Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses developer for update on unpermitted stormwater work after slow response
Summary
Engineering staff told the Board of Public Purchasing that an unpermitted stormwater/filtration installation at a project address has not been removed and the developer's representatives responded only after repeated requests. The board asked staff to demand a concrete update from the developer's engineer ahead of the next meeting.
City engineering staff told Greenwood’s Board of Public Purchasing on Sept. 15 that a potentially unsafe, unpermitted stormwater filter assembly associated with a development has not been removed and that the city has received only a delayed response from the developer’s representatives.
Paul (engineering staff) told the board the issue traces to an unpermitted plastic-pipe filter installed at a location identified in the transcript as “203 K-five.” He said the engineering division had asked the project representatives for a status update and that the city did not receive a substantive reply until 1:33 p.m. on Sept. 15. The reply reportedly said the representatives are “working with Wicker Engineering and any environmental works to have plans to submit to the city” and that they “have also made contact with the Robinsons, and we all want to get this fixed.”
Paul said the initial 10-day request for an update had been sent on July 24 and that the city waited without sufficient progress. Paul told the board, “I think it appears to me that the whole issue about the unpermitted items is being overlooked now and trying to almost get out of removing those and delaying doing it.” Another engineering staff member said the longer removal is delayed, “the more troublesome it would be to get them the items removed.”
Board members discussed options including hiring a contractor to remove the unpermitted installation if the developer does not act. The board asked Paul to follow up and provide a concrete update from the developer’s engineer at the next meeting rather than allowing the matter to drag on.
What was said (selected): Paul (engineering staff): “I asked for them to either give us an update. I did. To either confirm the removal of the unpermitted item or to give us the status, of the review by a registered professional supervisor here moving forward.” Paul later told the board he received the reply “10 days after the request” and characterized the delay as concerning.
Next steps: The board asked staff to seek a more concrete timeline and to report back at the next meeting. If the developer remains unresponsive, staff noted the city could pursue removal and recovery of costs; board members indicated they were not inclined to allow indefinite delay.
