Laserfiche WebLink
<br />more permanent water stmcture. The lined pond at Highlands at River Park has opened staffs <br />eyes to this issue. The pond was inspected as it went in. There were not any requirements for <br />storm water protection or any WMO requirements to put the pond in, but the developer wanted <br />to put it in to sell the lots at a higher price or quicker. The pond was inspected when it went in <br />and it worked, but somehow over the last two years the liner has been punctured and it is now <br />leaking. Staff cannot possibly be out there 24 hours per day, and the City does not permit every <br />activity for grading. There is a City ordinance that does not allow retaining walls in drainage and <br />utility easements, but retaining walls do not require a pennit so damage can be done without the <br />City's knowledge. There is now a group of residents at Highlands at River Park asking what the <br />City is going to do to fix this situation. The developer's surety was released after the pond <br />worked. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson stated there was a case that came up in a suburb within the last few <br />months with this type of situation. People bought waterfront property that is now dry, and the <br />developer had failed to tell the homeowners it was a storm water pond that had the potential for <br />drying up. Every time something like this happens and there is a lawsuit that prevails there are <br />laws passed. She expects in the future there will be a law passed requiring developers being <br />required to inform homeowners in this type of situation. That being said, with this situation the <br />issue is whether the City has liability with the Highlands at River Park pond. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson indicated he does not necessarily think the City has liability. Staff <br />recommends that following this period any repair be undertaken as a public improvement project <br />and special assessed to the benefiting property owner. No one benefits from the liner except for <br />those directly adjacent. The pond at Highlands at River Park did perform and it is not known <br />who punctured it. In hindsight it would be reasonable that the policy does not return the surety <br />to the developer until every building adjacent to the liner has been constmcted. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen questioned what the situation would be if the building is completed and <br />someone punctures the liner when putting in a retaining wall the day after the letter of credit is <br />released. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson replied this would be the same as the current situation at Highlands <br />at River Park. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated he does not like the idea of liners because they can be punctured. <br />The clay idea seems more natural, but the problem is that if it gets too dry the clay cracks and <br />leaks through. It is an inherent problem with water above the water table that wants to drain. He <br />sees this as a bad policy overall. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson stated she does not care if the developer wants to put in a liner. However, <br />every homeowner along the shoreline needs to be aware that if something happens to the liner it <br />is incumbent upon them to get it fixed, and it is not the responsibility of the City. <br /> <br />Chairperson Elvig suggested the possibility of the developer being required to obtain the <br />homeowner's signature to be sure they are aware of the possibility of potential assessments in the <br />event the liner is not working in the future. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee / May 15, 2007 <br />Page 3 of 11 <br />