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