CC PACKET 04141998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 24, 1998 Page 12 • 1 Mayor Ranallo asked if a person who had $15,000 in damages would be able to receive $10,000 2 this year and another$5,000 next year. 3 Morrison stated the residents would be able to reapply for additional funds in subsequent years. 4 Marks noted these funds were to flood proof against future loss not to compensate for past losses. 5 Mrs. Kozarek asked if there was a potential for residents to receive more than $10,000. The 6 wording of#3 in the WSB memorandum indicates that a resident would not be able to be 7 compensated beyond the maximum of$10,000. 8 Cavanaugh stated it was his understanding that if 30 residents apply in the first year and only 10 9 receive funding,the other 20 would be ahead of the first 10 for funding in the second year. 10 Ms. Kozarek explained that WSB had chosen the$10,000 maximum by taking the money 11 available and dividing it by the people who had experienced damage to their homes. They were 12 attempting to get the "biggest bang for the bucks". 13 Mornson suggested the maximum dollar amount could be left blank and the engineer could make 14 a further recommendation. • 15 Cavanaugh stated it appears that this amount was chosen to allocate a limited resource. It 16 seemed reasonable that a property owner could apply for funds a second time. 17 Thuesen agreed that the $10,000 maximum cap could be a problem to some people who had to 18 put a greater amount than $10,000 into flood protection. It is however, important at first to give 19 the most number of people help with flood proofing their property. 20 Marks noted that this is a one year continuing program which will need a resolution passed in 21 1999. He suggested that it may be appropriate to consider the issue of reapplying at that time. 22 Mornson stated this is a learning process and changes may be recommended when WSB provides 23 the City with their report on July 14, 1998. The City needs to trust their professional engineering 24 opinion. 25 Mrs. Kozarek stated her only problem was that the WSB memorandum and the Flood Relief 26 Program document are inconsistent. She asked that this be clarified. 27 Faust noted that the memorandum was for discussion purposes. The ordinance was the legal 28 document. He agreed that circumstances may change a year from now and that the City needs to 29 rely on the engineers who have expertise in this area and go through a cycle to determine what 30 will happen. •