Laserfiche WebLink
City Engineer Westby explained in this case, the swale would need to be filled in so the bottom <br />is higher than what the lake level could ever reach to prevent wetland type vegetation from <br />growing. The City does not have a vegetative maintenance program where staff would go clear <br />vegetation. He said the City will maintain vegetation as needed when it interferes with <br />operations, such as removing downed trees from drainage ditches. The City does not do work <br />for aesthetic reasons, such as cleaning algae from ponds. <br />Mr. Bergevin noted there has been a fairly dry period recently, and there is not quite as much <br />water in the drainage ditch as there was in the last 24 months. <br />Public Works Superintendent Riemer mentioned another resident has issues with standing water <br />in the drainage easement on their property. This water has been in the yard for about two years. <br />Since it was dryer this year, it has finally drained. <br />Councilmember Johns noted the drainage easement is working as it should. She empathized <br />with the property owners, but stated she was unsure how to share the cost when it is not part of <br />the City's responsibility. <br />Public Works Superintendent Riemer explained whatever is done to one side of the swale will <br />affect the other side of it. <br />Chairperson Riley inquired if it is staffs recommendation to look at the feasibility of putting in <br />settling pond before conducting work. <br />City Engineer Westby responded some calculations would need to be done to estimate costs, but <br />in his opinion the benefit is solely for the property owners; it does not benefit the City. He said <br />staff could go further with this and bring back estimated costs and the definition of a drainage <br />easement if the Committee prefers. <br />Mr. Bergevin commented it does not necessarily benefit them. It just gives them their property <br />back. <br />Councilmember Johns asked if the property owner is interested in sharing the cost. <br />Mr. Bergevin replied he is not interested in sharing the cost. He noted there have been wetter <br />years, such as 2005 and 2006, and there were no problems. He said his point was that something <br />was working and it is no longer. He said the intention of the City was to have water flowing <br />through that area, filtered and then drained into the wetland. The water table levels from 2006 <br />and 2007 to now have changed only minimally. <br />Councilmember Shryock stated she wanted to be cautious going down this route. She warned <br />against setting a precedent. Some residents have had flooding of their homes, and some people <br />on the river are seeing their property eroding. These are issues the homeowners must deal with <br />because that's the nature of the property. In this case, if everything is still operable, and the <br />water is staying within the 20 -foot easement, then there is something causing this to happen that <br />Public Works Committee / September 15, 2015 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br />