PL PACKET 08191997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� r City Council Regular Meeting Minutes August 12, 1997 Page 6 1 treated all flooding on July 1, 1997 as equal, when in fact, a particular neighborhood was 2 impacted more severely because of a structural problem with the storm water sewer system in 3 that particular neighborhood. This neighborhood is District 6. He noted District 6.flooded 4 again on July 13, 1997. The problem is not just flooding on July 1, 1997 but is a long-term 5 embedded problem in District 6. 6 Mr. Cavanaugh stated the findings of fact of the Barr Engineering report of July 1992 7 included the following: City streets in District 6 flood with minor rainfall; Property damage 8 has occurred; Flood damage can be reduced; City was developed without a comprehensive 9 drainage plan; and, City used a lower standard of design for storm sewers in District 6 than 10 those used today for storm sewers. 11 Mr. Cavanaugh stated the following three alternatives were proposed by Barr Engineering: 12 Non-structural alternative-building restrictions, flood protection, or flood plain evacuation - 13 cost $750,000; Improved Outlet Capacity - cost $16 million; or Ponding area construction - 14 cost $5.7 million. 15 Mr. Cavanaugh stated that based on the proposed alternatives, the Council felt the costs were 16 excessive and decided to adopt none of Barr's recommendations. The Council did establish a 17 $3.00 per quarter fee to develop a water fund to deal with the storm water sewer deficiency. 18 The fund today is $250,000. 19 Mr. Cavanaugh stated that by the Council not adopting any of the three alternatives, a 20 decision was made. The residents of District 6 have continued to be an integral part of the 21 City storm sewer system. Private property is being used at no cost to the other residents of 22 the City. The rest of the City residents benefit because (1) the ponding areas in District 6 23 serve as the storm water holding areas for the City and (2) all costs are avoided by the City. 24 Individual property owners in District 6 are expected to absorb the cost of the City storm 25 water surges. 26 Mr. Cavanaugh stated the impacted property in District 6 is being used for storm water 27 management without the just compensation that is required when private property is taken for '28 a public use. He suggested the following proposed action: 29 30 A. The City acknowledges that private residential property should not be a part of the 31 storm water management system in the City of St. Anthony without just compensation. 32 B. The City should immediately and formally accept liability for the property damage in 33 District 6 which resulted from the decision of the City not to implement any of the 34 recommendations in the Barr report. 35 C. Take immediate steps to reimburse residents of District 6 for out-of-pocket expenses 36 using the funds from the water fund. Purchase of the individual property may be 37 appropriate. 38 D. Take necessary steps to increase the funding level of the water fund to cover any 39 additional out-of-pocket expenses and to provide adequate long-term storm water