Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> - .._~ <br /> Arden Hill s Council 4 June 29, 1992 . <br /> of this project will be handled. <br /> Engineer Graham and Public Works Superintendent Winkel <br /> reported that the City has attempted to unplug the existing <br /> p1pe several times and believe that the pipe is of different <br /> sizes and is possibly broken somewhere which magnifies the <br /> problem. Al so it 1S thought that the existing pipe would <br /> simply plug again in the future, so a permanent solution is <br /> necessary. Graham said the costs discussed at last fall's <br /> public hearing were estimates for construction only. <br /> John Lundgren, 3487 Ridgewood Road: Assuming the direct <br /> route option is used, could the path of the pipe be shifted <br /> somewhat to reduce its effect on my property and potential <br /> tree loss? <br /> Engineer Graham said estimated costs do take tree loss into <br /> consideration. <br /> John Halvorsen, 3517 Ridgewood Road: How is benefi t <br /> determined? <br /> Engineer Graham stated that an appraiser determines benefit. <br /> He added that notice of this hearing was sent to all . <br /> properties which potentially contribute to the drainage <br /> problem, that simply being invited to this meeting does not <br /> imply a potential assessment, that potentially assessable <br /> property owners will be determined at a 1 at er time. <br /> Deb Thornton, 3510 Siems Court: I am an attorney and my <br /> research indicates that proving benefit is a necessity <br /> before an assessment can be levied. The City has the <br /> responsibility to provide proper drainage. <br /> Councilmember Malone reiterated that the issue of benefit <br /> for each individual lot will be determined at a later time <br /> as part of the assessment hearing process; that the purpose <br /> of this evening's meeting is to discuss the detail s of the <br /> improvement. <br /> Arnold Lindberg, 3520 Siems Court: Before a decision can be <br /> made as to which option to use, the question of easement <br /> acquisition must be answered. <br /> Engineer Graham stated that it is the City Attorney's <br /> opinion (without a complete study of the issue) that if <br /> there is an existing pipe, there should not be an easement <br /> problem. <br /> Esther Dant, 3511 Ridgewood Road: I am troubled that the . <br /> City allowed continued development of the neighborhood when <br /> it was known that the pipe providing drainage was plugged. <br />