Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Arden Hills Council <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />June 29, 1992 <br /> <br />of this project will be handled. <br /> <br />Engineer Graham and Public Works Superintendent Winkel <br />reported that the City has attempted to unplug the existing <br />pipe several times and believe that the pipe is of different <br />sizes and is possibly broken somewhere which magnifies the <br />problem. Also it is 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 /> <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 /> <br />Engineer Graham said estimated costs do take tree loss into <br />consideration. <br /> <br />John Halvorsen, 3517 Ridgewood Road: How is benefit <br />determined? <br /> <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 later time. <br /> <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 /> <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 details of the <br />improvement. <br /> <br />Arnold Lindberg, 3520 Siems Court: <br />made as to which option to use, the <br />acquisition must be answered. <br /> <br />Before a decision can be <br />question of easement <br /> <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 /> <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 />