Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />has bee~ ~m~leted since submittal of this bill, everything has been done <br />accordir~,ito ispecs and the City, as normal procedure, is retaining 5%. <br /> <br />Motion ~a~ried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilm~rs Sorteberg, <br />Reimann,{ .~nd !Van Wagner. Voting No: Councilmember Schlueter. <br /> <br />b) ArcOn Construction Company; Project ~84-12 & ~84-18 Trunk Sanitary <br /> <br /> Council ie-Lms sus was to dispense with the reading of the proposed <br /> resoluteS. <br /> <br /> Motion ~y.i Co~ncilmember Van Wagner and seconded by Councilm~r Sorteberg <br /> to adop~ iRes~lution ~84-219 approving partial payment to Alcon Construction <br /> Cempanyi~or~roject ~84-12 and ~84-18 Trunk Sanitary Sewer. (Please refer <br /> to resOlt~tio~ file for Resolution ~84-219). <br /> <br /> Motion ~rried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Sorteberg, <br /> ]~eimann! ~ ~an Wagner. Voting No: Councilmenber Schlueter. <br /> <br />c) B&S.' ~Sph~lt Company; Street Improvement Projects #84-20 & ~84-21) - <br /> CounciI (~ons~nus was to dispense with the reading of the proposed <br /> resoluti ~n. ~ <br /> Motion ~ Co~nci~r Van Wagner and seconded by Councilm~mber Sorteberg <br /> to adopt~Re~olution ~84-220 approving partial payment to B&S Asphalt <br /> Ccmpany: ,~or~treet Improvement Projects ~84-20 and ~84-21. (Please refer <br /> to res~l~ti ~On file for Resolution ~84-220). <br /> Motion !~.rr~ed. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Sorteberg, <br /> Reiman~, !i Schlueter and Van Wagner. Voting No: None. <br /> Case ~§.'i Vacation Of Drainage Easement For Lot 3, Block 4, Menkveld's i C(~untry Park; Case Of Mr. And Mrs. Gene Kellogg: <br /> <br /> Mr. Kel~l.~g iwas present and stated that City Engineer Raatikka recc~mends <br /> not vain9 the easeaent unless an alternate drainage is provided; that <br /> altsrnat~ drainage already exists and is entirely off his property. Mr. <br /> Kellog~ ~ta~ed that he has o~ned that property for 7 years and it never <br /> held w~r ~ny longer than his front yard does. ~he subject property is a <br /> vacant i ~t that he owns and the drainage eas~nent involves about 1/3 of <br /> that 16~'s ~treet frontage; this lot would be more sellable if the easement <br /> were v~(~te~. <br /> Discus~ ,ensued regarding that this drainage easement was originally <br /> obtain~ to~ take care of anticipated drainage ncc~s when the area behind <br /> <br /> Mr. Ke~ogg~ stated that he was told that the drainage easement running <br /> between ~hisI two lots was for long term and the eas~nent on Lot 3 was for <br /> current.?pur~ses and time has shown that it is not necessary.. <br /> Counci~r Reimann stated that when things like watershed areas are <br /> Page 15 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />