Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout190813 Meeting 4 Staff Report August 13, 2019 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Task Force Martha Allen, Water Resources Intern Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Meeting 4 Key Questions/Drivers Responses summarized 1. Which drivers should we prepare for? Climate change/carbon emissions – ND, LS, GL, RL, RS Increase in imperviousness/development patterns/land use: ND, LS, GL, RL, KA, RS Changing service level needs: ND, LS, KA Aging infrastructure/increasing maintenance costs – LS, KA, RL, RS, Stability of tax base/property values – RS Changing conditions regionally/upstream – RL 2. Thinking flooding and the benefits of flood reduction efforts; a) Who is responsible for flooding? GL – If the drivers are climate change and impervious surfaces, then those factors are responsible. I don’t think I can answer this as a ‘who’ question ND – “We are the enemy – and he is us”. LS – All of us are responsible for flooding, municipal, residential, commercial. Commercial projects have received greater scrutiny and have been held more accountable for storm water management. Residential both new construction and renovations must now and in the future be more closely regulated for greater storm water accountability and management. KA - Mother nature is the prime answer. Lack of regular system maintenance. Housing developments. Commercial expansion. STAFF REPORT Page 2 RS - I don’t think that there is any resident, property owner, business or organization that is not responsible for the flooding. Rain falls on everyone property- we are flooding ourselves and we will continue to exasperate the problem with our land use changes. Each individual property owner causes additional flooding without knowing it. I always thought that this is a great quote “The individual benefits as an individual from this ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole which he is a part of suffers.” Each individual might benefit from improving his property but they are causing a greater harm to the community around them. Again “do no harm” b) Who bears the risk of flooding? How? GL – The home owner bears the primary risk of flooding, by choosing to buy and live in a specific home. They also receive the primary benefits of rick reduction. Secondarily the city bears some risk of flooding (less attractive neighborhoods and resident sentiment) and receives some secondary benefits of FRR (healthy neighborhoods and reputation) ND - everyone! If emergency and utility folks are involved in flood response - they can't respond to other emergencies. If the power is affected - perhaps issues with water & sewer. LS – Ultimately all property owners bear economic/emotional risks. The City must be careful by way of precedent how much risk it agrees to take on for flooding, because flood risk will continue to increase in coming years. There is a strong argument to make that residents who decide to purchase a home near the creek, lake or wetland agree to “assume the risk of flooding”. RS - The community as a whole, property owners and residents who live in low areas, c) Who benefits from risk reduction efforts? How? GL – homeowner receives primary benefit, city receives secondary benefit (reputation, healthy neighborhoods) LS - Property owners who are getting flooded receive the primary benefit of risk reduction efforts. Less vulnerable residents experience flooding as a temporary inconvenience. RS - Each individual property owner with greater property value, business in the community with greater opportunity for less business interruption and more security of their investment, better health of the residents, increase appeal of the city, d) Who should be responsible for reducing flood impacts? GL – Both the city and resident should be responsible for reducing impact. The home owner should bear responsibility for their property and the city should, also, at a neighborhood and community level. LS - The City should be responsible for making a reasonable effort to set a goal to have a plan to reduce flooding. Not sure how to set the metric, but it would seem to me that 20-30% would be far more defendable and receive greater public consensus than higher percentages. The City needs to review its Residential building and zoning codes to reduce runoff from homes. RS - Every property owner in the city, private, public and non profit STAFF REPORT Page 3 e) Who pays for risk reduction efforts? ND – Everyone. Storm water fees would need to increase. But I'm thinking if you buy property either lake or creek side - there should be an additional charge???? LS - Technical remediation (100% solutions are not possible) for neighborhood specific flooding should be paid by special neighborhood assessments after the City takes a more serious look at perhaps acquiring the affected properties. Broader Based City Wide municipal improvements will require an increase in property taxes and/or municipal bond financing. KA – Depends on the cause, as taxpayers we all pay for this. GL - The home owner should bear the cost of risk reduction on their property. The city should bear the cost of protecting the community, in the same way that they do with the Fire Department. The city provides prevention services and policies for Fire through building codes and awareness/outreach programs. The city, also, provides emergency response for Fire based on elements like staffing, equipment, procedures, public safety. I believe the service expectations are changing for the city…to provide more and better service around FRR. More like the Fire department. RS - Every property owner in the city private, public and non profit based on ability to pay. 3. What kind of problem; a) How is there consensus around flooding knowledge? ND – I'm not sure about the question - is that consensus among us? Or the general public? If it's the general public - unless you've had flood damage - you probably don't know what we're facing. The city needs to step up - with community support, of course. If other cities can say "no" - so should Edina. Planning Commission needs to be very involved. LS - There is not consensus around flooding knowledge among Edina residents. I do not believe that most residents really understand the problem, the drivers, or the options to address. KA - Our committee has not been chosen for our knowledge and expertise in flooding. We are by no means an expert knowledge committee. We have to rely on the technical expertise of the city engineering staff and Barr engineering. Most of us on the committee have had flooding in our homes and want to do anything we can to prevent that from happening again. GL – I believe there is a very low level of knowledge regarding flooding among the residents of Edina. That includes those impacted directly. We seem to know something about our neighborhood or issue. I.E. I live in Weber Pond and have an average knowledge. But, my knowledge of Southdale or the creek is low. I think this is the norm. RS - The source of flooding is decentralized and the impacts of flooding are centralized. Because every property contributes to the cause of flooding, everyone should be concern about the impacts b) How is there disagreement around flooding knowledge? GL – Overall, low consensus and high disagreement about flooding. LS - I am not sure what the disagreements will be other than who should pay. KA – range of experiences on the committee have different expertise (familiar with regional/watershed organizations, council operations, etc.) The model that was developed by Barr for the Morningside flooding STAFF REPORT Page 4 issues is extensive. The cost for the project as presented is very high and is projected to cost homeowners at least $9,000.00 per home. Staff is using the Morningside model as one that would be used in all of Edina. That would be a huge tax burden on Edina residents so we must be sure that this model is really the best model. We also have asked for feedback from some of the residents in this project area to get an understanding of how they value the model’s suggestions and if they agree with the report and the needed improvements. It might be necessary to get other models than the one proposed by Barr Engineering RS - For the property high in the watershed, they are not impacted by flooding and are not aware of their complicity in the cause of flooding c) How is there consensus around flooding values? LS - There seems to be no consensus around flooding values, because most residents have not really had to think about flooding. KA - No one wants to have their home flooded. Street flooding can be a safety issue but there is little each resident can do about it. I feel this committee should focus on residential flooding and not try to be all encompassing. The committee is only slated to be active for about six months so we need to focus on what we can handle in that time frame. RS - I think is a value of responsibility built around the phase “Do no harm to other” d) How is there disagreement around flooding values? LS - The issues of: who pays, setting of priorities, what is municipally reasonable for the City of Edina to assume are no doubt to be areas of disagreement. KA - The cost of the projected model is outstanding and I do not think that taxpayers would approve of this massive spending. This is particularly true because there is no actual Edina data to support this kind of spending. The latest data table on Edina flooding was received on 7/30/19 from staff. It was only based on flooding in five or more homes by area in 2018. This data is not complete and is unusable data due to its limitations. This data needs to be expanded to include all homes that were flooded using the FEMA definition of flooding. Also this data needs to be compared yearly so that we can quickly see the trends in each of neighborhoods. RS - Back to the quote “The individual benefits as an individual from this ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole which he is a part of suffers.” 4. As we plan for flood risk reduction efforts in Morningside, what opportunities should we consider? ND - needs to be a multi-faceted approach. Improvements at infrastructure time - plus strong city policies to include run-off, land use and development. A holding tank perhaps, digging down Weber Pond. This is a long-time problem - - - - LS – It’s impossible to “flood proof our city” but the city needs to have a plan in place. Implementing a “Sponge city” pilot project, technical engineering solutions will not keep up with the drivers. KA - We need to hear back from the Morningside group to understand how they view the model, what parts they question, what parts they support. I know that many of those residents have spoken about needing a holding tank large enough to manage the flood risk. I look forward to getting their feedback. STAFF REPORT Page 5 GL – All opportunities should be on the table. I don’t think the task force members have enough knowledge or expertise to make decisions on this or set any limits. There have been more than a dozen specific projects considered for Morningside flood reduction over the past 10+ years. I think this issue is rather clear and the solutions have been identified. I’m not sure I/we can improve upon that. RS - more resilient and sustainable infrastructure to complement the existing hard infrastructure. I think that each property owner is responsible for their runoff from their property and the effects it has on downstream property. The city owner 1/3 or more of the community and they should be the first one to demonstrate how a property owner ensure that they are not flooding others. We should first show that everyone is flooding each other and then show the cost of continuing to development the community in the same manner as we have in the last 20/50 years. Then show each property owner steps that they can do to prevent runoff from their properties. What tradeoffs are you willing to consider? ND – should this be decided before we meet with the city council? At this point I don't think we should be looking at any trade-offs How should we engage the public? ND - work with Neighborhood Associations, info on Next Door, city website and city emails. Sun Sailor & Star Trib. Meetings at the Association level, and one city-wide - allow people to comment. Any documentation needs to be clear and concise. "People Speak" vs technical speak, lots of visuals. And people stories, of course! Additional member comments Members expressed need for: • SWOT (or similar) analysis of solutions • Clarified definition of “flooding” • Improved data collection on flooding issues in the City of Edina and record of manner of flooding issues • Improved communication between city staff and impacted residents • Combined joint task force/planning entity with other municipalities, regional bodies • Analysis of perviousness RL - Drawing on the risk triangle concept, Nora’s list of topics, and the SWOT framework, I developed a couple tools that might be helpful as we try to wrap our arms around the many aspects of flood reduction. I’ve applied the tools to a look at our property on Sunnyslope. But I think they could be applied at a neighborhood and city level as well. STAFF REPORT Page 6 Key questions from last meeting (7/30 archived) • What sectors should we consider in this inquiry? What direction should we take? What is our mission? How should we organize our work? • What kind of product is the City Council and the City Manager asking for? How is the Task Force responsible to the Council? • How do we effectively engage other members of the community in meetings or in the overall conversation? Can we improve how people can track the work of the Task Force and how it’s being publicized? • How does flooding impact individuals and families? What community impacts are we willing to accept when we look at solutions? • What can residents do to protect their homes? What retrofits are available? What ways can stormwater utility educate or incentivize? • How does flooding impact home value? • What are the top areas in the City for flood risk? • What is the relationship between groundwater and infiltration? • What is the relationship between development (residential or commercial) and runoff? How does land use and imperviousness affect flood risk? • What are the components that are changing the flood equation? This could include increased density/growth, climate change, impervious surfaces, and changing service expectations. How much does each of the drivers matter? • What have other cities done in regard to flood regulations for residential construction? • What is being done to maintain and operate the existing stormwater system? • What service level would be needed to future proof for 2050 climate change? • What is the knowledge management strategy for building the City’s collective knowledge base with regard to flood related information? Knowing the local related flood history (data, policy, what worked and what didn’t work, etc,) and effectively capturing what we are doing today is essential for future leaders to adjust and make informed decisions. • Gap analysis - what issues are we spending too much time on and what are we missing? Before establishing new policies and procedures, what is already in place that we are not leveraging or doing? Following up on maintenance that we already signed up to do but are not doing is an example. • Are there skill gaps at the City that are preventing staff from meeting flood management objectives? • Technology - Are we employing the appropriate technologies to collect, manage, store, analyze, and communicate flood related data? • What can regional, state or watershed organizations do to support cities and provide flood protection? • What do Watershed Districts do for creek flooding control? • What actions would have the biggest impact on minimizing long term flooding in Edina without increasing the risk of flooding downstream? Prioritize. • How can the one-water approach help address flooding while furthering other city goals?