HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 12-12 Strong opposition voiced on storm sewer project REVIEW Minnesota .r Single Copy 301 WED., DEC. 12, 1979
Strongvoiced
on storm '
sewer prolect
By MARY LEE HAGERT benefitting properties would have paid foot, 10 years from now this same issue
$47,000. The typical lot assessment would will be up for consideration again and the
Opponents of a proposed$390,000 storm have been $460. The city's share would costs will be a lot higher."
sewer improvement project in the Duluth have been $245,000.
Street area packed city council chambers Although the vote was unanimous, the MAYOR JOHN GREAVU said he
for a public hearing Dec. 6. councilmen said they were reluctant to thought the city had a moral obligation to
AFTER ABOUT two- and a-half-hours veto the project. They expressed concern replace the undersized system,which was
of debate between the Maplewood city about the city's liability. installed in 1963.However,he expressed a
councilmen,the city engineering staff and COUNCILMAN BURTON Murdock desire to find some funding alternatives.
property owners,the council turned down asked the city attorney Don Lais,St.Paul, At least 15 residents of the Duluth Street
the proposed project. what the city's liability is in providing the area spoke at the meeting.
The storm sewers in the Ripley Avenue property owners with an inadequate Virginia Olson, 1717 Duluth St., asked
and Duluth Street area are overloaded, system. the council why so many people were
according to an engineering report. The Lais responded, the city knows how to being assessed for the costs of the project,
council initiated this project upon the correct the situation. If it fails to do this when "only four or five persons would
request of some residents in the neigh- and goes too far by putting in an undue benefit from it.
borhood. Heavy rainstorms cause the amount of water in these basements, the "When they bought those homes, the
storm sewers to back up into basements. property owners can force the city to people knew there would be water in the
Councilman Don Wiegert summed up conduct condemnation hearings. The basements. We had to fill the land in
the council's sentiments when he said, "I property owners can force the city to buy around our house to get rid of the water.
am opposed to the project because the their property, he said. They can do the same thing."
city's share is so large.It is unfair for the After the council voted down the Earl Ranniger, 1699 English St.,
city taxpayers to pick up the costs. The project, some of residents with flooding complained about the city's assessment
storm sewer system ought to go in,but not problems stormed out of the meeting plan for the proposed storm sewer im-
at these figures." stating, "See you in court!" provement project. He commented that
ACCORDING TO the engineering Rising construction costs also made the the city "was using the sawbuck system
department's figures,the city would have councilmen pause before turning down for assessments." Ranniger explained, a
paid $245,000 under the first alternative the storm sewer project. Councilman sawbuck assessment occurs when the city
plan, which included the installation of Norman Anderson said, "If we hold off drops an assessment wherever it feels
concrete curbs and gutters. Property now for these assessments at nine cents a like it.
owners benefitting from the project would
have paid the remaining $145,000. The
estimated assessments for a typical city
lot would have been$1,690.
Under its second alternative plan,
which included bituminous curbs, the