03-25-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r LINDQUIST cSc VENNUM i. k r i- !’ Orono City Council December 1, 1990 Page 4 should have acquired Lot 17 when it was offered by the county after the tax forfeiture for the city's own benerit in terms of drainage of Livingston Avenue, as well as the benefit it would afforded the conununity in using Lot 17 as a drainageway as Lot 17 had done in the past. The persons opposed to this special improvements project hereby give the city notice that they do now challenge the cprdering o,. the project itself, the number of persons who have signed the petition and sufficiency thereof any vote on the petition of i®ss than 4 affirmative votes, and intend to object to and fight t..e special assessment to relieve their property of such assessment. Where does that leave the city council? It leaves the city council in a position where the petition it has is insufficient to pass the improvement project on a 3 to 2 vote. Since the petition has far less than the needed 3 5% of footage, the pro;]ec requires 4 affirmative votes to order the project. Even if the city is successful in ordering the project, it will find that about 75% of the affected property owners are going to challenge the special assessments and will work hard not to pay those assessments. Are there any alternatives open to the Cuffs and/or the City or Orono to solve their respective drainage problems? The Cuffs do not have a drainage problem with regard to Lot 17 in the sense that when the bought it they knew that it was a drainage way, and also due to the fact that their lot has been and can be graded -o install a garage and a driveway to that garage while still maintaining the legal drainage swale which t.hey are obligated by Minnesota law to maintain. It is not necessary t.hat this pass through an underground pipe in order that legal drainage be maintained. Similarly, it is not necessary for the City of Orono s pu^oses that an underground pipe system need be installed. All that needs to be done is to grade Lot 17 to remove the earth which the cuffs have allowed to fall into the drainageway, preventing the natural drainage across Lot 17. The Cuffs are legally obiiga e to remove that dirt to allow the water to flow across Lot 17 as it always did. It is not necessary for Orono to have an easement across Lot 17 for the water to cross Lot 17, nor is it necessary for Orono to have an easement for grading or maintenance pu^oses in order to remove the soil that the Cuffs have illegally placed or allowed to accumulate in the drainageway. It is the Cuffs legal obligation to remove it themselves at their expense, though hi I i II II V III ■ liitti We*trMKIi