The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9A - 14020 Shady Beach Trail MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AUGUST 4, 2008 9A STEVE ALBRECHT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT REGARDING 14020 SHADY BEACH TRAIL DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to update the City Council on the status of the drainage issue at 14020 Shady Beach Trail (Monte Giles). Historv In 1993 Scott County, in cooperation with the City of Prior Lake, completed the widening of CR 42 to four lanes. Mr. Giles has indicated verbally that after that project his house experienced flooding. He believes additional stormwater runoff from CR 42 created from new impervious surface flowed down CR 42 on to Shady Beach Trail and into his front yard by-passing two catch basins con- structed as part of the project. Mr. Giles states that the flooded front yard re- sulted in saturated soils around his house which overloaded his sump system and resulted in the flooding of his lowest level. Mr. Giles has stated that since 1993 he recalls that his basement has flooded on three occasions. The most recent flooding occurred sometime in 2002-2003. During one of those events Mr. Giles had a contractor provide an estimate to re- pair the damages to his home. The estimated cost of repairs was $30,000 (please note we have not seen the estimate, it has been relayed verbally to us). In 2002-2003, Mr. Giles contacted the City and a bituminous swale was con- structed on Shady Beach Trail to intercept stormwater. Mr. Giles has stated on two occasions that the flooding has not reoccurred since the City made this im- provement. In November of 2006, Mr. Giles approached me at an open house to discuss his issues. At his suggestion I had Ross Bintner contact him in January to further discuss the issues. Ross contacted Mr. Giles and followed up in writing on January 23, 2007. At no time during his discussions with Ross did Mr. Giles in- dicate that he only wanted reimbursement for damages but rather their discus- sion focused on solutions to the drainage issue. Ross provided options to Mr. Giles to pursue. Mr. Giles did not contact City Staff until the May 19, 2008 City Council meeting. On January 23, 2007 Mr. Giles also received a letter from the County with their final offer of resolution. Our understanding is that the County had what they termed unproductive meetings and phone conversations over a period of several years on the issue with no resolution. At the May 5, 2008 Board of Equalization hearing an appeal of valuation was filed by Mr. Giles for his property due to continued water intrusion. www.cityofpriorlake.com RICouncil12008 Agenda Reportsl08 04 08\Giles a~offi! 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 At the May 19, 2008 City Council meeting the County recommended reducing Mr. Giles valuation from $186,200 to $180,700. The recommendation was ap- proved by the City Council and subsequently by the County Board. After the meeting Mr. Giles approached staff and was upset that he did not get to talk about his drainage issues. On May 20, 2008 the County sent a follow-up to Mr. Giles reaffirming the terms of their 2007 letter. At the June 2, 2008 City Council meeting Mr. Giles addressed the City Council during the Public Forum and requested the City assist him with his drainage is- sues. The Council directed City Staff to work with Mr. Giles and the County on the issue. On June 29, 2008, after several attempts to meet, City Staff and Mr. Giles were able to meet and discuss the issue. Mr. Giles made it very clear to staff that al- though he would like to see some additional improvements to Shady Beach Trail his primary concern was how to obtain financial restitution for damages he in- curred due to flooding. He believes the flooding was a direct result of the CR 42 Project. Current Circumstances City staff has spoken to the County Engineer and at this time the County has made their position clear with Mr. Giles. Staff reviewed Mr. Giles' situation with the City Attorney and followed up in writing to Mr. Giles providing him with the alternatives to pursue restitution. At this point Mr. Giles can file claims with both the City and County regarding the alleged damage. Staff has followed up with Mr. Giles to make sure he understood his options. The City Attorney has also recommended that the City not make any additional improvements to Shady Beach Trail until any claims are resolved. Conclusion Staff has provided Mr. Giles with the available options to pursue financial restitu- tion regarding alleged damage to his home due to the CR 42 Project. Staff does not recommend any further action at this time. ISSUES: The alleged issues began in 1993; however, the City is not aware of any docu- mentation related to the damage. City staff could not find any written correspon- dence from Mr. Giles regarding this issue. Failure to file a claim or document it immediately will make it difficult to substantiate. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives are as follows: 1. Accept the report. 2. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide Staff with direction. 3. Table this item until some date in the future. RECOMMENDED Alternative 1 ::~~j ?l Frank BOYlesfiy ~anager RICouncil\2008 Ag~portS\08 04 08\Giles agenda.doc