Laserfiche WebLink
June 14, 1976 Page 11 <br />The administrator stated that your own engineer indicated that <br />his original drainage plans were not implemented, and it was <br />not the city's idea to change those plans. <br />Mr. Frisch emphasized that it was done according to the govern- <br />mental agencies. Now you have changed it by lowering the ditch. <br />The administrator asked Eng. Bearden if he had any idea of the cost of <br />those holding ponds? Mr. Bearden replied that he really did not know. <br />The administrator stated that there has been a real argument on <br />the part of the developer that he has spent more than enough, <br />and here is an example where he cut out a significant expenditure. <br />Mr. Frisch asked if, in his experience with public improvement, <br />did he participate in the design of this building -- the problem <br />here is the same. Surface water in one case, and underground <br />in the other. <br />The administrator stated that he is saying that the developer <br />has done everything he originally promised and I am saying that <br />he did not. Mr. Frisch stated that there is no question that the <br />concrete walls were not constructed. The administrator stated <br />that Mr. Gottsacker testified that, as constructed, it will not <br />hold a 100 year storm. Mr. Frisch said that Mr. Gottsacker had <br />said that the ponds as they were constructed hold the same amount <br />as he originally projected. Mayor Johnson asked, where is he <br />putting the water now that was on the roof? The administrator <br />replied that the drainage has to go somewhere, the plan included <br />storage on the roof as well as two holding ponds. That is only <br />one part of that storage capacity. You have to put it somewhere. <br />What I am trying to indicate to you is that it does not hold a <br />100 year storm. That is part of the drainage problem, I suspect. <br />We had serious flooding and there had to be a way to handle it. <br />The question was where did that water come from. <br />Mr. Frisch read from the May 24 minutes regarding the Rice Creek <br />Watershed examining the ponds . . . he felt that it provided <br />the full amount as proposed originally -- 50,000 cu. ft. for <br />each pond. <br />The administrator stated that we are either comparing 100 and 172 <br />or 50,000 cu. ft. and 86,000 cu. ft. Your firm must have access <br />to the information. I presume you have a copy of the Rice Creek <br />Watershed District permit. <br />Mr. Frisch stated that they satisfied the Rice Creek Watershed <br />requirements. Atty. Meyers stated that Mr. Gottsacker designed <br />a 100 year storm. Mr. Gottsacker replied that is what was originally <br />designed. He stated that he is not responsible for any modifications <br />made during construction. He stated that the total site will hold <br />1.65 acre feet of water (that portion that was directed to the <br />ponds). Administrator Achen asked how many acre feet would the <br />