Laserfiche WebLink
85 <br /> <br />the City paying the remaining 75%, with projects completed on <br />a first come first served basis. Ms. Mueller stated that the <br />number of requests for the neighborhood drainage program far <br />exceeds the funding available and a long waiting list exists. <br />Ms. Mueller added that drainage problems are not considered <br />for the neighborhood program~if they are totally on-site <br />problems. <br /> <br /> .Mr. Satyendra Huja, Director of Community Development, <br />explained that weights were given to the following criteria <br />for determining priorities for drainage projects: legal <br />liability; public health and safety; structural damage; <br />neighborhood and off-site impact; erosion; prevention; and <br />cost benefit. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Mueller <br />stated that the drainage problems in Orangedale are <br />considered among the city-wide projects because of the total <br />cost of the project and the number of houses involved. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Rev. Edwards, Mr. Clyde <br />Goul~man, City Attorney, stated that the City has no legal <br />liability for the Orangedale drainage problems. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix explained that many problems exist <br />throughout the City where developers only built to the <br />minimum requirements, which have since been found to be <br />inadequate. Mr. Hendrix stated that because of the number of <br />drainage problems throughout the City the approach either <br />must be limited or a decision should be made to address all <br />the problems through bond financing, probably in excess of <br />$10 million° <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter suggested that Council consider whether <br />addressing drainage problems should be one of the City's main <br />priorities. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters noted the difficulty with determining how <br />far the City should go if more responsibility for drainage <br />problems is taken. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano asked why participation in the neighborhood <br />program increased so dramatically and Ms. Mueller stated that <br />the increase in City funding apparently reduced the amount <br />necessary for the owner to spend significantly enough to make <br />the program more attractive. Ms. Mueller added that the City <br />will finance the payment over a four year period and a <br />scholarship program is also available. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano questioned whether a distinction was made <br />between projects for owner occupied and investor owner <br />property and Ms. Mueller replied that no distinction was made <br />but no investors have been involved to date. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano recommended considering factoring in the <br />issue of investor owned property, noting that investors may <br />be able to pay a higher ratio for improvements. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Rev. Edwards regarding the <br />Orangedale drainage situation, Ms. Mueller stated that the <br />project could be approached from two different viewpoints: <br />1) riprap up to six feet at a cost of $278,000; or <br />2) acquire easements and riprap to the top of the slope and <br />re-establish backyards at a cost of $447,000. Ms. Mueller <br />noted that the first option would stop the damage but would <br />not deal with the issue of runoff from adjacent yards. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever noted that there are 95 people currently on <br />the waiting list which represents a ten year wait. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that most city-wide projects will not <br />be completed because the expense to the home owner is too <br /> <br /> <br />