Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Resident says city and county stormwater is flooding his yard; council declines immediate study
Loading...
Summary
Resident Danny Bollig told the committee the city began diverting stormwater into his backyard after a 2001 connection; staff said the drainage area involves county easements and advised a $100,000 engineering study would be needed to design effective repairs. A motion to engage a consultant failed for lack of a second.
Danny Bollig, a nearby resident, urged the committee to act after describing long-running stormwater problems that he says worsened after road work. "My feelings are the city is illegally dumping stormwater in my backyard," Bollig told the committee, saying a large share of the water now comes from the city's system and that prior "hold harmless" agreements do not reflect current conditions.
Engineer Jesse Dean summarized prior packet material and two meetings staff held with Bollig, saying the situation involves a county drainage easement and that staff's packet included a historical study and calculations showing the drainage was to remain within the easement. Dean advised against Bollig's suggested silt fence, saying it is "not designed to take on essentially any kind of flowing water" and would likely fail in the first substantial rainfall. He said a more precautionary approach is a stormwater design study to define scope and effectiveness; staff estimated such a study could cost roughly $100,000 depending on scope.
Council discussion reflected competing priorities. Several council members said they were sympathetic to Bollig's property damage and asked whether a quicker, lower-cost physical fix could be effective; staff and other council members cautioned that excavation or other work inside or adjacent to an easement could require county involvement and could fail without proper survey and design. The packet also noted a 1987 agreement tied to a garage permit that included language limiting liability for future damage, which staff cited as part of the background.
Mister Cheswick moved that staff bring back a proposal to engage a consulting engineering firm to investigate the issue; the motion failed for lack of a second. With no second, the committee took no action to fund a study or engage a consultant at this meeting.
Because the drainage runs through a county easement, staff said any physical work would need county coordination and additional review; the committee did not adopt immediate remediation steps and left further action to future staff evaluation or a council-level decision.
