Residents press Anderson council over recurring Northcrest flooding; city engineer and staff explain limits of detention pond

Dozens of residents and council members discussed repeated flooding in the Northcrest neighborhood during the Anderson Common Council meeting on Aug. 14, with one homeowner urging the council to halt any construction that she said adds watershed onto nearby school property.

The matter drew extended public comment from Martina Miller of Northcrest, who told the council she and neighbors have flooded repeatedly since 2005 and that development, nearby apartment projects and changes to local drainage have increased water onto the school and into her neighborhood. "You can't put more water on us," Miller said, asking the council to require a survey and to stop further construction that could redirect runoff toward homes and East Side (E2) school property.

City Engineer Matt House responded during the meeting that the city's position is that the houses in the Northcrest area were built in a flood plain and that detention installed with later projects was intended to account for the added runoff from those developments. "The city's position has been that the houses were built in the flood plain," House said. He added that the detention pond at E2 was built to mitigate runoff from the school and that, while it could be investigated further, the pond "is not causing the problem''or if it's making it worse, it's a small amount." House said the area that drains into the system includes roughly 180 acres, meaning the detention feature is one factor among many.

Council members and staff also addressed how stormwater work is funded. A council staff member said the city collects a monthly stormwater fee from utility bills (noted during the meeting as $3.50) that covers operating costs, engineering and capital improvements for stormwater infrastructure. Resident Rich Kelly corrected one public claim and clarified that the stormwater utility is separate from Water Pollution Control and that the original consultant estimate used when the utility was created indicated a $7 monthly rate would be needed to fully address the city's stormwater needs; councilors said the council initially delayed that full rate to avoid a steep jump for residents.

Miller said she had a $6,400 proposal from a minority-owned surveyor to map the area and asked whether the council or the Board of Public Works could fund or assist with that work; councilors and staff discussed procedural limits and whether funds could be reallocated from engineering or other budgets. Councilors said the Board of Public Works meetings are public and that some stormwater expenditures are handled through the utility and the Board of Public Works rather than through the council's general-fund budget process. Council members pledged to continue pursuing the technical details and emphasized the need to coordinate with the school corporation and with stormwater staff.

No ordinance or resolution was adopted on the issue during the meeting; residents were advised to bring the matter before the Board of Public Works and to continue working with city staff for a technical review and possible survey.

The council indicated it would continue follow-up with staff and public-work bodies so engineers can further review detention structures and drainage paths and so residents can understand what funding and actions are available through the stormwater utility and Board of Public Works.