suggested for the above lease. The <br /> 35 Attorney said he hoped Mannings ' quote of 5% rather than 6% on page <br /> 36 10 was just a mistake. He also thought Mr. Manning had <br /> 37 misinterpreted the condemnation clause on page 10 which dealt with <br /> 38 the City not the tenant, receiving all the real estate awards if the <br /> 39 state should condemn the property for highway construction, etc. , <br /> 40 mistakenly thinking the clause referred to relocation costs. <br /> 41 Mr. Soth indicated research has shown there would be no payments due <br /> 0 42 the County in lieu of the real estate taxes so that section of the <br /> 43 lease could either be deleted or the language clarified to indicate <br /> 44 the restaurant owner would only be responsible for the taxes on his <br /> 13 <br />