Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises Pinehurst drainage and retention‑pond flooding concerns; district engineer to study
Summary
A River Ridge resident told the board that drainage plugs have left water overflowing near the Pinehurst triangle monument and a retention pond between River 8 and River 9 appears nearly 1 foot above its drain; the district engineer said further study is likely and requested photos/video to diagnose a fix.
Shari Perkins, a River Ridge resident, told the River Ridge Community Development District board on July 23 that drainage problems persist a week after work to plug a pipe: "water has been overflowing in the triangle monument area," she said, and relayed that a retention pond between River 8 and River 9 appears nonfunctional with ponding nearly 1 foot above the drain.
District Engineer John Baker said the inlet previously allowed water from one system to discharge into a lower system; plugging the inlet stopped that flow but left no outlet for accumulated water, creating what he described as "akin to a very tiny pond in a pipe." Baker said resolving the issue will likely require additional study and reiterated the importance of photographic or video evidence to help staff diagnose the problem. Perkins said she will provide video footage to CDD staff.
District Manager Chuck Adams explained that, although water ultimately flows to the Estero River, the pipes at issue run between private houses, cross a street and a golf course before entering a ditch that leads to the River Club, complicating field access and remediation options. The board directed the District Engineer to inspect the area firsthand and instructed staff to follow up after reviewing the photos and video provided by residents.
Separately, staff presented an estimate (Agenda item) for an inlet top intended to keep debris from blocking a Pinehurst structure; District Manager Adams said MRI Construction is providing one proposal for $10,692.88 and that an additional proposal is being obtained. The inlet‑top estimate will remain on a future agenda while the engineer studies the broader drainage and ponding concerns.
The board noted that one end of a pipe had been plugged by the contractor and asked staff to clarify which pipes were affected; Mrs. Adams later confirmed that MRI plugged the end of only one pipe, not two. The board did not take formal action to authorize repairs at the July 23 meeting, instead directing staff and the district engineer to investigate and report back at a future meeting.
