My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MINUTES 03241998
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1998
>
CC MINUTES 03241998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 4:50:23 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 4:50:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
19
SP Folder Name
CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1998
SP Name
CC MINUTES 03241998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> March 24, 1998 <br /> Page 12 <br /> 1 Mayor Ranallo asked if a person who had $15,000 in damages would be able to receive $10,000 <br /> 2 this year and another$5,000 next year. <br /> 3 Mornson stated the residents would be able to reapply for additional funds in subsequent years. <br /> 4 Marks noted these funds were to flood proof against future loss not to compensate for past losses. <br /> 5 Mrs. Kozarek asked if there was a potential for residents to receive more than $10,000. The <br /> 6 wording of#3 in the WSB memorandum indicates that a resident would not be able to be <br /> 7 compensated beyond the maximum of$10,000. <br /> 8 Cavanaugh stated it was his understanding that if 30 residents apply in the first year and only 10 <br /> 9 receive funding, the other 20 would be ahead of the first 10 for funding in the second year. <br /> 10 Ms. Kozarek explained that WSB had chosen the $10,000 maximum by taking the money <br /> 11 available and dividing it by the people who had experienced damage to their homes. They were <br /> 12 attempting to get the "biggest bang for the bucks". <br /> 13 Mornson suggested the maximum dollar amount could be left blank and the engineer could make <br /> • a further recommendation. <br /> 15 Cavanaugh stated it appears that this amount was chosen to allocate a limited resource. It <br /> 16 seemed reasonable that a property owner could apply for funds a second time. <br /> 17 Thuesen agreed that the $10,000 maximum cap could be a problem to some people who had to <br /> 18 put a greater amount than $10,000 into flood protection. It is however, important at first to give <br /> 19 the most number of people help with flood proofing their property. <br /> 20 Marks noted that this is a one year continuing program which will need a resolution passed in <br /> 21 1999. He suggested that it may be appropriate to consider the issue of reapplying at that time. <br /> 22 Mornson stated this is a learning process and changes may be recommended when WSB provides <br /> 23 the City with their report on July 14, 1998. The City needs to trust their professional engineering <br /> 24 opinion. <br /> 25 Mrs. Kozarek stated her only problem was that the WSB memorandum and the Flood Relief <br /> 26 Program document are inconsistent. She asked that this be clarified. <br /> 27 Faust noted that the memorandum was for discussion purposes. The ordinance was the legal <br /> 28 document. He agreed that circumstances may change a year from now and that the City needs to <br /> rely on the engineers who have expertise in this area and go through a cycle to determine what <br /> if will happen. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.