Laserfiche WebLink
has been completed since submittal of this bill, everything has been done <br />according to specs and the City, as normal procedure, is retaining 5%. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Sorteberg, <br />Reimann, and Van Wagner. Voting No: Councilmember Schlueter. <br /> <br />b) Arcon Construction Company; Project #84-12 & 984-18 Trunk Sanitary <br /> Sewer - <br /> <br />Council consensus was to dispense with the reading of the proposed <br />resolution. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Van Wagner and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg <br />to adopt Resolution #84-219 approving partial payment to Arcon Construction <br />Company for Project #84-12 and #84-18 Trunk Sanitary Sewer. (Please refer <br />to resolution file for Resolution #84-219). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Sorteberg, <br />Reimann and Van Wagner. Voting No: Councilmember Schlueter. <br /> <br />c) H&S Asphalt Company; Street Improvement Projects #84-20 & #84-21) - <br /> <br />Council consenus was to dispense with the reading of the proposed <br />resolution. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Van Wagner and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg <br />to adopt Resolution #84-220 approving partial payment to H&S Asphalt <br />Company for Street Improvement Projects #84-20 and #84-21. (Please refer <br />to resolution file for Resolution #84-220). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Sorteberg, <br />Reimann, Schlueter and Van Wagner. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #5: Vacation Of Drainage Easement For Lot 3, Block 4, Menkveld's <br /> Country Park; Case Of Mr. And Mrs. Gene Kellogg: <br /> <br />Mr. Kellogg was present and stated that City Engineer Raatikka recommends <br />not vacating the easement unless an alternate drainage is provided; that <br />alternate drainage already exists and is entirely off his property. Mr. <br />Kellogg stated that he has owned that property for 7 years and it never <br />held water any longer than his front yard does. ~he subject property is a <br />vacant lot that he owns and the drainage easement involves about 1/3 of <br />that lot's street frontage; this lot would be more sellable if the easement <br />were vacated. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding that this drainage easement was originally <br />obtained to take care of anticipated drainage needs when the area behind <br />the lot is developed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kellogg stated that he was told that the drainage easement running <br />between his two lots was for long term and the easement on Lot 3 was for <br />current purposes and time has shown that it is not necessary.. <br /> <br />Councilmember Reimann stated that when things like watershed areas are <br /> <br />Page 15 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />